Federal Practitioner

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“The story of dying in the 21st century is a story of paradox.” This is the opening line of a report recently published in the Lancet, in which the Lancet Commission experts tackle what is, for many, a very sensitive topic: the end of life. The recommendations they present aim at “bringing death back into life.”

What makes the story a paradox is that, in end-of-life situations, many people are overtreated, and on the other hand, many people are undertreated.

In short, when all is said and done, “people die bad deaths.” A natural event, a natural part of life, has turned into something that people fear or, in some cases, refuse to even acknowledge or talk about.

This was the motivating factor for the Lancet Commission, a group of experts from various disciplines, to come together to try to better understand this complex concept. They called on the general public, health care professionals, and policy makers to change the approach to end-of-life matters so that there can be a balance between death and dying, as well as a balance between life and death.

This sensitive topic was explored by Marina Sozzi, PhD. She is the director of the Association for the Support and Assistance of People With Chronic and Oncological Diseases, a nonprofit organization that for more than 30 years has been dedicated to “providing palliative care and supporting individuals with oncological or other chronic and degenerative diseases.”
 

Call for rebalancing

To give people an idea of a better system in which life and death are in balance, the Lancet Commission experts described a realistic utopia, which they summarized in the following five principles:

• The social determinants of death, dying, and grieving are confronted.
• Dying is understood to be a relational and spiritual process rather than simply a physiological event.
• Networks of care provide support for people who are dying, those caring for them, and those grieving.
• Conversations and stories about everyday death, dying, and grief become common.
• Death is recognized as having value.

Achieving this utopia will not be easy, especially considering the current systems that are in place. “There have been tremendous medical advances over the last hundred years, particularly in increasing life expectancy and curing diseases that were once considered death sentences,” Dr. Sozzi explained. “Indeed, over the course of that time period, medical science acquired an enormous degree of social power, and matters of death – which in previous centuries had been within the purview of religions and houses of worship – were handed over to be handled by doctors and nurses.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has made the medical field’s role in matters of death more prominent: every day, people saw footage of dying people in hospital beds being cared for by health care professionals in masks and gowns. These patients were otherwise alone, their only contact with loved ones being over the phone or online. They died the ultimate medicalized deaths, stripped of almost all opportunities to get emotional support from family and friends.
 

New perspective needed

The Lancet Commission experts were certain about one point: The need to move away from the reductionist approach to death in order to integrate a more holistic approach, one that takes into account all of the dimensions of death without limiting itself only to the medical aspects.

“Medicine has its own take on the death phenomenon and on disease, which is a reductionist take,” said Dr. Sozzi, noting that, thanks to processes that make it possible to reduce phenomena to the measurable, medicine has managed to make tremendous progress. The same approach has been applied to the view of death, which has by and large become a biologic event.

“The problem is that, in reality, death is a much more complex phenomenon: cultural, social, involving families and society,” she explained. “Not all of these aspects are taken into consideration by medicine, and therefore, our culture has diminished its view of the death phenomenon.” Dr. Sozzi pointed out that, if looked upon more closely, the very question: “What did the person die of?” presupposes, in a certain sense, that it might have been possible to prevent that death – if only medicine had the right technology. So, death comes to be seen as something that could have been avoided.
 

Power of palliative care

Changing the approach to death requires a profound culture shift and, therefore, a lot of time. The good news is that, although there is still a long way to go, a few steps have been taken in this direction. “Talking about death, and even organizing courses aimed at health care professionals, is definitely easier these days than it was even just 10 years ago,” said Dr. Sozzi, citing, as an example, a project she developed for training nursing home operators in palliative care.

It is in palliative care where the greatest progress has been made in end-of-life matters. “The culture of palliative care allows us to think about death in very different terms and to recognize that moment when we should stop looking at curative care and direct our efforts at ‘comfort care.’ And this care of the dying has to be holistic,” Dr. Sozzi explained. She adds that we are increasingly talking about simultaneous palliative care – care that is not limited to the final days of a person’s life but that rather starts early on, when active treatments are still in place.

Dr. Sozzi mentioned Italy’s Law 38, which took effect in 2010. It regulates access to palliative care and pain management, expanding the right to receive these treatments to patients “in any health care setting, at any stage of life, and for any chronic or progressive condition which has no treatment or has a treatment that is not sufficient to stabilize it.”

A culture shift is also needed in this area; there has already been a movement away from general practitioners to health care professionals who can and must direct a patient to palliative care.

“We need to provide these doctors with more training and make them more aware of what a difference this kind of care can make throughout a patient’s life, not only during the final stages,” said Dr. Sozzi. Concerning training, she mentioned that Italy had recently introduced a specialization in palliative care for medical school graduates. This is another small step and one that adds a sense of dignity to this new approach to life and to death.
 

The experts’ recommendations

In attempting to find a balance between life and death, we must not look at the period prior to the 1900s as some kind of golden age. Dr. Sozzi explained that back then there was almost none of the medical technology now available to treat people at the end of life. “Palliative care has also set forth original technical aspects for eliminating pain. Without having eliminated a patient’s pain, I can hardly begin a discussion with them about spiritual aspects,” she said, emphasizing the importance of always contextualizing approaches to death.

The Lancet Commission experts assessed the approach to death in many different contexts. They recommended that, to best handle end-of-life matters in all their complexity, one should keep in mind the importance of relationships and networks across society.

They recommended that health care and social care professionals improve their skills and their capacity for taking care of dying patients and their families. When the patient has a life-limiting illness, a caring and compassionate approach should be taken when providing clear information about all interventions involved in palliative care, as well as when having conversations about death.

Governments and policy makers are advised to implement actions to allow all citizens to have the same access to necessary palliative care. In addition, all strategies and reports on social care and well-being more broadly should always include consideration of death, dying, and grieving. It’s an uphill climb, but one that must be made if we’re to build a new culture aimed at bringing death back into life. “As we continue stepping toward this new culture, let us each put a stone in place,” Dr. Sozzi concluded.

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

“The story of dying in the 21st century is a story of paradox.” This is the opening line of a report recently published in the Lancet, in which the Lancet Commission experts tackle what is, for many, a very sensitive topic: the end of life. The recommendations they present aim at “bringing death back into life.”

What makes the story a paradox is that, in end-of-life situations, many people are overtreated, and on the other hand, many people are undertreated.

In short, when all is said and done, “people die bad deaths.” A natural event, a natural part of life, has turned into something that people fear or, in some cases, refuse to even acknowledge or talk about.

This was the motivating factor for the Lancet Commission, a group of experts from various disciplines, to come together to try to better understand this complex concept. They called on the general public, health care professionals, and policy makers to change the approach to end-of-life matters so that there can be a balance between death and dying, as well as a balance between life and death.

This sensitive topic was explored by Marina Sozzi, PhD. She is the director of the Association for the Support and Assistance of People With Chronic and Oncological Diseases, a nonprofit organization that for more than 30 years has been dedicated to “providing palliative care and supporting individuals with oncological or other chronic and degenerative diseases.”
 

Call for rebalancing

To give people an idea of a better system in which life and death are in balance, the Lancet Commission experts described a realistic utopia, which they summarized in the following five principles:

• The social determinants of death, dying, and grieving are confronted.
• Dying is understood to be a relational and spiritual process rather than simply a physiological event.
• Networks of care provide support for people who are dying, those caring for them, and those grieving.
• Conversations and stories about everyday death, dying, and grief become common.
• Death is recognized as having value.

Achieving this utopia will not be easy, especially considering the current systems that are in place. “There have been tremendous medical advances over the last hundred years, particularly in increasing life expectancy and curing diseases that were once considered death sentences,” Dr. Sozzi explained. “Indeed, over the course of that time period, medical science acquired an enormous degree of social power, and matters of death – which in previous centuries had been within the purview of religions and houses of worship – were handed over to be handled by doctors and nurses.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has made the medical field’s role in matters of death more prominent: every day, people saw footage of dying people in hospital beds being cared for by health care professionals in masks and gowns. These patients were otherwise alone, their only contact with loved ones being over the phone or online. They died the ultimate medicalized deaths, stripped of almost all opportunities to get emotional support from family and friends.
 

New perspective needed

The Lancet Commission experts were certain about one point: The need to move away from the reductionist approach to death in order to integrate a more holistic approach, one that takes into account all of the dimensions of death without limiting itself only to the medical aspects.

“Medicine has its own take on the death phenomenon and on disease, which is a reductionist take,” said Dr. Sozzi, noting that, thanks to processes that make it possible to reduce phenomena to the measurable, medicine has managed to make tremendous progress. The same approach has been applied to the view of death, which has by and large become a biologic event.

“The problem is that, in reality, death is a much more complex phenomenon: cultural, social, involving families and society,” she explained. “Not all of these aspects are taken into consideration by medicine, and therefore, our culture has diminished its view of the death phenomenon.” Dr. Sozzi pointed out that, if looked upon more closely, the very question: “What did the person die of?” presupposes, in a certain sense, that it might have been possible to prevent that death – if only medicine had the right technology. So, death comes to be seen as something that could have been avoided.
 

Power of palliative care

Changing the approach to death requires a profound culture shift and, therefore, a lot of time. The good news is that, although there is still a long way to go, a few steps have been taken in this direction. “Talking about death, and even organizing courses aimed at health care professionals, is definitely easier these days than it was even just 10 years ago,” said Dr. Sozzi, citing, as an example, a project she developed for training nursing home operators in palliative care.

It is in palliative care where the greatest progress has been made in end-of-life matters. “The culture of palliative care allows us to think about death in very different terms and to recognize that moment when we should stop looking at curative care and direct our efforts at ‘comfort care.’ And this care of the dying has to be holistic,” Dr. Sozzi explained. She adds that we are increasingly talking about simultaneous palliative care – care that is not limited to the final days of a person’s life but that rather starts early on, when active treatments are still in place.

Dr. Sozzi mentioned Italy’s Law 38, which took effect in 2010. It regulates access to palliative care and pain management, expanding the right to receive these treatments to patients “in any health care setting, at any stage of life, and for any chronic or progressive condition which has no treatment or has a treatment that is not sufficient to stabilize it.”

A culture shift is also needed in this area; there has already been a movement away from general practitioners to health care professionals who can and must direct a patient to palliative care.

“We need to provide these doctors with more training and make them more aware of what a difference this kind of care can make throughout a patient’s life, not only during the final stages,” said Dr. Sozzi. Concerning training, she mentioned that Italy had recently introduced a specialization in palliative care for medical school graduates. This is another small step and one that adds a sense of dignity to this new approach to life and to death.
 

The experts’ recommendations

In attempting to find a balance between life and death, we must not look at the period prior to the 1900s as some kind of golden age. Dr. Sozzi explained that back then there was almost none of the medical technology now available to treat people at the end of life. “Palliative care has also set forth original technical aspects for eliminating pain. Without having eliminated a patient’s pain, I can hardly begin a discussion with them about spiritual aspects,” she said, emphasizing the importance of always contextualizing approaches to death.

The Lancet Commission experts assessed the approach to death in many different contexts. They recommended that, to best handle end-of-life matters in all their complexity, one should keep in mind the importance of relationships and networks across society.

They recommended that health care and social care professionals improve their skills and their capacity for taking care of dying patients and their families. When the patient has a life-limiting illness, a caring and compassionate approach should be taken when providing clear information about all interventions involved in palliative care, as well as when having conversations about death.

Governments and policy makers are advised to implement actions to allow all citizens to have the same access to necessary palliative care. In addition, all strategies and reports on social care and well-being more broadly should always include consideration of death, dying, and grieving. It’s an uphill climb, but one that must be made if we’re to build a new culture aimed at bringing death back into life. “As we continue stepping toward this new culture, let us each put a stone in place,” Dr. Sozzi concluded.

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

“The story of dying in the 21st century is a story of paradox.” This is the opening line of a report recently published in the Lancet, in which the Lancet Commission experts tackle what is, for many, a very sensitive topic: the end of life. The recommendations they present aim at “bringing death back into life.”

What makes the story a paradox is that, in end-of-life situations, many people are overtreated, and on the other hand, many people are undertreated.

In short, when all is said and done, “people die bad deaths.” A natural event, a natural part of life, has turned into something that people fear or, in some cases, refuse to even acknowledge or talk about.

This was the motivating factor for the Lancet Commission, a group of experts from various disciplines, to come together to try to better understand this complex concept. They called on the general public, health care professionals, and policy makers to change the approach to end-of-life matters so that there can be a balance between death and dying, as well as a balance between life and death.

This sensitive topic was explored by Marina Sozzi, PhD. She is the director of the Association for the Support and Assistance of People With Chronic and Oncological Diseases, a nonprofit organization that for more than 30 years has been dedicated to “providing palliative care and supporting individuals with oncological or other chronic and degenerative diseases.”
 

Call for rebalancing

To give people an idea of a better system in which life and death are in balance, the Lancet Commission experts described a realistic utopia, which they summarized in the following five principles:

• The social determinants of death, dying, and grieving are confronted.
• Dying is understood to be a relational and spiritual process rather than simply a physiological event.
• Networks of care provide support for people who are dying, those caring for them, and those grieving.
• Conversations and stories about everyday death, dying, and grief become common.
• Death is recognized as having value.

Achieving this utopia will not be easy, especially considering the current systems that are in place. “There have been tremendous medical advances over the last hundred years, particularly in increasing life expectancy and curing diseases that were once considered death sentences,” Dr. Sozzi explained. “Indeed, over the course of that time period, medical science acquired an enormous degree of social power, and matters of death – which in previous centuries had been within the purview of religions and houses of worship – were handed over to be handled by doctors and nurses.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has made the medical field’s role in matters of death more prominent: every day, people saw footage of dying people in hospital beds being cared for by health care professionals in masks and gowns. These patients were otherwise alone, their only contact with loved ones being over the phone or online. They died the ultimate medicalized deaths, stripped of almost all opportunities to get emotional support from family and friends.
 

New perspective needed

The Lancet Commission experts were certain about one point: The need to move away from the reductionist approach to death in order to integrate a more holistic approach, one that takes into account all of the dimensions of death without limiting itself only to the medical aspects.

“Medicine has its own take on the death phenomenon and on disease, which is a reductionist take,” said Dr. Sozzi, noting that, thanks to processes that make it possible to reduce phenomena to the measurable, medicine has managed to make tremendous progress. The same approach has been applied to the view of death, which has by and large become a biologic event.

“The problem is that, in reality, death is a much more complex phenomenon: cultural, social, involving families and society,” she explained. “Not all of these aspects are taken into consideration by medicine, and therefore, our culture has diminished its view of the death phenomenon.” Dr. Sozzi pointed out that, if looked upon more closely, the very question: “What did the person die of?” presupposes, in a certain sense, that it might have been possible to prevent that death – if only medicine had the right technology. So, death comes to be seen as something that could have been avoided.
 

Power of palliative care

Changing the approach to death requires a profound culture shift and, therefore, a lot of time. The good news is that, although there is still a long way to go, a few steps have been taken in this direction. “Talking about death, and even organizing courses aimed at health care professionals, is definitely easier these days than it was even just 10 years ago,” said Dr. Sozzi, citing, as an example, a project she developed for training nursing home operators in palliative care.

It is in palliative care where the greatest progress has been made in end-of-life matters. “The culture of palliative care allows us to think about death in very different terms and to recognize that moment when we should stop looking at curative care and direct our efforts at ‘comfort care.’ And this care of the dying has to be holistic,” Dr. Sozzi explained. She adds that we are increasingly talking about simultaneous palliative care – care that is not limited to the final days of a person’s life but that rather starts early on, when active treatments are still in place.

Dr. Sozzi mentioned Italy’s Law 38, which took effect in 2010. It regulates access to palliative care and pain management, expanding the right to receive these treatments to patients “in any health care setting, at any stage of life, and for any chronic or progressive condition which has no treatment or has a treatment that is not sufficient to stabilize it.”

A culture shift is also needed in this area; there has already been a movement away from general practitioners to health care professionals who can and must direct a patient to palliative care.

“We need to provide these doctors with more training and make them more aware of what a difference this kind of care can make throughout a patient’s life, not only during the final stages,” said Dr. Sozzi. Concerning training, she mentioned that Italy had recently introduced a specialization in palliative care for medical school graduates. This is another small step and one that adds a sense of dignity to this new approach to life and to death.
 

The experts’ recommendations

In attempting to find a balance between life and death, we must not look at the period prior to the 1900s as some kind of golden age. Dr. Sozzi explained that back then there was almost none of the medical technology now available to treat people at the end of life. “Palliative care has also set forth original technical aspects for eliminating pain. Without having eliminated a patient’s pain, I can hardly begin a discussion with them about spiritual aspects,” she said, emphasizing the importance of always contextualizing approaches to death.

The Lancet Commission experts assessed the approach to death in many different contexts. They recommended that, to best handle end-of-life matters in all their complexity, one should keep in mind the importance of relationships and networks across society.

They recommended that health care and social care professionals improve their skills and their capacity for taking care of dying patients and their families. When the patient has a life-limiting illness, a caring and compassionate approach should be taken when providing clear information about all interventions involved in palliative care, as well as when having conversations about death.

Governments and policy makers are advised to implement actions to allow all citizens to have the same access to necessary palliative care. In addition, all strategies and reports on social care and well-being more broadly should always include consideration of death, dying, and grieving. It’s an uphill climb, but one that must be made if we’re to build a new culture aimed at bringing death back into life. “As we continue stepping toward this new culture, let us each put a stone in place,” Dr. Sozzi concluded.

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

While several health care professionals can perform some of the same functions as physicians, at the end of the day, they are not MDs or DOs, nor do they have the education and training to earn the right to present themselves to patients as such. That’s the reasoning behind Senate Bill 239, recently signed into law by Indiana Gov. Eric J. Holcomb.

“It’s about transparency. Health care professionals at every level should be proud of their profession and want to help patients make an informed choice when seeking out options for treatment,” Carrie Davis, MD, a Bloomington, Ind.–based dermatologist and member of the Indiana State Medical Association’s commission on legislation, told this news organization. “When this law goes into effect, a patient will be able to seek that treatment with confidence knowing they can trust the education, training, and license of the health care expert they’ve chosen to see.”

The patient safety measure, which will take effect on July 1, specifically prohibits the misappropriation of medical specialty titles such as anesthesiologist, cardiologist, dermatologist, and others by professionals who have not graduated from medical school and completed the necessary training to adopt the physician title. It also prohibits health care professionals from using deceptive or misleading advertising that misrepresents or falsely describes their profession, education, or skills.

“Using the medical term ‘anesthesiologist’ for nurse anesthetists, confuses patients who deserve to be fully informed of their health care provider’s qualifications,” Randall M. Clark, MD, president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), said in a statement. “This new law affirms the most fundamental right of patients to know the qualifications of their health care professional.”
 

What’s in a title?

The problem stretches far beyond professional turf battles, as patients are often confused about the differences between various types of health care providers, according to the American Medical Association’s Truth in Advertising Campaign. Often, patients mistakenly believe they are meeting with medical doctors or doctors of osteopathic medicine when they are not.

Seung Sim, MD, an Indiana anesthesiologist and the immediate past president of the Indiana Society of Anesthesiologists, said in an interview that every member of the medical team plays an important role in high-quality patient care, but among that team, education and training differs.

“The threat to patient safety comes by nonphysicians marketing themselves in a way that is confusing to patients, and misleading, making the patient believe they’re seeing a physician when they’re not,” said Dr. Sim. “That patient deserves to know who is providing their health care and what level of education and training they have, so the patient can make the best decision for their treatment.”
 

Medical groups speak out

Several professional medical groups have voiced their opposition to medical title misappropriation.

Perhaps most notably, the ASA has been spearheading efforts that prohibit medical professionals to identify as physicians for several years. In 2019, the ASA authored Resolution 228, which calls on the AMA to oppose and work with state medical societies to prevent the misappropriation of medical specialties’ titles.

The resolution, which was adopted by the AMA in June 2019, also reaffirms support of the Scope of Practice Partnership’s Truth in Advertising Campaign to ensure patients receive accurate information about who is providing their care.

In addition, in 2021, the ASA condemned the decision by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists to change its name to the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology (AANA) – pointing out that the term “nurse anesthesiologist” could confuse patients and create discord in the care setting, ultimately risking patient safety.

While the ASA and other professional groups support team-based models of care, they are quick to point out that health care professionals need to know their place in the lineup.

A statement from the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), for instance, points out that only DOs and MDs can be licensed to practice medicine – and, therefore, “physician-led” should not mean “physician-optional.” In fact, only professionals who have earned the right to practice medicine through completion of medical school and accredited residency/fellowship training and who have achieved board certification in their chosen specialty/subspecialty should take the helm of these multidisciplinary teams, according to the AOA.

The AANA cast the controversy in a completely different light, characterizing its name change as part of a rebranding effort to advance the science of nurse anesthesiology and advocate for certified registered nurse anesthetists. In 2021, the AANA asserted: “The notion of being pushed by the American Society of Anesthesiologists that rebranding and changing the name of the AANA will somehow mislead or harm patients or create discord among providers is absurd at best and false and inflammatory fearmongering at worst.”

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

While several health care professionals can perform some of the same functions as physicians, at the end of the day, they are not MDs or DOs, nor do they have the education and training to earn the right to present themselves to patients as such. That’s the reasoning behind Senate Bill 239, recently signed into law by Indiana Gov. Eric J. Holcomb.

“It’s about transparency. Health care professionals at every level should be proud of their profession and want to help patients make an informed choice when seeking out options for treatment,” Carrie Davis, MD, a Bloomington, Ind.–based dermatologist and member of the Indiana State Medical Association’s commission on legislation, told this news organization. “When this law goes into effect, a patient will be able to seek that treatment with confidence knowing they can trust the education, training, and license of the health care expert they’ve chosen to see.”

The patient safety measure, which will take effect on July 1, specifically prohibits the misappropriation of medical specialty titles such as anesthesiologist, cardiologist, dermatologist, and others by professionals who have not graduated from medical school and completed the necessary training to adopt the physician title. It also prohibits health care professionals from using deceptive or misleading advertising that misrepresents or falsely describes their profession, education, or skills.

“Using the medical term ‘anesthesiologist’ for nurse anesthetists, confuses patients who deserve to be fully informed of their health care provider’s qualifications,” Randall M. Clark, MD, president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), said in a statement. “This new law affirms the most fundamental right of patients to know the qualifications of their health care professional.”
 

What’s in a title?

The problem stretches far beyond professional turf battles, as patients are often confused about the differences between various types of health care providers, according to the American Medical Association’s Truth in Advertising Campaign. Often, patients mistakenly believe they are meeting with medical doctors or doctors of osteopathic medicine when they are not.

Seung Sim, MD, an Indiana anesthesiologist and the immediate past president of the Indiana Society of Anesthesiologists, said in an interview that every member of the medical team plays an important role in high-quality patient care, but among that team, education and training differs.

“The threat to patient safety comes by nonphysicians marketing themselves in a way that is confusing to patients, and misleading, making the patient believe they’re seeing a physician when they’re not,” said Dr. Sim. “That patient deserves to know who is providing their health care and what level of education and training they have, so the patient can make the best decision for their treatment.”
 

Medical groups speak out

Several professional medical groups have voiced their opposition to medical title misappropriation.

Perhaps most notably, the ASA has been spearheading efforts that prohibit medical professionals to identify as physicians for several years. In 2019, the ASA authored Resolution 228, which calls on the AMA to oppose and work with state medical societies to prevent the misappropriation of medical specialties’ titles.

The resolution, which was adopted by the AMA in June 2019, also reaffirms support of the Scope of Practice Partnership’s Truth in Advertising Campaign to ensure patients receive accurate information about who is providing their care.

In addition, in 2021, the ASA condemned the decision by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists to change its name to the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology (AANA) – pointing out that the term “nurse anesthesiologist” could confuse patients and create discord in the care setting, ultimately risking patient safety.

While the ASA and other professional groups support team-based models of care, they are quick to point out that health care professionals need to know their place in the lineup.

A statement from the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), for instance, points out that only DOs and MDs can be licensed to practice medicine – and, therefore, “physician-led” should not mean “physician-optional.” In fact, only professionals who have earned the right to practice medicine through completion of medical school and accredited residency/fellowship training and who have achieved board certification in their chosen specialty/subspecialty should take the helm of these multidisciplinary teams, according to the AOA.

The AANA cast the controversy in a completely different light, characterizing its name change as part of a rebranding effort to advance the science of nurse anesthesiology and advocate for certified registered nurse anesthetists. In 2021, the AANA asserted: “The notion of being pushed by the American Society of Anesthesiologists that rebranding and changing the name of the AANA will somehow mislead or harm patients or create discord among providers is absurd at best and false and inflammatory fearmongering at worst.”

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

While several health care professionals can perform some of the same functions as physicians, at the end of the day, they are not MDs or DOs, nor do they have the education and training to earn the right to present themselves to patients as such. That’s the reasoning behind Senate Bill 239, recently signed into law by Indiana Gov. Eric J. Holcomb.

“It’s about transparency. Health care professionals at every level should be proud of their profession and want to help patients make an informed choice when seeking out options for treatment,” Carrie Davis, MD, a Bloomington, Ind.–based dermatologist and member of the Indiana State Medical Association’s commission on legislation, told this news organization. “When this law goes into effect, a patient will be able to seek that treatment with confidence knowing they can trust the education, training, and license of the health care expert they’ve chosen to see.”

The patient safety measure, which will take effect on July 1, specifically prohibits the misappropriation of medical specialty titles such as anesthesiologist, cardiologist, dermatologist, and others by professionals who have not graduated from medical school and completed the necessary training to adopt the physician title. It also prohibits health care professionals from using deceptive or misleading advertising that misrepresents or falsely describes their profession, education, or skills.

“Using the medical term ‘anesthesiologist’ for nurse anesthetists, confuses patients who deserve to be fully informed of their health care provider’s qualifications,” Randall M. Clark, MD, president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), said in a statement. “This new law affirms the most fundamental right of patients to know the qualifications of their health care professional.”
 

What’s in a title?

The problem stretches far beyond professional turf battles, as patients are often confused about the differences between various types of health care providers, according to the American Medical Association’s Truth in Advertising Campaign. Often, patients mistakenly believe they are meeting with medical doctors or doctors of osteopathic medicine when they are not.

Seung Sim, MD, an Indiana anesthesiologist and the immediate past president of the Indiana Society of Anesthesiologists, said in an interview that every member of the medical team plays an important role in high-quality patient care, but among that team, education and training differs.

“The threat to patient safety comes by nonphysicians marketing themselves in a way that is confusing to patients, and misleading, making the patient believe they’re seeing a physician when they’re not,” said Dr. Sim. “That patient deserves to know who is providing their health care and what level of education and training they have, so the patient can make the best decision for their treatment.”
 

Medical groups speak out

Several professional medical groups have voiced their opposition to medical title misappropriation.

Perhaps most notably, the ASA has been spearheading efforts that prohibit medical professionals to identify as physicians for several years. In 2019, the ASA authored Resolution 228, which calls on the AMA to oppose and work with state medical societies to prevent the misappropriation of medical specialties’ titles.

The resolution, which was adopted by the AMA in June 2019, also reaffirms support of the Scope of Practice Partnership’s Truth in Advertising Campaign to ensure patients receive accurate information about who is providing their care.

In addition, in 2021, the ASA condemned the decision by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists to change its name to the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology (AANA) – pointing out that the term “nurse anesthesiologist” could confuse patients and create discord in the care setting, ultimately risking patient safety.

While the ASA and other professional groups support team-based models of care, they are quick to point out that health care professionals need to know their place in the lineup.

A statement from the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), for instance, points out that only DOs and MDs can be licensed to practice medicine – and, therefore, “physician-led” should not mean “physician-optional.” In fact, only professionals who have earned the right to practice medicine through completion of medical school and accredited residency/fellowship training and who have achieved board certification in their chosen specialty/subspecialty should take the helm of these multidisciplinary teams, according to the AOA.

The AANA cast the controversy in a completely different light, characterizing its name change as part of a rebranding effort to advance the science of nurse anesthesiology and advocate for certified registered nurse anesthetists. In 2021, the AANA asserted: “The notion of being pushed by the American Society of Anesthesiologists that rebranding and changing the name of the AANA will somehow mislead or harm patients or create discord among providers is absurd at best and false and inflammatory fearmongering at worst.”

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

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

Results of the phase 2 ZUMA-12 trial suggest that axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved to treat certain types of lymphoma, also shows promise as a treatment for another group of lymphoma patients – those with high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who failed two rounds of standard chemoimmunotherapy. In fact, a study author said, first-line treatment with this therapy could help usher some patients toward a cure.

The results appeared March 21, 2022, in Nature Medicine.

“The high efficacy with manageable safety profile suggest that further evaluation of axi-cel in first-line setting in patients with high-risk LBCL is warranted in a randomized, phase 3 trial comparing it to standard chemoimmunotherapy,” study lead author Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

According to Dr. Neelapu, “patients with high-risk LBCL include those with high-intermediate or high International Prognostic Index score and those with certain molecular subtypes such as double- or triple-hit lymphoma. These patients have lower response rates and lower progression-free and overall survival with standard chemoimmunotherapy.”

Treatment of these patients can be especially challenging because they are underrepresented in clinical research, hematologist Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Melbourne, said in an interview. “They often have disease that requires urgent treatment, so there is no time to recruit them into trials. A feature of ZUMA-12 is that it allowed patients to be recruited after short exposure to chemotherapy, which means that higher-risk patients could successfully be recruited into the trial.”

Axi-cel is already Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of relapsed or refractory LBCL after 2 or more lines of systemic therapy plus relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, also after two or more lines of systemic therapy, Dr. Neelapu said.

For this study, researchers administered the treatment to 40 subjects with high-risk disease from 2019-2020 (median age, 61 years; 68% male; 95% at disease stage III or IV).

The researchers reported that 78% of 37 patients in the primary efficacy analysis reached complete response rate (95% confidence interval, 62-90); the median time to first complete response rate was 30 days (range, 27-207). About 89% of these subjects reached the secondary endpoint of objective response rate (95% CI, 75-97); the median time to first objective response was 29 days (range, 27-207).

At a median follow-up of 15.9 months, 73% were still in objective response.

“This is quite remarkable,” Dr. Neelapu said. “The durability of more than 70% is far higher than what would be expected with standard chemoimmunotherapy in these patients – under 40% durability with standard chemoimmunotherapy. Also, axi-cel induces durable responses in about 40% of patients in second- and third-line setting. However, when used as part of first-line therapy in this study, durable responses were observed in more than 70% of patients, suggesting that the efficacy of axi-cel may be much higher when used in first-line setting.”

Dr. Neelapu added: “Although the follow-up is short, it is highly likely that the majority of the patients with ongoing response beyond 1 year will likely be cured of their lymphoma.”

As for side effects, no treatment-related grade 5 events occurred, but 18 patients (45%) experienced serious adverse events. Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome occurred in three patients (8%) and nine experienced neurologic events (23%).

“The majority of the higher-grade adverse events observed were due to cytopenias, which were expected due to the conditioning therapy,” Dr. Neelapu said. “Such cytopenias would also have been expected if these patients had received standard chemoimmunotherapy.”

Six patients (15%) died, 4 of progressive disease after going forward to other therapies.

As for cost, Dr. Neelapu said it should be similar to that of axi-cel as an FDA-approved third-line therapy. Axi-cel is highly expensive. Research has suggested that CAR T-cell therapy can boost costs beyond standard chemotherapy by $350,000-$490,000 with gains of 2-8 years of life (J Med Econ. Jan-Dec 2021;24[1]:458-68).

The study was funded by Kite. The authors reported various disclosures.

Results of the phase 2 ZUMA-12 trial suggest that axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved to treat certain types of lymphoma, also shows promise as a treatment for another group of lymphoma patients – those with high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who failed two rounds of standard chemoimmunotherapy. In fact, a study author said, first-line treatment with this therapy could help usher some patients toward a cure.

The results appeared March 21, 2022, in Nature Medicine.

“The high efficacy with manageable safety profile suggest that further evaluation of axi-cel in first-line setting in patients with high-risk LBCL is warranted in a randomized, phase 3 trial comparing it to standard chemoimmunotherapy,” study lead author Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

According to Dr. Neelapu, “patients with high-risk LBCL include those with high-intermediate or high International Prognostic Index score and those with certain molecular subtypes such as double- or triple-hit lymphoma. These patients have lower response rates and lower progression-free and overall survival with standard chemoimmunotherapy.”

Treatment of these patients can be especially challenging because they are underrepresented in clinical research, hematologist Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Melbourne, said in an interview. “They often have disease that requires urgent treatment, so there is no time to recruit them into trials. A feature of ZUMA-12 is that it allowed patients to be recruited after short exposure to chemotherapy, which means that higher-risk patients could successfully be recruited into the trial.”

Axi-cel is already Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of relapsed or refractory LBCL after 2 or more lines of systemic therapy plus relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, also after two or more lines of systemic therapy, Dr. Neelapu said.

For this study, researchers administered the treatment to 40 subjects with high-risk disease from 2019-2020 (median age, 61 years; 68% male; 95% at disease stage III or IV).

The researchers reported that 78% of 37 patients in the primary efficacy analysis reached complete response rate (95% confidence interval, 62-90); the median time to first complete response rate was 30 days (range, 27-207). About 89% of these subjects reached the secondary endpoint of objective response rate (95% CI, 75-97); the median time to first objective response was 29 days (range, 27-207).

At a median follow-up of 15.9 months, 73% were still in objective response.

“This is quite remarkable,” Dr. Neelapu said. “The durability of more than 70% is far higher than what would be expected with standard chemoimmunotherapy in these patients – under 40% durability with standard chemoimmunotherapy. Also, axi-cel induces durable responses in about 40% of patients in second- and third-line setting. However, when used as part of first-line therapy in this study, durable responses were observed in more than 70% of patients, suggesting that the efficacy of axi-cel may be much higher when used in first-line setting.”

Dr. Neelapu added: “Although the follow-up is short, it is highly likely that the majority of the patients with ongoing response beyond 1 year will likely be cured of their lymphoma.”

As for side effects, no treatment-related grade 5 events occurred, but 18 patients (45%) experienced serious adverse events. Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome occurred in three patients (8%) and nine experienced neurologic events (23%).

“The majority of the higher-grade adverse events observed were due to cytopenias, which were expected due to the conditioning therapy,” Dr. Neelapu said. “Such cytopenias would also have been expected if these patients had received standard chemoimmunotherapy.”

Six patients (15%) died, 4 of progressive disease after going forward to other therapies.

As for cost, Dr. Neelapu said it should be similar to that of axi-cel as an FDA-approved third-line therapy. Axi-cel is highly expensive. Research has suggested that CAR T-cell therapy can boost costs beyond standard chemotherapy by $350,000-$490,000 with gains of 2-8 years of life (J Med Econ. Jan-Dec 2021;24[1]:458-68).

The study was funded by Kite. The authors reported various disclosures.

Results of the phase 2 ZUMA-12 trial suggest that axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved to treat certain types of lymphoma, also shows promise as a treatment for another group of lymphoma patients – those with high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who failed two rounds of standard chemoimmunotherapy. In fact, a study author said, first-line treatment with this therapy could help usher some patients toward a cure.

The results appeared March 21, 2022, in Nature Medicine.

“The high efficacy with manageable safety profile suggest that further evaluation of axi-cel in first-line setting in patients with high-risk LBCL is warranted in a randomized, phase 3 trial comparing it to standard chemoimmunotherapy,” study lead author Sattva S. Neelapu, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an interview.

According to Dr. Neelapu, “patients with high-risk LBCL include those with high-intermediate or high International Prognostic Index score and those with certain molecular subtypes such as double- or triple-hit lymphoma. These patients have lower response rates and lower progression-free and overall survival with standard chemoimmunotherapy.”

Treatment of these patients can be especially challenging because they are underrepresented in clinical research, hematologist Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Melbourne, said in an interview. “They often have disease that requires urgent treatment, so there is no time to recruit them into trials. A feature of ZUMA-12 is that it allowed patients to be recruited after short exposure to chemotherapy, which means that higher-risk patients could successfully be recruited into the trial.”

Axi-cel is already Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of relapsed or refractory LBCL after 2 or more lines of systemic therapy plus relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, also after two or more lines of systemic therapy, Dr. Neelapu said.

For this study, researchers administered the treatment to 40 subjects with high-risk disease from 2019-2020 (median age, 61 years; 68% male; 95% at disease stage III or IV).

The researchers reported that 78% of 37 patients in the primary efficacy analysis reached complete response rate (95% confidence interval, 62-90); the median time to first complete response rate was 30 days (range, 27-207). About 89% of these subjects reached the secondary endpoint of objective response rate (95% CI, 75-97); the median time to first objective response was 29 days (range, 27-207).

At a median follow-up of 15.9 months, 73% were still in objective response.

“This is quite remarkable,” Dr. Neelapu said. “The durability of more than 70% is far higher than what would be expected with standard chemoimmunotherapy in these patients – under 40% durability with standard chemoimmunotherapy. Also, axi-cel induces durable responses in about 40% of patients in second- and third-line setting. However, when used as part of first-line therapy in this study, durable responses were observed in more than 70% of patients, suggesting that the efficacy of axi-cel may be much higher when used in first-line setting.”

Dr. Neelapu added: “Although the follow-up is short, it is highly likely that the majority of the patients with ongoing response beyond 1 year will likely be cured of their lymphoma.”

As for side effects, no treatment-related grade 5 events occurred, but 18 patients (45%) experienced serious adverse events. Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome occurred in three patients (8%) and nine experienced neurologic events (23%).

“The majority of the higher-grade adverse events observed were due to cytopenias, which were expected due to the conditioning therapy,” Dr. Neelapu said. “Such cytopenias would also have been expected if these patients had received standard chemoimmunotherapy.”

Six patients (15%) died, 4 of progressive disease after going forward to other therapies.

As for cost, Dr. Neelapu said it should be similar to that of axi-cel as an FDA-approved third-line therapy. Axi-cel is highly expensive. Research has suggested that CAR T-cell therapy can boost costs beyond standard chemotherapy by $350,000-$490,000 with gains of 2-8 years of life (J Med Econ. Jan-Dec 2021;24[1]:458-68).

The study was funded by Kite. The authors reported various disclosures.

An intervention with extra virgin olive oil in a pilot study of 22 patients significantly improved biomarkers for early stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Olive oil is a major component of the Mediterranean diet, and olive phenols have been shown to convey antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, neuroprotective, and antidiabetic effects by modulating various molecular pathways, Andrea Paola Rojas Gil, PhD, of the University of Peloponnese, Tripoli, Greece, and colleagues wrote.

In most patients, CLL is incurable, but those at the early stages do not need immediate therapy and may benefit from an intervention to prevent disease progression, the authors wrote. Previous research suggested that dietary intervention exerts a salutary effect on early CLL, and in vitro studies suggested that oleocanthal, a component of extra virgin olive oil, induced anticancer activity.

In a study published in Frontiers in Oncology, the researchers enrolled adults with early stage CLL who had not undergone chemotherapy or other treatment. All patients adhered to a Mediterranean-style diet.

After a washout period of 9-12 months, the researchers randomized 22 patients to extra virgin olive oil high in oleocanthal and oleacein (high OC/OL-EVOO). Patients in the intervention group consumed 40 mL/day of high OC/OL-EVOO before meals. Their average age was 71 years; 10 were women and 12 were men.

The primary outcomes included changes in hematological, biochemical, and apoptotic markers. After 6 months, patients in the intervention group showed a statistically significant reduction in white blood cells and lymphocyte count, compared with measurements taken 3 months before the intervention. The WBC decrease was greatest among patients with the highest WBC levels at baseline.

As for biochemical markers, the researchers observed a significant decrease in glucose levels during the intervention, but no significant effects on metabolic indexes or renal function.

After 3 months and also after 6 months of the olive oil intervention, patients showed a significant increase in the apoptotic markers ccK18 and Apo1-Fas (P ≤ .05 for both), as well as an increase in the cell cycle negative regulator p21. The dietary intervention also was associated with significant decreases in expression of the antiapoptotic protein survivin and in cyclin D, a positive cell cycle regulator protein.

Further, patients who had a high ccK18 level at baseline showed a significantly greater increase in ccK18 after the intervention, compared with those with lower ccK18 at baseline (P = .001).

Notably, “a negative correlation of the WBC at the end of the dietary intervention with the fluctuation of the protein expression of the apoptotic marker ccK18 (final – initial) was observed,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, short intervention time, and pilot design, the researchers said. Other limitations include the possible effect of other unmeasured properties of olive oil.

However, the results reflect previous studies showing the benefits of a Mediterranean-type diet, and they represent the first clinical trial to indicate possible beneficial effects from oleocanthal and oleacein on the progression of CLL. Therefore, the authors concluded, the study is worthy of a large, multicenter trial.
 

Pilot data merit more research

In an interview, corresponding author Prokopios Magiatis, PhD, noted that CLL is “the most commonly diagnosed adult leukemia in Western countries and is responsible for about one in four cases of all leukemias.” CLL remains incurable in most patients, and ways to delay disease progression are needed.

“Oleocanthal is the active ingredient of early harvest olive oil with proven anticancer activities in vitro and in vivo,” Dr. Magiatis explained. “For this reason, it was a unique challenge to investigate the anticancer activity of this compound for the first time in humans through the dietary consumption of specifically selected olive oil.” He expressed surprise at the beneficial effects of high-oleocanthal olive oil, not only to the white blood cells, but also to glucose levels.

“It seems that oleocanthal can activate mechanisms related to the apoptosis of cancer cells, and also mechanisms related to blood glucose regulation without affecting any normal cells of the body,” he said. “All anticancer drugs usually have severe side effects, however the administration of 25 mg of oleocanthal through the dietary consumption of olive oil did not present any harmful effects for at least 6 months of everyday use.

“The addition of naturally produced high-oleocanthal olive oil in the diet of early-stage CLL patients at a dose of three tablespoons per day [40 mL] is a practice that may lower the cancerous white blood cells of the patients without any risk,” said Dr. Magiatis. “High-oleocanthal early-harvest olive oil has been consumed for centuries, and may be the key of longevity of several Mediterranean populations.

“In our study, the number of the white blood cells returned back to the number it was one year before the initiation of the study; this clearly shows that it could be a significant factor for the delay of the progress of the disease,” he said.

The current trial was a pilot study in one hospital with only 22 patients for 6 months, said Dr. Magiatis. “We are currently preparing the expansion of the study to other hospitals and other countries, and we aim to include at least 100 patients for at least 1 year, to validate the already-obtained beneficial results.”

The clinical trial is supported by the nonprofit organization World Olive Center for Health, he added.

The current study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

An intervention with extra virgin olive oil in a pilot study of 22 patients significantly improved biomarkers for early stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Olive oil is a major component of the Mediterranean diet, and olive phenols have been shown to convey antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, neuroprotective, and antidiabetic effects by modulating various molecular pathways, Andrea Paola Rojas Gil, PhD, of the University of Peloponnese, Tripoli, Greece, and colleagues wrote.

In most patients, CLL is incurable, but those at the early stages do not need immediate therapy and may benefit from an intervention to prevent disease progression, the authors wrote. Previous research suggested that dietary intervention exerts a salutary effect on early CLL, and in vitro studies suggested that oleocanthal, a component of extra virgin olive oil, induced anticancer activity.

In a study published in Frontiers in Oncology, the researchers enrolled adults with early stage CLL who had not undergone chemotherapy or other treatment. All patients adhered to a Mediterranean-style diet.

After a washout period of 9-12 months, the researchers randomized 22 patients to extra virgin olive oil high in oleocanthal and oleacein (high OC/OL-EVOO). Patients in the intervention group consumed 40 mL/day of high OC/OL-EVOO before meals. Their average age was 71 years; 10 were women and 12 were men.

The primary outcomes included changes in hematological, biochemical, and apoptotic markers. After 6 months, patients in the intervention group showed a statistically significant reduction in white blood cells and lymphocyte count, compared with measurements taken 3 months before the intervention. The WBC decrease was greatest among patients with the highest WBC levels at baseline.

As for biochemical markers, the researchers observed a significant decrease in glucose levels during the intervention, but no significant effects on metabolic indexes or renal function.

After 3 months and also after 6 months of the olive oil intervention, patients showed a significant increase in the apoptotic markers ccK18 and Apo1-Fas (P ≤ .05 for both), as well as an increase in the cell cycle negative regulator p21. The dietary intervention also was associated with significant decreases in expression of the antiapoptotic protein survivin and in cyclin D, a positive cell cycle regulator protein.

Further, patients who had a high ccK18 level at baseline showed a significantly greater increase in ccK18 after the intervention, compared with those with lower ccK18 at baseline (P = .001).

Notably, “a negative correlation of the WBC at the end of the dietary intervention with the fluctuation of the protein expression of the apoptotic marker ccK18 (final – initial) was observed,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, short intervention time, and pilot design, the researchers said. Other limitations include the possible effect of other unmeasured properties of olive oil.

However, the results reflect previous studies showing the benefits of a Mediterranean-type diet, and they represent the first clinical trial to indicate possible beneficial effects from oleocanthal and oleacein on the progression of CLL. Therefore, the authors concluded, the study is worthy of a large, multicenter trial.
 

Pilot data merit more research

In an interview, corresponding author Prokopios Magiatis, PhD, noted that CLL is “the most commonly diagnosed adult leukemia in Western countries and is responsible for about one in four cases of all leukemias.” CLL remains incurable in most patients, and ways to delay disease progression are needed.

“Oleocanthal is the active ingredient of early harvest olive oil with proven anticancer activities in vitro and in vivo,” Dr. Magiatis explained. “For this reason, it was a unique challenge to investigate the anticancer activity of this compound for the first time in humans through the dietary consumption of specifically selected olive oil.” He expressed surprise at the beneficial effects of high-oleocanthal olive oil, not only to the white blood cells, but also to glucose levels.

“It seems that oleocanthal can activate mechanisms related to the apoptosis of cancer cells, and also mechanisms related to blood glucose regulation without affecting any normal cells of the body,” he said. “All anticancer drugs usually have severe side effects, however the administration of 25 mg of oleocanthal through the dietary consumption of olive oil did not present any harmful effects for at least 6 months of everyday use.

“The addition of naturally produced high-oleocanthal olive oil in the diet of early-stage CLL patients at a dose of three tablespoons per day [40 mL] is a practice that may lower the cancerous white blood cells of the patients without any risk,” said Dr. Magiatis. “High-oleocanthal early-harvest olive oil has been consumed for centuries, and may be the key of longevity of several Mediterranean populations.

“In our study, the number of the white blood cells returned back to the number it was one year before the initiation of the study; this clearly shows that it could be a significant factor for the delay of the progress of the disease,” he said.

The current trial was a pilot study in one hospital with only 22 patients for 6 months, said Dr. Magiatis. “We are currently preparing the expansion of the study to other hospitals and other countries, and we aim to include at least 100 patients for at least 1 year, to validate the already-obtained beneficial results.”

The clinical trial is supported by the nonprofit organization World Olive Center for Health, he added.

The current study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

An intervention with extra virgin olive oil in a pilot study of 22 patients significantly improved biomarkers for early stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Olive oil is a major component of the Mediterranean diet, and olive phenols have been shown to convey antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, neuroprotective, and antidiabetic effects by modulating various molecular pathways, Andrea Paola Rojas Gil, PhD, of the University of Peloponnese, Tripoli, Greece, and colleagues wrote.

In most patients, CLL is incurable, but those at the early stages do not need immediate therapy and may benefit from an intervention to prevent disease progression, the authors wrote. Previous research suggested that dietary intervention exerts a salutary effect on early CLL, and in vitro studies suggested that oleocanthal, a component of extra virgin olive oil, induced anticancer activity.

In a study published in Frontiers in Oncology, the researchers enrolled adults with early stage CLL who had not undergone chemotherapy or other treatment. All patients adhered to a Mediterranean-style diet.

After a washout period of 9-12 months, the researchers randomized 22 patients to extra virgin olive oil high in oleocanthal and oleacein (high OC/OL-EVOO). Patients in the intervention group consumed 40 mL/day of high OC/OL-EVOO before meals. Their average age was 71 years; 10 were women and 12 were men.

The primary outcomes included changes in hematological, biochemical, and apoptotic markers. After 6 months, patients in the intervention group showed a statistically significant reduction in white blood cells and lymphocyte count, compared with measurements taken 3 months before the intervention. The WBC decrease was greatest among patients with the highest WBC levels at baseline.

As for biochemical markers, the researchers observed a significant decrease in glucose levels during the intervention, but no significant effects on metabolic indexes or renal function.

After 3 months and also after 6 months of the olive oil intervention, patients showed a significant increase in the apoptotic markers ccK18 and Apo1-Fas (P ≤ .05 for both), as well as an increase in the cell cycle negative regulator p21. The dietary intervention also was associated with significant decreases in expression of the antiapoptotic protein survivin and in cyclin D, a positive cell cycle regulator protein.

Further, patients who had a high ccK18 level at baseline showed a significantly greater increase in ccK18 after the intervention, compared with those with lower ccK18 at baseline (P = .001).

Notably, “a negative correlation of the WBC at the end of the dietary intervention with the fluctuation of the protein expression of the apoptotic marker ccK18 (final – initial) was observed,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, short intervention time, and pilot design, the researchers said. Other limitations include the possible effect of other unmeasured properties of olive oil.

However, the results reflect previous studies showing the benefits of a Mediterranean-type diet, and they represent the first clinical trial to indicate possible beneficial effects from oleocanthal and oleacein on the progression of CLL. Therefore, the authors concluded, the study is worthy of a large, multicenter trial.
 

Pilot data merit more research

In an interview, corresponding author Prokopios Magiatis, PhD, noted that CLL is “the most commonly diagnosed adult leukemia in Western countries and is responsible for about one in four cases of all leukemias.” CLL remains incurable in most patients, and ways to delay disease progression are needed.

“Oleocanthal is the active ingredient of early harvest olive oil with proven anticancer activities in vitro and in vivo,” Dr. Magiatis explained. “For this reason, it was a unique challenge to investigate the anticancer activity of this compound for the first time in humans through the dietary consumption of specifically selected olive oil.” He expressed surprise at the beneficial effects of high-oleocanthal olive oil, not only to the white blood cells, but also to glucose levels.

“It seems that oleocanthal can activate mechanisms related to the apoptosis of cancer cells, and also mechanisms related to blood glucose regulation without affecting any normal cells of the body,” he said. “All anticancer drugs usually have severe side effects, however the administration of 25 mg of oleocanthal through the dietary consumption of olive oil did not present any harmful effects for at least 6 months of everyday use.

“The addition of naturally produced high-oleocanthal olive oil in the diet of early-stage CLL patients at a dose of three tablespoons per day [40 mL] is a practice that may lower the cancerous white blood cells of the patients without any risk,” said Dr. Magiatis. “High-oleocanthal early-harvest olive oil has been consumed for centuries, and may be the key of longevity of several Mediterranean populations.

“In our study, the number of the white blood cells returned back to the number it was one year before the initiation of the study; this clearly shows that it could be a significant factor for the delay of the progress of the disease,” he said.

The current trial was a pilot study in one hospital with only 22 patients for 6 months, said Dr. Magiatis. “We are currently preparing the expansion of the study to other hospitals and other countries, and we aim to include at least 100 patients for at least 1 year, to validate the already-obtained beneficial results.”

The clinical trial is supported by the nonprofit organization World Olive Center for Health, he added.

The current study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have unquestionably revolutionized the care of patients with malignant melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and other types of cancer.

But about 40% of patients with cancer treated with ICIs will experience immune-related dermatologic adverse events that can range from mild rashes and hair and nail changes to uncommon but life-threatening complications, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a form of toxic epidermal necrolysis, according to members of a European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) task force.

“The desirable, immune-mediated oncologic response is often achieved at the cost of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may potentially affect any organ system,” they write in a position statement on the management of ICI-derived dermatologic adverse events.

Recommendations from the EADV “Dermatology for Cancer Patients” task force have been published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Task force members developed the recommendations based on clinical experience from published data and came up with specific recommendations for treating cutaneous toxicities associated with dermatologic immune-related adverse events (dirAEs) that occur in patients receiving immunotherapy with an ICI.

ICIs include the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb), and inhibitors of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1), including nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck), and other agents.

“The basic principle of management is that the interventions should be tailored to serve the equilibrium between patients’ relief from the symptoms and signs of skin toxicity and the preservation of an unimpeded oncologic treatment,” they write.

The recommendations are in line with those included in a 2021 update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines on the management of irAEs in patients treated with ICIs across the whole range of organ systems, said Milan J. Anadkat, MD, professor of dermatology and director of dermatology clinical trials at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Anadkat was a coauthor of the ASCO guideline update.

Although the European recommendations focus only on dermatologic side effects of ICIs in patients with cancer, “that doesn’t diminish their importance. They do a good job of summarizing how to approach and how to manage it depending on the severity of the toxicities and the various types of toxicities,” he told this news organization.

Having a paper focused exclusively on the dermatologic side effects of ICIs allows the inclusion of photographs that can help clinicians identify specific conditions that may require referral to a dermatologist, he said.

Both Dr. Anadkat and the authors of the European recommendations noted that dermatologic irAEs are more common with CTLA-4 inhibition than with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition.

“It has to do with where the target is,” Dr. Anadkat said. “CTLA-4 inhibition works on a central aspect of the immune system, so it’s a much less specific site, whereas PD-1 affects an interaction at the site of the tumor cell itself, so it’s a little more specific.”

Pruritus

ICI-induced pruritus can occur without apparent skin changes, they write, noting that in a recent study of patients with dirAEs, about one-third had isolated pruritus. 

The task force members cite a meta-analysis indicating a pruritus incidence of 13.2% for patients treated with nivolumab and 20.2% for patients treated with pembrolizumab but respective grade 3 pruritus rates of only 0.5% and 2.3%. The reported incidence of pruritus with ipilimumab was 47% in a different study.

Recommended treatments include topical moisturizers with or without medium-to-high potency corticosteroids for grade 1 reactions, non-sedating histamines and/or GABA agonists such as pregabalin, or gabapentin for grade 2 pruritus, and suspension of ICIs until pruritus improves in patients with grade 3 pruritus.
 

Maculopapular rash

Maculopapular or eczema-like rashes may occur in up to 68% of patients who receive a CTLA-4 inhibitor and up to 20% of those who receive a PD1/PD-L1 inhibitor, the authors note. Rashes commonly appear within 3-6 weeks of initiating therapy.

“The clinical presentation is nonspecific and consists of a rapid onset of multiple minimally scaly, erythematous macules and papules, congregating into plaques. Lesions are mostly located on trunk and extensor surfaces of the extremities and the face is generally spared,” they write.

Maculopapular rashes are typically accompanied by itching but could be asymptomatic, they noted.

Mild (grade 1) rashes may respond to moisturizers and topical potent or super-potent corticosteroids. Patients with grade 2 rash should also receive oral antihistamines. Systemic corticosteroids may be considered for patients with grade 3 rashes but only after other dirAEs that may require specific management, such as psoriasis, are ruled out.
 

Psoriasis-like rash

The most common form of psoriasis seen in patients treated with ICIs is psoriasis vulgaris with plaques, but other clinical variants are also seen, the authors note.

“Topical agents (corticosteroids, Vitamin D analogues) are prescribed in Grades 1/2 and supplementary” to systemic treatment for patients with grade 3 or recalcitrant lesions, they write. “If skin-directed therapies fail to provide symptomatic control,” systemic treatment and narrow band UVB phototherapy “should be considered,” they add. 

Evidence regarding the use of systemic therapies to treat psoriasis-like rash associated with ICIs is sparse. Acitretin can be safely used in patients with cancer. Low-dose methotrexate is also safe to use except in patients with non-melanoma skin cancers. Cyclosporine, however, should be avoided because of the potential for tumor-promoting effects, they emphasized.

The recommendations also cover treatment of lichen planus-like and vitiligo-like rashes, as well as hair and nail changes, autoimmune bullous disorders, and oral mucosal dirAEs.

In addition, the recommendations cover severe cutaneous adverse reactions as well as serious, potentially life-threatening dirAEs, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DRESS/DIHS).

“The dose of corticosteroids may be adapted to the severity of DRESS. The therapeutic benefit of systemic corticosteroids in the management of SJS/TEN remains controversial, and some authors favor treatment with cyclosporine. However, the use of corticosteroids in this context of ICI treatment appears reasonable and should be proposed. Short courses of steroids seem also effective in AGEP,” the task force members write.

The recommendations did not have outside funding. Of the 19 authors, 6 disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Leo Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and/or Janssen. Dr. Anadkat disclosed previous relationships with Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and current relationships with others.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have unquestionably revolutionized the care of patients with malignant melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and other types of cancer.

But about 40% of patients with cancer treated with ICIs will experience immune-related dermatologic adverse events that can range from mild rashes and hair and nail changes to uncommon but life-threatening complications, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a form of toxic epidermal necrolysis, according to members of a European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) task force.

“The desirable, immune-mediated oncologic response is often achieved at the cost of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may potentially affect any organ system,” they write in a position statement on the management of ICI-derived dermatologic adverse events.

Recommendations from the EADV “Dermatology for Cancer Patients” task force have been published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Task force members developed the recommendations based on clinical experience from published data and came up with specific recommendations for treating cutaneous toxicities associated with dermatologic immune-related adverse events (dirAEs) that occur in patients receiving immunotherapy with an ICI.

ICIs include the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb), and inhibitors of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1), including nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck), and other agents.

“The basic principle of management is that the interventions should be tailored to serve the equilibrium between patients’ relief from the symptoms and signs of skin toxicity and the preservation of an unimpeded oncologic treatment,” they write.

The recommendations are in line with those included in a 2021 update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines on the management of irAEs in patients treated with ICIs across the whole range of organ systems, said Milan J. Anadkat, MD, professor of dermatology and director of dermatology clinical trials at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Anadkat was a coauthor of the ASCO guideline update.

Although the European recommendations focus only on dermatologic side effects of ICIs in patients with cancer, “that doesn’t diminish their importance. They do a good job of summarizing how to approach and how to manage it depending on the severity of the toxicities and the various types of toxicities,” he told this news organization.

Having a paper focused exclusively on the dermatologic side effects of ICIs allows the inclusion of photographs that can help clinicians identify specific conditions that may require referral to a dermatologist, he said.

Both Dr. Anadkat and the authors of the European recommendations noted that dermatologic irAEs are more common with CTLA-4 inhibition than with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition.

“It has to do with where the target is,” Dr. Anadkat said. “CTLA-4 inhibition works on a central aspect of the immune system, so it’s a much less specific site, whereas PD-1 affects an interaction at the site of the tumor cell itself, so it’s a little more specific.”

Pruritus

ICI-induced pruritus can occur without apparent skin changes, they write, noting that in a recent study of patients with dirAEs, about one-third had isolated pruritus. 

The task force members cite a meta-analysis indicating a pruritus incidence of 13.2% for patients treated with nivolumab and 20.2% for patients treated with pembrolizumab but respective grade 3 pruritus rates of only 0.5% and 2.3%. The reported incidence of pruritus with ipilimumab was 47% in a different study.

Recommended treatments include topical moisturizers with or without medium-to-high potency corticosteroids for grade 1 reactions, non-sedating histamines and/or GABA agonists such as pregabalin, or gabapentin for grade 2 pruritus, and suspension of ICIs until pruritus improves in patients with grade 3 pruritus.
 

Maculopapular rash

Maculopapular or eczema-like rashes may occur in up to 68% of patients who receive a CTLA-4 inhibitor and up to 20% of those who receive a PD1/PD-L1 inhibitor, the authors note. Rashes commonly appear within 3-6 weeks of initiating therapy.

“The clinical presentation is nonspecific and consists of a rapid onset of multiple minimally scaly, erythematous macules and papules, congregating into plaques. Lesions are mostly located on trunk and extensor surfaces of the extremities and the face is generally spared,” they write.

Maculopapular rashes are typically accompanied by itching but could be asymptomatic, they noted.

Mild (grade 1) rashes may respond to moisturizers and topical potent or super-potent corticosteroids. Patients with grade 2 rash should also receive oral antihistamines. Systemic corticosteroids may be considered for patients with grade 3 rashes but only after other dirAEs that may require specific management, such as psoriasis, are ruled out.
 

Psoriasis-like rash

The most common form of psoriasis seen in patients treated with ICIs is psoriasis vulgaris with plaques, but other clinical variants are also seen, the authors note.

“Topical agents (corticosteroids, Vitamin D analogues) are prescribed in Grades 1/2 and supplementary” to systemic treatment for patients with grade 3 or recalcitrant lesions, they write. “If skin-directed therapies fail to provide symptomatic control,” systemic treatment and narrow band UVB phototherapy “should be considered,” they add. 

Evidence regarding the use of systemic therapies to treat psoriasis-like rash associated with ICIs is sparse. Acitretin can be safely used in patients with cancer. Low-dose methotrexate is also safe to use except in patients with non-melanoma skin cancers. Cyclosporine, however, should be avoided because of the potential for tumor-promoting effects, they emphasized.

The recommendations also cover treatment of lichen planus-like and vitiligo-like rashes, as well as hair and nail changes, autoimmune bullous disorders, and oral mucosal dirAEs.

In addition, the recommendations cover severe cutaneous adverse reactions as well as serious, potentially life-threatening dirAEs, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DRESS/DIHS).

“The dose of corticosteroids may be adapted to the severity of DRESS. The therapeutic benefit of systemic corticosteroids in the management of SJS/TEN remains controversial, and some authors favor treatment with cyclosporine. However, the use of corticosteroids in this context of ICI treatment appears reasonable and should be proposed. Short courses of steroids seem also effective in AGEP,” the task force members write.

The recommendations did not have outside funding. Of the 19 authors, 6 disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Leo Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and/or Janssen. Dr. Anadkat disclosed previous relationships with Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and current relationships with others.

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

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have unquestionably revolutionized the care of patients with malignant melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and other types of cancer.

But about 40% of patients with cancer treated with ICIs will experience immune-related dermatologic adverse events that can range from mild rashes and hair and nail changes to uncommon but life-threatening complications, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a form of toxic epidermal necrolysis, according to members of a European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) task force.

“The desirable, immune-mediated oncologic response is often achieved at the cost of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may potentially affect any organ system,” they write in a position statement on the management of ICI-derived dermatologic adverse events.

Recommendations from the EADV “Dermatology for Cancer Patients” task force have been published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Task force members developed the recommendations based on clinical experience from published data and came up with specific recommendations for treating cutaneous toxicities associated with dermatologic immune-related adverse events (dirAEs) that occur in patients receiving immunotherapy with an ICI.

ICIs include the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb), and inhibitors of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1), including nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb), pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck), and other agents.

“The basic principle of management is that the interventions should be tailored to serve the equilibrium between patients’ relief from the symptoms and signs of skin toxicity and the preservation of an unimpeded oncologic treatment,” they write.

The recommendations are in line with those included in a 2021 update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines on the management of irAEs in patients treated with ICIs across the whole range of organ systems, said Milan J. Anadkat, MD, professor of dermatology and director of dermatology clinical trials at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis. Dr. Anadkat was a coauthor of the ASCO guideline update.

Although the European recommendations focus only on dermatologic side effects of ICIs in patients with cancer, “that doesn’t diminish their importance. They do a good job of summarizing how to approach and how to manage it depending on the severity of the toxicities and the various types of toxicities,” he told this news organization.

Having a paper focused exclusively on the dermatologic side effects of ICIs allows the inclusion of photographs that can help clinicians identify specific conditions that may require referral to a dermatologist, he said.

Both Dr. Anadkat and the authors of the European recommendations noted that dermatologic irAEs are more common with CTLA-4 inhibition than with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition.

“It has to do with where the target is,” Dr. Anadkat said. “CTLA-4 inhibition works on a central aspect of the immune system, so it’s a much less specific site, whereas PD-1 affects an interaction at the site of the tumor cell itself, so it’s a little more specific.”

Pruritus

ICI-induced pruritus can occur without apparent skin changes, they write, noting that in a recent study of patients with dirAEs, about one-third had isolated pruritus. 

The task force members cite a meta-analysis indicating a pruritus incidence of 13.2% for patients treated with nivolumab and 20.2% for patients treated with pembrolizumab but respective grade 3 pruritus rates of only 0.5% and 2.3%. The reported incidence of pruritus with ipilimumab was 47% in a different study.

Recommended treatments include topical moisturizers with or without medium-to-high potency corticosteroids for grade 1 reactions, non-sedating histamines and/or GABA agonists such as pregabalin, or gabapentin for grade 2 pruritus, and suspension of ICIs until pruritus improves in patients with grade 3 pruritus.
 

Maculopapular rash

Maculopapular or eczema-like rashes may occur in up to 68% of patients who receive a CTLA-4 inhibitor and up to 20% of those who receive a PD1/PD-L1 inhibitor, the authors note. Rashes commonly appear within 3-6 weeks of initiating therapy.

“The clinical presentation is nonspecific and consists of a rapid onset of multiple minimally scaly, erythematous macules and papules, congregating into plaques. Lesions are mostly located on trunk and extensor surfaces of the extremities and the face is generally spared,” they write.

Maculopapular rashes are typically accompanied by itching but could be asymptomatic, they noted.

Mild (grade 1) rashes may respond to moisturizers and topical potent or super-potent corticosteroids. Patients with grade 2 rash should also receive oral antihistamines. Systemic corticosteroids may be considered for patients with grade 3 rashes but only after other dirAEs that may require specific management, such as psoriasis, are ruled out.
 

Psoriasis-like rash

The most common form of psoriasis seen in patients treated with ICIs is psoriasis vulgaris with plaques, but other clinical variants are also seen, the authors note.

“Topical agents (corticosteroids, Vitamin D analogues) are prescribed in Grades 1/2 and supplementary” to systemic treatment for patients with grade 3 or recalcitrant lesions, they write. “If skin-directed therapies fail to provide symptomatic control,” systemic treatment and narrow band UVB phototherapy “should be considered,” they add. 

Evidence regarding the use of systemic therapies to treat psoriasis-like rash associated with ICIs is sparse. Acitretin can be safely used in patients with cancer. Low-dose methotrexate is also safe to use except in patients with non-melanoma skin cancers. Cyclosporine, however, should be avoided because of the potential for tumor-promoting effects, they emphasized.

The recommendations also cover treatment of lichen planus-like and vitiligo-like rashes, as well as hair and nail changes, autoimmune bullous disorders, and oral mucosal dirAEs.

In addition, the recommendations cover severe cutaneous adverse reactions as well as serious, potentially life-threatening dirAEs, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DRESS/DIHS).

“The dose of corticosteroids may be adapted to the severity of DRESS. The therapeutic benefit of systemic corticosteroids in the management of SJS/TEN remains controversial, and some authors favor treatment with cyclosporine. However, the use of corticosteroids in this context of ICI treatment appears reasonable and should be proposed. Short courses of steroids seem also effective in AGEP,” the task force members write.

The recommendations did not have outside funding. Of the 19 authors, 6 disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Leo Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and/or Janssen. Dr. Anadkat disclosed previous relationships with Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, and current relationships with others.

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

Key clinical point: The risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) varies with underlying etiologies, with active hepatitis C virus (HCV) cirrhosis posing the highest and alcoholic or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) cirrhosis posing the lowest risk of developing HCC.

Major finding: Patients with active HCV (3.36%) showed the highest annual HCC incidence rate, followed by those with cured HCV (1.71%), alcoholic liver disease (1.32%), and NAFLD cirrhosis (1.24%). Patients with active HCV vs. NAFLD were at a 2.1-fold higher risk for HCC (adjusted hazard ratio 2.16; 95% CI, 1.16-4.04).

Study details: This multicenter, prospective cohort study analyzed data from two multiethnic cohorts enrolling a total of 2,733 patients with cirrhosis.

Disclosures: The study received financial support from the National Cancer Institute; Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas grant; and Center for Gastrointestinal Development, Infection, and Injury. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Kanwal F et al. Risk factors for hepatocellular cancer in contemporary cohorts of patients with cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2022 (Mar 1). Doi: 10.1002/hep.32434

Key clinical point: The risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) varies with underlying etiologies, with active hepatitis C virus (HCV) cirrhosis posing the highest and alcoholic or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) cirrhosis posing the lowest risk of developing HCC.

Major finding: Patients with active HCV (3.36%) showed the highest annual HCC incidence rate, followed by those with cured HCV (1.71%), alcoholic liver disease (1.32%), and NAFLD cirrhosis (1.24%). Patients with active HCV vs. NAFLD were at a 2.1-fold higher risk for HCC (adjusted hazard ratio 2.16; 95% CI, 1.16-4.04).

Study details: This multicenter, prospective cohort study analyzed data from two multiethnic cohorts enrolling a total of 2,733 patients with cirrhosis.

Disclosures: The study received financial support from the National Cancer Institute; Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas grant; and Center for Gastrointestinal Development, Infection, and Injury. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Kanwal F et al. Risk factors for hepatocellular cancer in contemporary cohorts of patients with cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2022 (Mar 1). Doi: 10.1002/hep.32434

Key clinical point: The risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) varies with underlying etiologies, with active hepatitis C virus (HCV) cirrhosis posing the highest and alcoholic or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) cirrhosis posing the lowest risk of developing HCC.

Major finding: Patients with active HCV (3.36%) showed the highest annual HCC incidence rate, followed by those with cured HCV (1.71%), alcoholic liver disease (1.32%), and NAFLD cirrhosis (1.24%). Patients with active HCV vs. NAFLD were at a 2.1-fold higher risk for HCC (adjusted hazard ratio 2.16; 95% CI, 1.16-4.04).

Study details: This multicenter, prospective cohort study analyzed data from two multiethnic cohorts enrolling a total of 2,733 patients with cirrhosis.

Disclosures: The study received financial support from the National Cancer Institute; Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas grant; and Center for Gastrointestinal Development, Infection, and Injury. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Kanwal F et al. Risk factors for hepatocellular cancer in contemporary cohorts of patients with cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2022 (Mar 1). Doi: 10.1002/hep.32434

Key clinical point: Active hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection negatively affects overall and recurrence-free survival in patients with very early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after curative radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Major finding: Active HCV infection was a significant risk factor for shorter overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.17; P = .003) and early recurrence of HCC (aHR 1.47; P = .022). Patients with vs. without active HCV infection had a shorter median overall (66 months vs. 145 months) and recurrence-free (20 months vs. 31 months) survival (both P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a single-center retrospective study including 302 patients with very early-stage HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0) who underwent RFA and had follow-up of >6 months, of which 195 had HCV infection, including 132 active infection cases.

Disclosures: M Kurosaki and N Izumi declared funding support from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Japanese Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Labor, respectively, and along with K Tsuchiya, receiving lecture fees from several sources.

Source: Takaura K et al. The impact of background liver disease on the long-term prognosis of very-early-stage HCC after ablation therapy. PLoS One. 2022;17(2):e0264075 (Feb 23). Doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0264075

Key clinical point: Active hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection negatively affects overall and recurrence-free survival in patients with very early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after curative radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Major finding: Active HCV infection was a significant risk factor for shorter overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.17; P = .003) and early recurrence of HCC (aHR 1.47; P = .022). Patients with vs. without active HCV infection had a shorter median overall (66 months vs. 145 months) and recurrence-free (20 months vs. 31 months) survival (both P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a single-center retrospective study including 302 patients with very early-stage HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0) who underwent RFA and had follow-up of >6 months, of which 195 had HCV infection, including 132 active infection cases.

Disclosures: M Kurosaki and N Izumi declared funding support from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Japanese Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Labor, respectively, and along with K Tsuchiya, receiving lecture fees from several sources.

Source: Takaura K et al. The impact of background liver disease on the long-term prognosis of very-early-stage HCC after ablation therapy. PLoS One. 2022;17(2):e0264075 (Feb 23). Doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0264075

Key clinical point: Active hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection negatively affects overall and recurrence-free survival in patients with very early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after curative radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Major finding: Active HCV infection was a significant risk factor for shorter overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.17; P = .003) and early recurrence of HCC (aHR 1.47; P = .022). Patients with vs. without active HCV infection had a shorter median overall (66 months vs. 145 months) and recurrence-free (20 months vs. 31 months) survival (both P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a single-center retrospective study including 302 patients with very early-stage HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0) who underwent RFA and had follow-up of >6 months, of which 195 had HCV infection, including 132 active infection cases.

Disclosures: M Kurosaki and N Izumi declared funding support from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Japanese Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Labor, respectively, and along with K Tsuchiya, receiving lecture fees from several sources.

Source: Takaura K et al. The impact of background liver disease on the long-term prognosis of very-early-stage HCC after ablation therapy. PLoS One. 2022;17(2):e0264075 (Feb 23). Doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0264075

Key clinical point: Independent risk factors for postoperative recurrence among patients undergoing curative hepatic resection for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) include preoperative alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level >400 µg/L, tumor size >5 cm, satellite nodules, multiple tumors, and microvascular invasion.

Major finding: Cirrhosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.49; P < .001), preoperative AFP level >400 µg/L (aHR 1.28; P = .004), tumor size >5 cm (aHR 1.74; P < .001), satellite nodules (aHR 1.35; P = .040), multiple tumors (aHR 1.63; P = .015), microvascular invasion (aHR 1.51; P < .001), and intraoperative blood transfusion (aHR 1.50; P = .013) were identified as independent risk factors associated with postoperative recurrence.

Study details: The data come from a large-scale, multicenter retrospective study including 1,424 adult patients who underwent curative hepatic resection for early-stage HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0/A).

Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

Source: Yao L-Q et al. Clinical features of recurrence after hepatic resection for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma and long-term survival outcomes of patients with recurrence: A multi-institutional analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022 Feb 22. Doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-11454-y