Federal Practitioner

Transgender people treated with gender-affirming hormone therapy show distinctive changes in blood pressure that begin soon after treatment initiation and do not subside over years of treatment, according to the largest and longest observational study to date to look at the issue.

“Many physicians may not be aware of the changes to blood pressure in trans patients who start hormone therapy,” senior author Michael S. Irwig, MD, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.

“The take-away message for physicians is to monitor blood pressure both before and after starting hormone therapy in transgender patients, as over a third of transgender individuals had stage 1 hypertension before starting hormone therapy, and many had their blood pressure increase after starting hormone therapy.”

Mean blood pressure increases in transgender males, decreases in females

In the study, published in Hypertension, Katherine Banks, MD, George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues, followed 470 transgender adult patients for up to 5 years.

The mean systolic blood pressure levels in transgender female patients (male at birth) significantly decreased compared with baseline within a few months of them starting gender-affirming hormone treatment.

Conversely, the systolic blood pressure levels in transgender males (females at birth) who were treated with testosterone increased over the same period.

There were no significant changes in the groups in terms of diastolic blood pressure, consistent with other studies.

“Our study is the first to describe the time course of the blood pressure effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and to compare the rates of elevated blood pressure and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension using blood pressure readings from gender-diverse individuals pre- and post–gender-affirming hormone therapy,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy – which has been prescribed to transgender patients for more than 25 years – typically involves a combination of estrogen and an anti-androgen for males transitioning to female, while the therapy for those transitioning to male generally only involves testosterone.

The therapy has previously been linked to various cardiac effects, with evidence showing transgender men have as much as a 5-times greater risk of heart attack versus cisgender women, the authors note.

Although the American Heart Association issued a 2020 Scientific Statement addressing the cardiovascular disease risk, evidence on the effects specifically on blood pressure in transgender patients has been inconsistent.

For the new study, Dr. Banks and colleagues enrolled 247 transgender females and 223 transgender males who were treated between 2007 and 2015 at two medical centers in Washington, D.C. Of the individuals, who had a mean age of 27.8, about 27% were non-White and 16% were Latinx.

They had blood pressure measurements taken at baseline and at follow-up clinical visits for up to 57 months following the initiation of gender-affirming hormone therapy.

Over the follow-up period, the transgender females had decreases in mean systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg within 2 to 4 months of starting hormone therapy (P < .0001) and mean declines of 6.0 mm Hg were further observed at 11 to 21 months compared with baseline.

In transgender males, the mean systolic blood pressure increased by 2.6 mm Hg at 2 to 4 months (P = .02), and by 2.9 mm Hg at 11 to 21 months after starting therapy.

Furthermore, “although the average increase in systolic blood pressure was 2.6 mm Hg in transgender men within 2 to 4 months, some patients had much higher increases,” Dr. Irwig noted.

As many as 40% of transgender men had stage 1 hypertension after 11 to 21 months of hormone therapy.

The blood pressure changes in transgender males and females were observed across all three racial ethnic groups of Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, and the changes remained consistent throughout the entire follow-up period of approximately 5 years while hormone therapy was continued.

In addition to the changes after therapy initiation, the researchers note that more than one-third of individuals in both groups had stage 1 hypertension even before starting hormone therapy.

The findings are a concern in light of “clear evidence linking hypertension and higher blood pressure with cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart attacks,” Dr. Irwig said.

Protective effects for transgender females?

Transgender females showed as much as a 47% decrease in the prevalence of stage 2 hypertension, from 19% to 10%, within 2 to 4 months of treatment with gender-affirming hormone therapy (P = .001), and the rate declined further to 8% at 11 to 21 months, suggesting a protective effect of the treatment.

“The rate of stage 2 hypertension did drop in transgender feminine individuals, which could be protective and lower their risk for cardiovascular events,” Dr. Irwig said.

“This was not a surprise, as lowering testosterone and the use of spironolactone can lower blood pressure,” he noted.

Exceptions in both groups

Of note, a sizable proportion of patients had blood pressure changes that were in fact the opposite of the patterns seen in the majority of their gender group.

Specifically, while 42% to 53% of the transgender females had systolic blood pressure readings of at least 5 mm Hg lower than their baseline readings, up to 32% had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared to baseline readings.

Likewise, whereas 41% to 59% of transgender males had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared with baseline, up to 35% had levels that were at least 5 mm Hg lower than baseline.

“It was a surprise that over a quarter of individuals had changes opposite to the mean changes,” Dr. Irwig said.

The differing blood pressure changes underscore that “more research is needed to determine which formulations of estrogen, testosterone, and antiandrogens are optimal regarding blood pressure and cardiovascular health, especially in older individuals,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy formulations differ

Various formulations for gender-affirming hormone regimens are available, including oral, transdermal, sublingual, and intramuscular preparations.

In the study, 77% to 91% of transgender males were on intramuscular testosterone injections, with the rest on transdermal formulations, and 92% of transgender female patients were started on oral estradiol, with mean doses generally increasing over time.  

The study’s results are consistent with evidence from other studies, with 7 of 8 involving transgender males showing mean increases in systolic blood pressure ranging from 1 to 14 mm Hg.

Previous research supports cardiovascular risk

As reported by this news organization, other emerging research on cardiovascular risks to transgender people include a recent study showing more than 10% of transgender males were found to have hematocrit levels that could put them at risk for blood clots.

And further research on transgender youth also shows concerning elevations in lipids and other cardiovascular risks.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transgender people treated with gender-affirming hormone therapy show distinctive changes in blood pressure that begin soon after treatment initiation and do not subside over years of treatment, according to the largest and longest observational study to date to look at the issue.

“Many physicians may not be aware of the changes to blood pressure in trans patients who start hormone therapy,” senior author Michael S. Irwig, MD, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.

“The take-away message for physicians is to monitor blood pressure both before and after starting hormone therapy in transgender patients, as over a third of transgender individuals had stage 1 hypertension before starting hormone therapy, and many had their blood pressure increase after starting hormone therapy.”

Mean blood pressure increases in transgender males, decreases in females

In the study, published in Hypertension, Katherine Banks, MD, George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues, followed 470 transgender adult patients for up to 5 years.

The mean systolic blood pressure levels in transgender female patients (male at birth) significantly decreased compared with baseline within a few months of them starting gender-affirming hormone treatment.

Conversely, the systolic blood pressure levels in transgender males (females at birth) who were treated with testosterone increased over the same period.

There were no significant changes in the groups in terms of diastolic blood pressure, consistent with other studies.

“Our study is the first to describe the time course of the blood pressure effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and to compare the rates of elevated blood pressure and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension using blood pressure readings from gender-diverse individuals pre- and post–gender-affirming hormone therapy,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy – which has been prescribed to transgender patients for more than 25 years – typically involves a combination of estrogen and an anti-androgen for males transitioning to female, while the therapy for those transitioning to male generally only involves testosterone.

The therapy has previously been linked to various cardiac effects, with evidence showing transgender men have as much as a 5-times greater risk of heart attack versus cisgender women, the authors note.

Although the American Heart Association issued a 2020 Scientific Statement addressing the cardiovascular disease risk, evidence on the effects specifically on blood pressure in transgender patients has been inconsistent.

For the new study, Dr. Banks and colleagues enrolled 247 transgender females and 223 transgender males who were treated between 2007 and 2015 at two medical centers in Washington, D.C. Of the individuals, who had a mean age of 27.8, about 27% were non-White and 16% were Latinx.

They had blood pressure measurements taken at baseline and at follow-up clinical visits for up to 57 months following the initiation of gender-affirming hormone therapy.

Over the follow-up period, the transgender females had decreases in mean systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg within 2 to 4 months of starting hormone therapy (P < .0001) and mean declines of 6.0 mm Hg were further observed at 11 to 21 months compared with baseline.

In transgender males, the mean systolic blood pressure increased by 2.6 mm Hg at 2 to 4 months (P = .02), and by 2.9 mm Hg at 11 to 21 months after starting therapy.

Furthermore, “although the average increase in systolic blood pressure was 2.6 mm Hg in transgender men within 2 to 4 months, some patients had much higher increases,” Dr. Irwig noted.

As many as 40% of transgender men had stage 1 hypertension after 11 to 21 months of hormone therapy.

The blood pressure changes in transgender males and females were observed across all three racial ethnic groups of Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, and the changes remained consistent throughout the entire follow-up period of approximately 5 years while hormone therapy was continued.

In addition to the changes after therapy initiation, the researchers note that more than one-third of individuals in both groups had stage 1 hypertension even before starting hormone therapy.

The findings are a concern in light of “clear evidence linking hypertension and higher blood pressure with cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart attacks,” Dr. Irwig said.

Protective effects for transgender females?

Transgender females showed as much as a 47% decrease in the prevalence of stage 2 hypertension, from 19% to 10%, within 2 to 4 months of treatment with gender-affirming hormone therapy (P = .001), and the rate declined further to 8% at 11 to 21 months, suggesting a protective effect of the treatment.

“The rate of stage 2 hypertension did drop in transgender feminine individuals, which could be protective and lower their risk for cardiovascular events,” Dr. Irwig said.

“This was not a surprise, as lowering testosterone and the use of spironolactone can lower blood pressure,” he noted.

Exceptions in both groups

Of note, a sizable proportion of patients had blood pressure changes that were in fact the opposite of the patterns seen in the majority of their gender group.

Specifically, while 42% to 53% of the transgender females had systolic blood pressure readings of at least 5 mm Hg lower than their baseline readings, up to 32% had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared to baseline readings.

Likewise, whereas 41% to 59% of transgender males had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared with baseline, up to 35% had levels that were at least 5 mm Hg lower than baseline.

“It was a surprise that over a quarter of individuals had changes opposite to the mean changes,” Dr. Irwig said.

The differing blood pressure changes underscore that “more research is needed to determine which formulations of estrogen, testosterone, and antiandrogens are optimal regarding blood pressure and cardiovascular health, especially in older individuals,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy formulations differ

Various formulations for gender-affirming hormone regimens are available, including oral, transdermal, sublingual, and intramuscular preparations.

In the study, 77% to 91% of transgender males were on intramuscular testosterone injections, with the rest on transdermal formulations, and 92% of transgender female patients were started on oral estradiol, with mean doses generally increasing over time.  

The study’s results are consistent with evidence from other studies, with 7 of 8 involving transgender males showing mean increases in systolic blood pressure ranging from 1 to 14 mm Hg.

Previous research supports cardiovascular risk

As reported by this news organization, other emerging research on cardiovascular risks to transgender people include a recent study showing more than 10% of transgender males were found to have hematocrit levels that could put them at risk for blood clots.

And further research on transgender youth also shows concerning elevations in lipids and other cardiovascular risks.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transgender people treated with gender-affirming hormone therapy show distinctive changes in blood pressure that begin soon after treatment initiation and do not subside over years of treatment, according to the largest and longest observational study to date to look at the issue.

“Many physicians may not be aware of the changes to blood pressure in trans patients who start hormone therapy,” senior author Michael S. Irwig, MD, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told this news organization.

“The take-away message for physicians is to monitor blood pressure both before and after starting hormone therapy in transgender patients, as over a third of transgender individuals had stage 1 hypertension before starting hormone therapy, and many had their blood pressure increase after starting hormone therapy.”

Mean blood pressure increases in transgender males, decreases in females

In the study, published in Hypertension, Katherine Banks, MD, George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues, followed 470 transgender adult patients for up to 5 years.

The mean systolic blood pressure levels in transgender female patients (male at birth) significantly decreased compared with baseline within a few months of them starting gender-affirming hormone treatment.

Conversely, the systolic blood pressure levels in transgender males (females at birth) who were treated with testosterone increased over the same period.

There were no significant changes in the groups in terms of diastolic blood pressure, consistent with other studies.

“Our study is the first to describe the time course of the blood pressure effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and to compare the rates of elevated blood pressure and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension using blood pressure readings from gender-diverse individuals pre- and post–gender-affirming hormone therapy,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy – which has been prescribed to transgender patients for more than 25 years – typically involves a combination of estrogen and an anti-androgen for males transitioning to female, while the therapy for those transitioning to male generally only involves testosterone.

The therapy has previously been linked to various cardiac effects, with evidence showing transgender men have as much as a 5-times greater risk of heart attack versus cisgender women, the authors note.

Although the American Heart Association issued a 2020 Scientific Statement addressing the cardiovascular disease risk, evidence on the effects specifically on blood pressure in transgender patients has been inconsistent.

For the new study, Dr. Banks and colleagues enrolled 247 transgender females and 223 transgender males who were treated between 2007 and 2015 at two medical centers in Washington, D.C. Of the individuals, who had a mean age of 27.8, about 27% were non-White and 16% were Latinx.

They had blood pressure measurements taken at baseline and at follow-up clinical visits for up to 57 months following the initiation of gender-affirming hormone therapy.

Over the follow-up period, the transgender females had decreases in mean systolic blood pressure of 4.0 mm Hg within 2 to 4 months of starting hormone therapy (P < .0001) and mean declines of 6.0 mm Hg were further observed at 11 to 21 months compared with baseline.

In transgender males, the mean systolic blood pressure increased by 2.6 mm Hg at 2 to 4 months (P = .02), and by 2.9 mm Hg at 11 to 21 months after starting therapy.

Furthermore, “although the average increase in systolic blood pressure was 2.6 mm Hg in transgender men within 2 to 4 months, some patients had much higher increases,” Dr. Irwig noted.

As many as 40% of transgender men had stage 1 hypertension after 11 to 21 months of hormone therapy.

The blood pressure changes in transgender males and females were observed across all three racial ethnic groups of Whites, Blacks, and Latinx, and the changes remained consistent throughout the entire follow-up period of approximately 5 years while hormone therapy was continued.

In addition to the changes after therapy initiation, the researchers note that more than one-third of individuals in both groups had stage 1 hypertension even before starting hormone therapy.

The findings are a concern in light of “clear evidence linking hypertension and higher blood pressure with cardiovascular events such as stroke and heart attacks,” Dr. Irwig said.

Protective effects for transgender females?

Transgender females showed as much as a 47% decrease in the prevalence of stage 2 hypertension, from 19% to 10%, within 2 to 4 months of treatment with gender-affirming hormone therapy (P = .001), and the rate declined further to 8% at 11 to 21 months, suggesting a protective effect of the treatment.

“The rate of stage 2 hypertension did drop in transgender feminine individuals, which could be protective and lower their risk for cardiovascular events,” Dr. Irwig said.

“This was not a surprise, as lowering testosterone and the use of spironolactone can lower blood pressure,” he noted.

Exceptions in both groups

Of note, a sizable proportion of patients had blood pressure changes that were in fact the opposite of the patterns seen in the majority of their gender group.

Specifically, while 42% to 53% of the transgender females had systolic blood pressure readings of at least 5 mm Hg lower than their baseline readings, up to 32% had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared to baseline readings.

Likewise, whereas 41% to 59% of transgender males had increases of at least 5 mm Hg compared with baseline, up to 35% had levels that were at least 5 mm Hg lower than baseline.

“It was a surprise that over a quarter of individuals had changes opposite to the mean changes,” Dr. Irwig said.

The differing blood pressure changes underscore that “more research is needed to determine which formulations of estrogen, testosterone, and antiandrogens are optimal regarding blood pressure and cardiovascular health, especially in older individuals,” the authors note.

Gender-affirming hormone therapy formulations differ

Various formulations for gender-affirming hormone regimens are available, including oral, transdermal, sublingual, and intramuscular preparations.

In the study, 77% to 91% of transgender males were on intramuscular testosterone injections, with the rest on transdermal formulations, and 92% of transgender female patients were started on oral estradiol, with mean doses generally increasing over time.  

The study’s results are consistent with evidence from other studies, with 7 of 8 involving transgender males showing mean increases in systolic blood pressure ranging from 1 to 14 mm Hg.

Previous research supports cardiovascular risk

As reported by this news organization, other emerging research on cardiovascular risks to transgender people include a recent study showing more than 10% of transgender males were found to have hematocrit levels that could put them at risk for blood clots.

And further research on transgender youth also shows concerning elevations in lipids and other cardiovascular risks.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Combining plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) assessment with MRI improves prediction of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer, according to researchers.

When the two techniques were in agreement, the accuracy of response prediction was 92.6% in the study, with a predictive value for complete response of 87.5% and a predictive value for absence of complete response of 94.7%, which was substantially better than either method alone.

“Our work identifies a new parameter that is easily combinable with MRI for a more accurate prediction of response following neoadjuvant treatment, with possible implications for current protocols for the evaluation of nodal residual disease,” researcher Francesco Ravera, MD, PhD, of the University of Genoa (Italy), said in a press release.

Dr. Ravera and colleagues presented their research in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract LB063).

Accurate response prediction is important because it guides subsequent surgical management, Dr. Ravera and colleagues noted. Pathological complete responders – generally about 25% of patients after neoadjuvant therapy – typically undergo a sentinel lymph node biopsy to ensure cancer hasn’t spread, while incomplete responders often have a complete axillary lymph node dissection.

Response is currently assessed by MRI, but accuracy is suboptimal, the researchers noted. A more accurate method might “allow the omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy in complete responders, which could be replaced by longitudinal radiologic monitoring. This would represent substantial progress in the pursuit of an effective, minimally invasive treatment,” Dr. Ravera said.

He and his colleagues turned to plasma cfDNA because it has shown potential for providing useful diagnostic, recurrence, and treatment response information in neoplastic patients.

When healthy cells die, they release similarly sized DNA fragments into the blood, but cancer cells release fragments of varying sizes. The heart of the research was using electrophoresis to assess the degree of fragmentation – called cfDNA integrity – in plasma samples from 38 patients after anthracycline/taxane-based regimens.

The researchers compared how well cfDNA, preoperative MRI, and the combination of the two methods predicted response according to surgical histology.

A total of 11 patients had pathological complete responses to neoadjuvant therapy.

The ratio of large 321-1,000 base pair sized fragments to smaller 150-220 base pair sized fragments, which the team dubbed the “cfDNA integrity index,” best predicted response. At a cutoff above 2.71, the index was 81.6% accurate in predicting pathological complete response, with a sensitivity of 81.8% and specificity of 81.5%.

The predictive power wasn’t much better than MRI, which was 77.1% accurate, with a sensitivity of 72.7% and a specificity of 81.5%.

The two techniques were concordant in their prediction in over two-thirds of patients. When the techniques agreed, accuracy was over 90%.

Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the cfDNA integrity index in combination with MRI, the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the University of Genoa and others. Dr. Ravera disclosed no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

Combining plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) assessment with MRI improves prediction of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer, according to researchers.

When the two techniques were in agreement, the accuracy of response prediction was 92.6% in the study, with a predictive value for complete response of 87.5% and a predictive value for absence of complete response of 94.7%, which was substantially better than either method alone.

“Our work identifies a new parameter that is easily combinable with MRI for a more accurate prediction of response following neoadjuvant treatment, with possible implications for current protocols for the evaluation of nodal residual disease,” researcher Francesco Ravera, MD, PhD, of the University of Genoa (Italy), said in a press release.

Dr. Ravera and colleagues presented their research in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract LB063).

Accurate response prediction is important because it guides subsequent surgical management, Dr. Ravera and colleagues noted. Pathological complete responders – generally about 25% of patients after neoadjuvant therapy – typically undergo a sentinel lymph node biopsy to ensure cancer hasn’t spread, while incomplete responders often have a complete axillary lymph node dissection.

Response is currently assessed by MRI, but accuracy is suboptimal, the researchers noted. A more accurate method might “allow the omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy in complete responders, which could be replaced by longitudinal radiologic monitoring. This would represent substantial progress in the pursuit of an effective, minimally invasive treatment,” Dr. Ravera said.

He and his colleagues turned to plasma cfDNA because it has shown potential for providing useful diagnostic, recurrence, and treatment response information in neoplastic patients.

When healthy cells die, they release similarly sized DNA fragments into the blood, but cancer cells release fragments of varying sizes. The heart of the research was using electrophoresis to assess the degree of fragmentation – called cfDNA integrity – in plasma samples from 38 patients after anthracycline/taxane-based regimens.

The researchers compared how well cfDNA, preoperative MRI, and the combination of the two methods predicted response according to surgical histology.

A total of 11 patients had pathological complete responses to neoadjuvant therapy.

The ratio of large 321-1,000 base pair sized fragments to smaller 150-220 base pair sized fragments, which the team dubbed the “cfDNA integrity index,” best predicted response. At a cutoff above 2.71, the index was 81.6% accurate in predicting pathological complete response, with a sensitivity of 81.8% and specificity of 81.5%.

The predictive power wasn’t much better than MRI, which was 77.1% accurate, with a sensitivity of 72.7% and a specificity of 81.5%.

The two techniques were concordant in their prediction in over two-thirds of patients. When the techniques agreed, accuracy was over 90%.

Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the cfDNA integrity index in combination with MRI, the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the University of Genoa and others. Dr. Ravera disclosed no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

Combining plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) assessment with MRI improves prediction of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer, according to researchers.

When the two techniques were in agreement, the accuracy of response prediction was 92.6% in the study, with a predictive value for complete response of 87.5% and a predictive value for absence of complete response of 94.7%, which was substantially better than either method alone.

“Our work identifies a new parameter that is easily combinable with MRI for a more accurate prediction of response following neoadjuvant treatment, with possible implications for current protocols for the evaluation of nodal residual disease,” researcher Francesco Ravera, MD, PhD, of the University of Genoa (Italy), said in a press release.

Dr. Ravera and colleagues presented their research in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 (Abstract LB063).

Accurate response prediction is important because it guides subsequent surgical management, Dr. Ravera and colleagues noted. Pathological complete responders – generally about 25% of patients after neoadjuvant therapy – typically undergo a sentinel lymph node biopsy to ensure cancer hasn’t spread, while incomplete responders often have a complete axillary lymph node dissection.

Response is currently assessed by MRI, but accuracy is suboptimal, the researchers noted. A more accurate method might “allow the omission of sentinel lymph node biopsy in complete responders, which could be replaced by longitudinal radiologic monitoring. This would represent substantial progress in the pursuit of an effective, minimally invasive treatment,” Dr. Ravera said.

He and his colleagues turned to plasma cfDNA because it has shown potential for providing useful diagnostic, recurrence, and treatment response information in neoplastic patients.

When healthy cells die, they release similarly sized DNA fragments into the blood, but cancer cells release fragments of varying sizes. The heart of the research was using electrophoresis to assess the degree of fragmentation – called cfDNA integrity – in plasma samples from 38 patients after anthracycline/taxane-based regimens.

The researchers compared how well cfDNA, preoperative MRI, and the combination of the two methods predicted response according to surgical histology.

A total of 11 patients had pathological complete responses to neoadjuvant therapy.

The ratio of large 321-1,000 base pair sized fragments to smaller 150-220 base pair sized fragments, which the team dubbed the “cfDNA integrity index,” best predicted response. At a cutoff above 2.71, the index was 81.6% accurate in predicting pathological complete response, with a sensitivity of 81.8% and specificity of 81.5%.

The predictive power wasn’t much better than MRI, which was 77.1% accurate, with a sensitivity of 72.7% and a specificity of 81.5%.

The two techniques were concordant in their prediction in over two-thirds of patients. When the techniques agreed, accuracy was over 90%.

Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the cfDNA integrity index in combination with MRI, the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the University of Genoa and others. Dr. Ravera disclosed no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

In a U.K. cohort of more than 260,000 mostly middle-aged adults in primary care with overweight or obesity, body mass index remained relatively stable over a decade.

However, compared to overweight individuals, those with severe (class 3) obesity were more socioeconomically disadvantaged and had triple the risk for incident heart failure or all-cause or cardiovascular disease (CVD)–related mortality in a study published online April 15 in BMC Public Health.

“This is the first study to evaluate the long-term impact of overweight and obese individuals’ BMI trajectory on cardiovascular endpoints, heart failure, and mortality outcomes,” wrote Barbara Iyen, PhD, University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

The findings emphasize “the high cardiovascular toll exacted by continuing failure to tackle obesity, particularly among more socioeconomically deprived populations,” they warned.

“We have found that despite widespread efforts to prevent and manage obesity, the majority of adults who are overweight or obese in the general population continue to remain so in the long term,” Dr. Iyen said in a statement from her university.

“More effective policies and weight-management interventions are needed urgently to address this increasing burden and associated adverse health outcomes,” she stressed.

Invited to comment, Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview: “This research adds to the growing body of evidence [that] earlier and more intensive interventions for weight loss are necessary to promote cardiovascular health and reduce morbidity and mortality.

“Adjunctive pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery are both options that should be considered in addition to intensive lifestyle interventions in overweight and obesity groups,” she added.

“I would always advocate for earlier prevention efforts focused on weight loss, because years lived with obesity are associated with future CVD, so every year counts,” Dr. Khan said.
 

Does BMI remain elevated, predict worse heart health?

Although obesity is a well-recognized risk factor for CVD, long-term changes in BMI and the impact of BMI on the risk for heart failure, CVD, and mortality have not been quantified among adults with overweight and obesity, Dr. Iyen and colleagues explained.

The researchers examined data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and secondary care and mortality records to determine BMI trajectories among adults with overweight or obesity and to quantify the risk for heart failure, CVD (defined as coronary heart disease, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral vascular disease, CVD-related mortality, and all-cause mortality.

They identified 264,230 adults with overweight or obesity who were seen in 790 primary care practices in the United Kingdom from 1999 to 2018 and who did not initially have heart failure or CVD and for whom baseline BMI measurements and at least one other BMI measurement 2, 5, 8, and 10 years later was available.

The researchers divided the cohort into four groups on the basis of initial BMI: overweight (36% of patients; mean BMI, 28.7 kg/m²); class 1 obesity (40%; mean BMI, 33.7 kg/m²); class 2 obesity (19%; mean BMI, 39.9 kg/m²), and class 3 obesity (5%; mean BMI, 49.1 kg/m²).

The mean age of the individuals was 50 years, and 64% were White. Race/ethnicity data were unavailable for 31%. Asian Indian, Asian, and Black patients comprised 5% of the cohort.
 

“Strong significant gradient in heart failure risk”

Compared to the overweight (reference) group, the severe-obesity group comprised a higher percentage of women (74% vs. 70%), and the prevalence of comorbidities and socioeconomic deprivation was higher.

BMI remained relatively stable in each BMI group. The mean BMI increase was 1.06 kg/m² during a median follow-up of 10.9 years.

There were 30,400 incident cases of CVD, 7,662 incident cases of heart failure, and 24,022 deaths, of which 2,827 (11.8%) were from CVD.

The risk for heart failure and CVD-related or all-cause mortality increased with increasing obesity severity.

Compared with overweight individuals, those with class 3 obesity were at significantly increased risk for heart failure (hazard ratio [HR], 3.26), all-cause mortality (HR, 2.72), and CVD-related mortality (HR, 3.31) after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities (hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease).

The risk for stroke/TIA or coronary heart disease was similar among those with severe obesity and the other individuals. The risk for PVD was significantly lower (HR, 0.73).

The reduced risk for PVD in the most severely obese group is similar to findings in the Framingham heart study, the authors noted, and may be due to underdiagnosis or differences in the underlying mechanism.
 

Compelling evidence of poor health outcomes associated with obesity

Study limitations include the fact that the findings may not be generalizable to other race/ethnicity groups, the lack of information on diet and exercise, and the fact that BMI was used as a surrogate of adiposity. As such, it does not account for an age-related decrease in heavier-than-fat muscle mass and differences between sexes and ethnic groups.

The finding of stable obesity over time accords with two smaller studies that included Canadian and American adults.

The current study did not uncover an obesity paradox, unlike some studies that included patients with preexisting CVD or a history of acute coronary events. Those studies reported better clinical outcomes among patients with overweight or obesity.

The current study included individuals who did not initially have CVD. Those with more severe obesity were younger than individuals with overweight at the time of the occurrence of incident CVD (age 64 vs. 66) and at the age of death (age 67 vs. age 75), which “provides compelling evidence of poor health outcomes associated with obesity,” the authors emphasized.

“Further research is ... needed to explore whether interventions to change BMI trajectories would have an impact on future CVD outcomes,” they concluded.

Dr. Iyen’s clinical academic lectureship is fully funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. Dr. Khan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a U.K. cohort of more than 260,000 mostly middle-aged adults in primary care with overweight or obesity, body mass index remained relatively stable over a decade.

However, compared to overweight individuals, those with severe (class 3) obesity were more socioeconomically disadvantaged and had triple the risk for incident heart failure or all-cause or cardiovascular disease (CVD)–related mortality in a study published online April 15 in BMC Public Health.

“This is the first study to evaluate the long-term impact of overweight and obese individuals’ BMI trajectory on cardiovascular endpoints, heart failure, and mortality outcomes,” wrote Barbara Iyen, PhD, University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

The findings emphasize “the high cardiovascular toll exacted by continuing failure to tackle obesity, particularly among more socioeconomically deprived populations,” they warned.

“We have found that despite widespread efforts to prevent and manage obesity, the majority of adults who are overweight or obese in the general population continue to remain so in the long term,” Dr. Iyen said in a statement from her university.

“More effective policies and weight-management interventions are needed urgently to address this increasing burden and associated adverse health outcomes,” she stressed.

Invited to comment, Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview: “This research adds to the growing body of evidence [that] earlier and more intensive interventions for weight loss are necessary to promote cardiovascular health and reduce morbidity and mortality.

“Adjunctive pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery are both options that should be considered in addition to intensive lifestyle interventions in overweight and obesity groups,” she added.

“I would always advocate for earlier prevention efforts focused on weight loss, because years lived with obesity are associated with future CVD, so every year counts,” Dr. Khan said.
 

Does BMI remain elevated, predict worse heart health?

Although obesity is a well-recognized risk factor for CVD, long-term changes in BMI and the impact of BMI on the risk for heart failure, CVD, and mortality have not been quantified among adults with overweight and obesity, Dr. Iyen and colleagues explained.

The researchers examined data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and secondary care and mortality records to determine BMI trajectories among adults with overweight or obesity and to quantify the risk for heart failure, CVD (defined as coronary heart disease, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral vascular disease, CVD-related mortality, and all-cause mortality.

They identified 264,230 adults with overweight or obesity who were seen in 790 primary care practices in the United Kingdom from 1999 to 2018 and who did not initially have heart failure or CVD and for whom baseline BMI measurements and at least one other BMI measurement 2, 5, 8, and 10 years later was available.

The researchers divided the cohort into four groups on the basis of initial BMI: overweight (36% of patients; mean BMI, 28.7 kg/m²); class 1 obesity (40%; mean BMI, 33.7 kg/m²); class 2 obesity (19%; mean BMI, 39.9 kg/m²), and class 3 obesity (5%; mean BMI, 49.1 kg/m²).

The mean age of the individuals was 50 years, and 64% were White. Race/ethnicity data were unavailable for 31%. Asian Indian, Asian, and Black patients comprised 5% of the cohort.
 

“Strong significant gradient in heart failure risk”

Compared to the overweight (reference) group, the severe-obesity group comprised a higher percentage of women (74% vs. 70%), and the prevalence of comorbidities and socioeconomic deprivation was higher.

BMI remained relatively stable in each BMI group. The mean BMI increase was 1.06 kg/m² during a median follow-up of 10.9 years.

There were 30,400 incident cases of CVD, 7,662 incident cases of heart failure, and 24,022 deaths, of which 2,827 (11.8%) were from CVD.

The risk for heart failure and CVD-related or all-cause mortality increased with increasing obesity severity.

Compared with overweight individuals, those with class 3 obesity were at significantly increased risk for heart failure (hazard ratio [HR], 3.26), all-cause mortality (HR, 2.72), and CVD-related mortality (HR, 3.31) after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities (hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease).

The risk for stroke/TIA or coronary heart disease was similar among those with severe obesity and the other individuals. The risk for PVD was significantly lower (HR, 0.73).

The reduced risk for PVD in the most severely obese group is similar to findings in the Framingham heart study, the authors noted, and may be due to underdiagnosis or differences in the underlying mechanism.
 

Compelling evidence of poor health outcomes associated with obesity

Study limitations include the fact that the findings may not be generalizable to other race/ethnicity groups, the lack of information on diet and exercise, and the fact that BMI was used as a surrogate of adiposity. As such, it does not account for an age-related decrease in heavier-than-fat muscle mass and differences between sexes and ethnic groups.

The finding of stable obesity over time accords with two smaller studies that included Canadian and American adults.

The current study did not uncover an obesity paradox, unlike some studies that included patients with preexisting CVD or a history of acute coronary events. Those studies reported better clinical outcomes among patients with overweight or obesity.

The current study included individuals who did not initially have CVD. Those with more severe obesity were younger than individuals with overweight at the time of the occurrence of incident CVD (age 64 vs. 66) and at the age of death (age 67 vs. age 75), which “provides compelling evidence of poor health outcomes associated with obesity,” the authors emphasized.

“Further research is ... needed to explore whether interventions to change BMI trajectories would have an impact on future CVD outcomes,” they concluded.

Dr. Iyen’s clinical academic lectureship is fully funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. Dr. Khan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a U.K. cohort of more than 260,000 mostly middle-aged adults in primary care with overweight or obesity, body mass index remained relatively stable over a decade.

However, compared to overweight individuals, those with severe (class 3) obesity were more socioeconomically disadvantaged and had triple the risk for incident heart failure or all-cause or cardiovascular disease (CVD)–related mortality in a study published online April 15 in BMC Public Health.

“This is the first study to evaluate the long-term impact of overweight and obese individuals’ BMI trajectory on cardiovascular endpoints, heart failure, and mortality outcomes,” wrote Barbara Iyen, PhD, University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

The findings emphasize “the high cardiovascular toll exacted by continuing failure to tackle obesity, particularly among more socioeconomically deprived populations,” they warned.

“We have found that despite widespread efforts to prevent and manage obesity, the majority of adults who are overweight or obese in the general population continue to remain so in the long term,” Dr. Iyen said in a statement from her university.

“More effective policies and weight-management interventions are needed urgently to address this increasing burden and associated adverse health outcomes,” she stressed.

Invited to comment, Sadiya S. Khan, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview: “This research adds to the growing body of evidence [that] earlier and more intensive interventions for weight loss are necessary to promote cardiovascular health and reduce morbidity and mortality.

“Adjunctive pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery are both options that should be considered in addition to intensive lifestyle interventions in overweight and obesity groups,” she added.

“I would always advocate for earlier prevention efforts focused on weight loss, because years lived with obesity are associated with future CVD, so every year counts,” Dr. Khan said.
 

Does BMI remain elevated, predict worse heart health?

Although obesity is a well-recognized risk factor for CVD, long-term changes in BMI and the impact of BMI on the risk for heart failure, CVD, and mortality have not been quantified among adults with overweight and obesity, Dr. Iyen and colleagues explained.

The researchers examined data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and secondary care and mortality records to determine BMI trajectories among adults with overweight or obesity and to quantify the risk for heart failure, CVD (defined as coronary heart disease, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral vascular disease, CVD-related mortality, and all-cause mortality.

They identified 264,230 adults with overweight or obesity who were seen in 790 primary care practices in the United Kingdom from 1999 to 2018 and who did not initially have heart failure or CVD and for whom baseline BMI measurements and at least one other BMI measurement 2, 5, 8, and 10 years later was available.

The researchers divided the cohort into four groups on the basis of initial BMI: overweight (36% of patients; mean BMI, 28.7 kg/m²); class 1 obesity (40%; mean BMI, 33.7 kg/m²); class 2 obesity (19%; mean BMI, 39.9 kg/m²), and class 3 obesity (5%; mean BMI, 49.1 kg/m²).

The mean age of the individuals was 50 years, and 64% were White. Race/ethnicity data were unavailable for 31%. Asian Indian, Asian, and Black patients comprised 5% of the cohort.
 

“Strong significant gradient in heart failure risk”

Compared to the overweight (reference) group, the severe-obesity group comprised a higher percentage of women (74% vs. 70%), and the prevalence of comorbidities and socioeconomic deprivation was higher.

BMI remained relatively stable in each BMI group. The mean BMI increase was 1.06 kg/m² during a median follow-up of 10.9 years.

There were 30,400 incident cases of CVD, 7,662 incident cases of heart failure, and 24,022 deaths, of which 2,827 (11.8%) were from CVD.

The risk for heart failure and CVD-related or all-cause mortality increased with increasing obesity severity.

Compared with overweight individuals, those with class 3 obesity were at significantly increased risk for heart failure (hazard ratio [HR], 3.26), all-cause mortality (HR, 2.72), and CVD-related mortality (HR, 3.31) after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities (hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease).

The risk for stroke/TIA or coronary heart disease was similar among those with severe obesity and the other individuals. The risk for PVD was significantly lower (HR, 0.73).

The reduced risk for PVD in the most severely obese group is similar to findings in the Framingham heart study, the authors noted, and may be due to underdiagnosis or differences in the underlying mechanism.
 

Compelling evidence of poor health outcomes associated with obesity

Study limitations include the fact that the findings may not be generalizable to other race/ethnicity groups, the lack of information on diet and exercise, and the fact that BMI was used as a surrogate of adiposity. As such, it does not account for an age-related decrease in heavier-than-fat muscle mass and differences between sexes and ethnic groups.

The finding of stable obesity over time accords with two smaller studies that included Canadian and American adults.

The current study did not uncover an obesity paradox, unlike some studies that included patients with preexisting CVD or a history of acute coronary events. Those studies reported better clinical outcomes among patients with overweight or obesity.

The current study included individuals who did not initially have CVD. Those with more severe obesity were younger than individuals with overweight at the time of the occurrence of incident CVD (age 64 vs. 66) and at the age of death (age 67 vs. age 75), which “provides compelling evidence of poor health outcomes associated with obesity,” the authors emphasized.

“Further research is ... needed to explore whether interventions to change BMI trajectories would have an impact on future CVD outcomes,” they concluded.

Dr. Iyen’s clinical academic lectureship is fully funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. Dr. Khan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.

The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.

This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
 

What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?

Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.

What were the main outcomes of the trial?

Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.

IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.

After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).

Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
 

What types of adverse events were found in the trial?

The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.

Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
 

What about serious adverse events?

Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.

Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?

In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.

Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
 

On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?

I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.

Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?

I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.

Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).

Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.

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

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.

The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.

This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
 

What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?

Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.

What were the main outcomes of the trial?

Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.

IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.

After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).

Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
 

What types of adverse events were found in the trial?

The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.

Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
 

What about serious adverse events?

Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.

Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?

In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.

Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
 

On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?

I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.

Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?

I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.

Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).

Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.

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

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.

The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.

This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
 

What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?

Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.

What were the main outcomes of the trial?

Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.

IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.

After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).

Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
 

What types of adverse events were found in the trial?

The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.

Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
 

What about serious adverse events?

Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.

Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?

In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.

Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
 

On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?

I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.

Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?

I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.

Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).

Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.

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

During the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, about one-third of people with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States made changes in their RA medications, and, before the American College of Rheumatology tweaked its guidelines midway through that period, they were about twice as likely to make medication changes on their own than before the pandemic, according to an analysis of data in FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases.

The study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that about 10% of RA patients on hydroxychloroquine lost access to the drug at a time it was drawing interest as a treatment for COVID-19. Another finding was that a high percentage of patients on non–tumor necrosis factor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors canceled or postponed appointments.

“Our results show that persons with RA who had medication changes in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. were more likely to have worse disease activity and higher exposure to prior DMARDs, but no statistical difference was found in terms of comorbidities,” first author Kaleb Michaud, PhD, and coauthors wrote. Dr. Michaud is with the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, Kan., and the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

The study evaluated responses from 734 adults who participated in FORWARD, an observational, multidisease registry. They answered online surveys about COVID-19 in May 2020 and had provided data on their medication use before the pandemic. A total of 30% (n = 221) reported medication changes in that period.
 

Details on medication changes

Medication changers were more likely to use glucocorticoids (GCs) (32.6% vs. 18.1%) and less likely to use nonhydroxychloroquine conventional DMARDs (49.3% vs. 62%) pre-COVID. Changers also reported higher rates of economic hardship during the pandemic (22.6% vs. 14.6%).

In the midst of the study period, the ACR issued a clinical guideline for treatment of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), emphasizing the need to maintain DMARD therapy, control disease activity, and reduce prednisone/GC use. The guideline advised continuing hydroxychloroquine and interleukin-6 inhibitor biologics in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

Dr. Michaud and coauthors acknowledged the ongoing lack of knowledge about real-world treatment patterns for RA during the pandemic. They set out with this study to fill those knowledge gaps.

They noted that patients on bDMARDs (17.6%) and JAK inhibitors (17.1%) were more than twice as likely to discontinue medications than were those on conventional DMARDs (8.2%).

Switching to telehealth was the most common pandemic-related behavior change among patients in all DMARD groups, with rates ranging from 31% to 47.1%, followed by canceling or postponing appointments, with rates ranging from 27.9% to 36.4% depending on the DMARD group.

The study also found that RA patients widely adopted the behavior changes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended during the pandemic, although the rates of restricting social contacts were significantly lower than the 90% reported in an early Italian study.

Dr. Michaud and coauthors also provided some explanation of why people on GCs and DMARDs were more likely than others to change medication patterns. “This may reflect efforts to reduce the perceived risk of infections due to GCs as well as the likely less-controlled disease activity associated with GC use,” they wrote. While the ACR’s early pandemic guidance followed the 2015 guidelines – that patients should continue on GCs at the “lowest possible dose” and not stop them “abruptly” – most U.S. rheumatologists reported cutting back on GC use during the pandemic.

The researchers acknowledged that evidence linking GC use with hospitalization for COVID-19, which emerged after they had surveyed study participants, was consistent their findings, but that the overall risk of COVID-19 in RA patients still isn’t known.

Pfizer funded the analysis, and a coauthor is an employee of Pfizer.

During the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, about one-third of people with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States made changes in their RA medications, and, before the American College of Rheumatology tweaked its guidelines midway through that period, they were about twice as likely to make medication changes on their own than before the pandemic, according to an analysis of data in FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases.

The study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that about 10% of RA patients on hydroxychloroquine lost access to the drug at a time it was drawing interest as a treatment for COVID-19. Another finding was that a high percentage of patients on non–tumor necrosis factor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors canceled or postponed appointments.

“Our results show that persons with RA who had medication changes in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. were more likely to have worse disease activity and higher exposure to prior DMARDs, but no statistical difference was found in terms of comorbidities,” first author Kaleb Michaud, PhD, and coauthors wrote. Dr. Michaud is with the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, Kan., and the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

The study evaluated responses from 734 adults who participated in FORWARD, an observational, multidisease registry. They answered online surveys about COVID-19 in May 2020 and had provided data on their medication use before the pandemic. A total of 30% (n = 221) reported medication changes in that period.
 

Details on medication changes

Medication changers were more likely to use glucocorticoids (GCs) (32.6% vs. 18.1%) and less likely to use nonhydroxychloroquine conventional DMARDs (49.3% vs. 62%) pre-COVID. Changers also reported higher rates of economic hardship during the pandemic (22.6% vs. 14.6%).

In the midst of the study period, the ACR issued a clinical guideline for treatment of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), emphasizing the need to maintain DMARD therapy, control disease activity, and reduce prednisone/GC use. The guideline advised continuing hydroxychloroquine and interleukin-6 inhibitor biologics in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

Dr. Michaud and coauthors acknowledged the ongoing lack of knowledge about real-world treatment patterns for RA during the pandemic. They set out with this study to fill those knowledge gaps.

They noted that patients on bDMARDs (17.6%) and JAK inhibitors (17.1%) were more than twice as likely to discontinue medications than were those on conventional DMARDs (8.2%).

Switching to telehealth was the most common pandemic-related behavior change among patients in all DMARD groups, with rates ranging from 31% to 47.1%, followed by canceling or postponing appointments, with rates ranging from 27.9% to 36.4% depending on the DMARD group.

The study also found that RA patients widely adopted the behavior changes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended during the pandemic, although the rates of restricting social contacts were significantly lower than the 90% reported in an early Italian study.

Dr. Michaud and coauthors also provided some explanation of why people on GCs and DMARDs were more likely than others to change medication patterns. “This may reflect efforts to reduce the perceived risk of infections due to GCs as well as the likely less-controlled disease activity associated with GC use,” they wrote. While the ACR’s early pandemic guidance followed the 2015 guidelines – that patients should continue on GCs at the “lowest possible dose” and not stop them “abruptly” – most U.S. rheumatologists reported cutting back on GC use during the pandemic.

The researchers acknowledged that evidence linking GC use with hospitalization for COVID-19, which emerged after they had surveyed study participants, was consistent their findings, but that the overall risk of COVID-19 in RA patients still isn’t known.

Pfizer funded the analysis, and a coauthor is an employee of Pfizer.

During the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, about one-third of people with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States made changes in their RA medications, and, before the American College of Rheumatology tweaked its guidelines midway through that period, they were about twice as likely to make medication changes on their own than before the pandemic, according to an analysis of data in FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases.

The study, published in Arthritis Care & Research, also found that about 10% of RA patients on hydroxychloroquine lost access to the drug at a time it was drawing interest as a treatment for COVID-19. Another finding was that a high percentage of patients on non–tumor necrosis factor biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors canceled or postponed appointments.

“Our results show that persons with RA who had medication changes in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. were more likely to have worse disease activity and higher exposure to prior DMARDs, but no statistical difference was found in terms of comorbidities,” first author Kaleb Michaud, PhD, and coauthors wrote. Dr. Michaud is with the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, Kan., and the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

The study evaluated responses from 734 adults who participated in FORWARD, an observational, multidisease registry. They answered online surveys about COVID-19 in May 2020 and had provided data on their medication use before the pandemic. A total of 30% (n = 221) reported medication changes in that period.
 

Details on medication changes

Medication changers were more likely to use glucocorticoids (GCs) (32.6% vs. 18.1%) and less likely to use nonhydroxychloroquine conventional DMARDs (49.3% vs. 62%) pre-COVID. Changers also reported higher rates of economic hardship during the pandemic (22.6% vs. 14.6%).

In the midst of the study period, the ACR issued a clinical guideline for treatment of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), emphasizing the need to maintain DMARD therapy, control disease activity, and reduce prednisone/GC use. The guideline advised continuing hydroxychloroquine and interleukin-6 inhibitor biologics in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

Dr. Michaud and coauthors acknowledged the ongoing lack of knowledge about real-world treatment patterns for RA during the pandemic. They set out with this study to fill those knowledge gaps.

They noted that patients on bDMARDs (17.6%) and JAK inhibitors (17.1%) were more than twice as likely to discontinue medications than were those on conventional DMARDs (8.2%).

Switching to telehealth was the most common pandemic-related behavior change among patients in all DMARD groups, with rates ranging from 31% to 47.1%, followed by canceling or postponing appointments, with rates ranging from 27.9% to 36.4% depending on the DMARD group.

The study also found that RA patients widely adopted the behavior changes that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended during the pandemic, although the rates of restricting social contacts were significantly lower than the 90% reported in an early Italian study.

Dr. Michaud and coauthors also provided some explanation of why people on GCs and DMARDs were more likely than others to change medication patterns. “This may reflect efforts to reduce the perceived risk of infections due to GCs as well as the likely less-controlled disease activity associated with GC use,” they wrote. While the ACR’s early pandemic guidance followed the 2015 guidelines – that patients should continue on GCs at the “lowest possible dose” and not stop them “abruptly” – most U.S. rheumatologists reported cutting back on GC use during the pandemic.

The researchers acknowledged that evidence linking GC use with hospitalization for COVID-19, which emerged after they had surveyed study participants, was consistent their findings, but that the overall risk of COVID-19 in RA patients still isn’t known.

Pfizer funded the analysis, and a coauthor is an employee of Pfizer.

Although most patients with chronic inflammatory diseases mounted immune responses after two doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, glucocorticoids and B-cell–depleting therapies markedly reduced the response, according to a recently published preprint of a new study.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Getty Images

The study, published on MedRxiv and not yet peer reviewed, involved a prospective look at 133 patients with chronic inflammatory disease (CID) and 53 patients with healthy immune systems at Washington University, St. Louis, and the University of California, San Francisco. It is regarded as the largest and most detailed study yet in how vaccines perform in people with immune-mediated inflammatory disease. The patients were enrolled between December 2020 and March 2021, and the most common diseases were inflammatory bowel disease (32%), rheumatoid arthritis (29%), spondyloarthritis (15%), and systemic lupus erythematosus (11%).
 

A ‘modest’ reduction in antibody response

Senior author Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine at Washington University, said the overall results so far are encouraging.

“Most patients with an autoimmune disease that are on immunosuppression can mount antibody responses,” he said. “We’re seeing the majority of our subjects respond.”

The immune-healthy controls and most of the patients with CID had a robust immune response against the spike protein, although the CID group had a mean reduction in antibody titers that was three times lower than the controls (P = .0092). The CID group similarly had a 2.7-fold reduction in preventing neutralization, or halting the virus’ ability to infect (P < .0001), researchers reported.

This reduction in response is “modest,” he said.

“Is the level of reduction going to be detrimental for protection? Time will tell,” he said, adding that researchers anticipate that it won’t have a critical effect on protection because responses tended to be within the range of the immunocompetent controls, who themselves had wildly varied antibody titers across a 20-fold range. “ ‘Optimal’ isn’t necessarily the same as ‘sufficient.’ ”
 

Type of medication has big impact on antibody titers

But there was a wide variety of effects on the immune response depending on the medication. Glucorticoids resulted in a response that was 10 times lower than the immune-healthy controls, as well as fewer circulating plasmablasts after vaccination. Researchers found that 98% of controls were seropositive for antibody, compared with 92% of those with CID who were not taking prednisone, and 65% of CID patients on prednisone (P = .0006 and .0115, respectively). Prevention of neutralization of the virus was similarly reduced in those groups, compared with the controls. Dr. Kim noted this was a small sample size, with about 15 patients. These effects were seen regardless of the dose.

“We would’ve anticipated this would have been dose dependent, so this was a little bit surprising,” Dr. Kim said.

B-cell–depleting therapies, such as rituximab (Rituxan) and ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), reduced antibody titers by 36 times, compared with controls (P < .0001), with a similar reduction in preventing infection (P = .0066), the researchers found. The reduction in antibody titers was the most pronounced among those who had received B-cell–depleting therapies within the previous 6 months. Dr. Kim noted this was a small sample size, with about 10 patients.

CID study subjects taking an antimetabolite, including methotrexate, had an average of a two- to threefold reduction in antibody titers and in neutralization (P = .0006). This reduction was greatest with methotrexate, researchers found (P = .0027).

JAK inhibitors also significantly reduced antibody titers (P = .0066), but the reduction in neutralization of the virus was not significant. In addition, researchers found a reduction in antibody titers, the prevention of viral infection, and circulating plasmablasts among those on tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, compared with controls, but these were insignificant statistically except for virus neutralization.

Dr. Kim said he hopes the glucocorticoid data spur physicians to try harder to wean patients off the drugs, when possible, in keeping with recommendations already in place.

“The general culture in rheumatology has been very lax about the need to reduce glucocorticoids,” he said. “This reinvigorates that call.” Questions about possible drug holidays from glucocorticoids remain, regarding how long a holiday would be needed, he said. He noted that many patients on glucocorticoids nonetheless mounted responses.

Those on B-cell–depleting therapies present a “much more difficult” question, he said. Some patients possibly could wait a bit longer than their normal, every-6-month schedule, but it’s an individual decision, he said. Since a booster of influenza vaccine has been found to enhance the response even within the 6-month window among ocrelizumab patients, a booster of COVID-19 vaccine might also help, although this remains to be studied.

The study group has already increased its sample size and is looking at adverse reactions and long-term immune responses, Dr. Kim said.

Encouraging, rather than discouraging, results

Leonard Calabrese, DO, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, said the findings shouldn’t discourage clinicians from encouraging vaccination.

“There’s still a preponderance of people who will develop a robust antibody vaccine response,” he said.

He cautioned that the findings look only at antibodies to the spike protein and at plasmablasts. The reduction in these titers is “of concern,” he said, but “we don’t really know with certainty what are the effects of these drugs, and these data are on the overall biologic protective effect of the vaccine. There’s much more to a vaccine response than anti–spike protein and plasmablasts,” including cell-mediated immune response.

For an individual patient, the findings “mean a lot,” he said.

“I think that people who are on significant prednisone and B-cell–depleting agents, I think you have to share with them that there’s a reasonable chance that you’re not going to be making a response similar to healthy people,” he said. “Thus, even with your vaccine, we’re not going to cut you loose to do things that are violating social distancing and group settings. … Should you be hugging your grandchildren if you’re a rituximab vaccine recipient? I think I would wait until we have a little bit more data.”

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of ophthalmology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, where he studies vaccinations in the immunocompromised, said that glucocorticoids tend to have little effect on vaccinations generally at low doses.

When effects are seen they can be difficult to interpret, he said.

“It’s hard to extricate that from the effect of the underlying disease,” he said. The drug can be a proxy for worse disease control.

Although it’s a small study, it’s reassuring that overall the responses were similar to healthy controls.

For B-cell–depleting therapies, his usual guidance is to not give vaccine until a patient is at least 3 months out from their last dose, and not to restart until at least 2 weeks after vaccination.

“It’s not surprising that some of these DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] do negatively affect vaccine response, particularly B-cell–depletion therapy. We need to do some studies to find a way to overcome that, or optimize delivery of the vaccine.”

Dr. Kim reported participating in consulting, advisory board, or speaker’s bureau for Alexion, Aurinia, Annexon Biosciences, Exagen Diagnostics, and GlaxoSmithKline, and receiving funding under a sponsored research agreement unrelated to the data in the paper from GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Winthrop reported receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr. Calabrese reported no relevant disclosures.

Although most patients with chronic inflammatory diseases mounted immune responses after two doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, glucocorticoids and B-cell–depleting therapies markedly reduced the response, according to a recently published preprint of a new study.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Getty Images

The study, published on MedRxiv and not yet peer reviewed, involved a prospective look at 133 patients with chronic inflammatory disease (CID) and 53 patients with healthy immune systems at Washington University, St. Louis, and the University of California, San Francisco. It is regarded as the largest and most detailed study yet in how vaccines perform in people with immune-mediated inflammatory disease. The patients were enrolled between December 2020 and March 2021, and the most common diseases were inflammatory bowel disease (32%), rheumatoid arthritis (29%), spondyloarthritis (15%), and systemic lupus erythematosus (11%).
 

A ‘modest’ reduction in antibody response

Senior author Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine at Washington University, said the overall results so far are encouraging.

“Most patients with an autoimmune disease that are on immunosuppression can mount antibody responses,” he said. “We’re seeing the majority of our subjects respond.”

The immune-healthy controls and most of the patients with CID had a robust immune response against the spike protein, although the CID group had a mean reduction in antibody titers that was three times lower than the controls (P = .0092). The CID group similarly had a 2.7-fold reduction in preventing neutralization, or halting the virus’ ability to infect (P < .0001), researchers reported.

This reduction in response is “modest,” he said.

“Is the level of reduction going to be detrimental for protection? Time will tell,” he said, adding that researchers anticipate that it won’t have a critical effect on protection because responses tended to be within the range of the immunocompetent controls, who themselves had wildly varied antibody titers across a 20-fold range. “ ‘Optimal’ isn’t necessarily the same as ‘sufficient.’ ”
 

Type of medication has big impact on antibody titers

But there was a wide variety of effects on the immune response depending on the medication. Glucorticoids resulted in a response that was 10 times lower than the immune-healthy controls, as well as fewer circulating plasmablasts after vaccination. Researchers found that 98% of controls were seropositive for antibody, compared with 92% of those with CID who were not taking prednisone, and 65% of CID patients on prednisone (P = .0006 and .0115, respectively). Prevention of neutralization of the virus was similarly reduced in those groups, compared with the controls. Dr. Kim noted this was a small sample size, with about 15 patients. These effects were seen regardless of the dose.

“We would’ve anticipated this would have been dose dependent, so this was a little bit surprising,” Dr. Kim said.

B-cell–depleting therapies, such as rituximab (Rituxan) and ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), reduced antibody titers by 36 times, compared with controls (P < .0001), with a similar reduction in preventing infection (P = .0066), the researchers found. The reduction in antibody titers was the most pronounced among those who had received B-cell–depleting therapies within the previous 6 months. Dr. Kim noted this was a small sample size, with about 10 patients.

CID study subjects taking an antimetabolite, including methotrexate, had an average of a two- to threefold reduction in antibody titers and in neutralization (P = .0006). This reduction was greatest with methotrexate, researchers found (P = .0027).

JAK inhibitors also significantly reduced antibody titers (P = .0066), but the reduction in neutralization of the virus was not significant. In addition, researchers found a reduction in antibody titers, the prevention of viral infection, and circulating plasmablasts among those on tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, compared with controls, but these were insignificant statistically except for virus neutralization.

Dr. Kim said he hopes the glucocorticoid data spur physicians to try harder to wean patients off the drugs, when possible, in keeping with recommendations already in place.

“The general culture in rheumatology has been very lax about the need to reduce glucocorticoids,” he said. “This reinvigorates that call.” Questions about possible drug holidays from glucocorticoids remain, regarding how long a holiday would be needed, he said. He noted that many patients on glucocorticoids nonetheless mounted responses.

Those on B-cell–depleting therapies present a “much more difficult” question, he said. Some patients possibly could wait a bit longer than their normal, every-6-month schedule, but it’s an individual decision, he said. Since a booster of influenza vaccine has been found to enhance the response even within the 6-month window among ocrelizumab patients, a booster of COVID-19 vaccine might also help, although this remains to be studied.

The study group has already increased its sample size and is looking at adverse reactions and long-term immune responses, Dr. Kim said.

Encouraging, rather than discouraging, results

Leonard Calabrese, DO, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, said the findings shouldn’t discourage clinicians from encouraging vaccination.

“There’s still a preponderance of people who will develop a robust antibody vaccine response,” he said.

He cautioned that the findings look only at antibodies to the spike protein and at plasmablasts. The reduction in these titers is “of concern,” he said, but “we don’t really know with certainty what are the effects of these drugs, and these data are on the overall biologic protective effect of the vaccine. There’s much more to a vaccine response than anti–spike protein and plasmablasts,” including cell-mediated immune response.

For an individual patient, the findings “mean a lot,” he said.

“I think that people who are on significant prednisone and B-cell–depleting agents, I think you have to share with them that there’s a reasonable chance that you’re not going to be making a response similar to healthy people,” he said. “Thus, even with your vaccine, we’re not going to cut you loose to do things that are violating social distancing and group settings. … Should you be hugging your grandchildren if you’re a rituximab vaccine recipient? I think I would wait until we have a little bit more data.”

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of ophthalmology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, where he studies vaccinations in the immunocompromised, said that glucocorticoids tend to have little effect on vaccinations generally at low doses.

When effects are seen they can be difficult to interpret, he said.

“It’s hard to extricate that from the effect of the underlying disease,” he said. The drug can be a proxy for worse disease control.

Although it’s a small study, it’s reassuring that overall the responses were similar to healthy controls.

For B-cell–depleting therapies, his usual guidance is to not give vaccine until a patient is at least 3 months out from their last dose, and not to restart until at least 2 weeks after vaccination.

“It’s not surprising that some of these DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] do negatively affect vaccine response, particularly B-cell–depletion therapy. We need to do some studies to find a way to overcome that, or optimize delivery of the vaccine.”

Dr. Kim reported participating in consulting, advisory board, or speaker’s bureau for Alexion, Aurinia, Annexon Biosciences, Exagen Diagnostics, and GlaxoSmithKline, and receiving funding under a sponsored research agreement unrelated to the data in the paper from GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Winthrop reported receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr. Calabrese reported no relevant disclosures.

Although most patients with chronic inflammatory diseases mounted immune responses after two doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, glucocorticoids and B-cell–depleting therapies markedly reduced the response, according to a recently published preprint of a new study.

Mongkolchon Akesin/Getty Images

The study, published on MedRxiv and not yet peer reviewed, involved a prospective look at 133 patients with chronic inflammatory disease (CID) and 53 patients with healthy immune systems at Washington University, St. Louis, and the University of California, San Francisco. It is regarded as the largest and most detailed study yet in how vaccines perform in people with immune-mediated inflammatory disease. The patients were enrolled between December 2020 and March 2021, and the most common diseases were inflammatory bowel disease (32%), rheumatoid arthritis (29%), spondyloarthritis (15%), and systemic lupus erythematosus (11%).
 

A ‘modest’ reduction in antibody response

Senior author Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine at Washington University, said the overall results so far are encouraging.

“Most patients with an autoimmune disease that are on immunosuppression can mount antibody responses,” he said. “We’re seeing the majority of our subjects respond.”

The immune-healthy controls and most of the patients with CID had a robust immune response against the spike protein, although the CID group had a mean reduction in antibody titers that was three times lower than the controls (P = .0092). The CID group similarly had a 2.7-fold reduction in preventing neutralization, or halting the virus’ ability to infect (P < .0001), researchers reported.

This reduction in response is “modest,” he said.

“Is the level of reduction going to be detrimental for protection? Time will tell,” he said, adding that researchers anticipate that it won’t have a critical effect on protection because responses tended to be within the range of the immunocompetent controls, who themselves had wildly varied antibody titers across a 20-fold range. “ ‘Optimal’ isn’t necessarily the same as ‘sufficient.’ ”
 

Type of medication has big impact on antibody titers

But there was a wide variety of effects on the immune response depending on the medication. Glucorticoids resulted in a response that was 10 times lower than the immune-healthy controls, as well as fewer circulating plasmablasts after vaccination. Researchers found that 98% of controls were seropositive for antibody, compared with 92% of those with CID who were not taking prednisone, and 65% of CID patients on prednisone (P = .0006 and .0115, respectively). Prevention of neutralization of the virus was similarly reduced in those groups, compared with the controls. Dr. Kim noted this was a small sample size, with about 15 patients. These effects were seen regardless of the dose.

“We would’ve anticipated this would have been dose dependent, so this was a little bit surprising,” Dr. Kim said.

B-cell–depleting therapies, such as rituximab (Rituxan) and ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), reduced antibody titers by 36 times, compared with controls (P < .0001), with a similar reduction in preventing infection (P = .0066), the researchers found. The reduction in antibody titers was the most pronounced among those who had received B-cell–depleting therapies within the previous 6 months. Dr. Kim noted this was a small sample size, with about 10 patients.

CID study subjects taking an antimetabolite, including methotrexate, had an average of a two- to threefold reduction in antibody titers and in neutralization (P = .0006). This reduction was greatest with methotrexate, researchers found (P = .0027).

JAK inhibitors also significantly reduced antibody titers (P = .0066), but the reduction in neutralization of the virus was not significant. In addition, researchers found a reduction in antibody titers, the prevention of viral infection, and circulating plasmablasts among those on tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, compared with controls, but these were insignificant statistically except for virus neutralization.

Dr. Kim said he hopes the glucocorticoid data spur physicians to try harder to wean patients off the drugs, when possible, in keeping with recommendations already in place.

“The general culture in rheumatology has been very lax about the need to reduce glucocorticoids,” he said. “This reinvigorates that call.” Questions about possible drug holidays from glucocorticoids remain, regarding how long a holiday would be needed, he said. He noted that many patients on glucocorticoids nonetheless mounted responses.

Those on B-cell–depleting therapies present a “much more difficult” question, he said. Some patients possibly could wait a bit longer than their normal, every-6-month schedule, but it’s an individual decision, he said. Since a booster of influenza vaccine has been found to enhance the response even within the 6-month window among ocrelizumab patients, a booster of COVID-19 vaccine might also help, although this remains to be studied.

The study group has already increased its sample size and is looking at adverse reactions and long-term immune responses, Dr. Kim said.

Encouraging, rather than discouraging, results

Leonard Calabrese, DO, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, said the findings shouldn’t discourage clinicians from encouraging vaccination.

“There’s still a preponderance of people who will develop a robust antibody vaccine response,” he said.

He cautioned that the findings look only at antibodies to the spike protein and at plasmablasts. The reduction in these titers is “of concern,” he said, but “we don’t really know with certainty what are the effects of these drugs, and these data are on the overall biologic protective effect of the vaccine. There’s much more to a vaccine response than anti–spike protein and plasmablasts,” including cell-mediated immune response.

For an individual patient, the findings “mean a lot,” he said.

“I think that people who are on significant prednisone and B-cell–depleting agents, I think you have to share with them that there’s a reasonable chance that you’re not going to be making a response similar to healthy people,” he said. “Thus, even with your vaccine, we’re not going to cut you loose to do things that are violating social distancing and group settings. … Should you be hugging your grandchildren if you’re a rituximab vaccine recipient? I think I would wait until we have a little bit more data.”

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of ophthalmology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, where he studies vaccinations in the immunocompromised, said that glucocorticoids tend to have little effect on vaccinations generally at low doses.

When effects are seen they can be difficult to interpret, he said.

“It’s hard to extricate that from the effect of the underlying disease,” he said. The drug can be a proxy for worse disease control.

Although it’s a small study, it’s reassuring that overall the responses were similar to healthy controls.

For B-cell–depleting therapies, his usual guidance is to not give vaccine until a patient is at least 3 months out from their last dose, and not to restart until at least 2 weeks after vaccination.

“It’s not surprising that some of these DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] do negatively affect vaccine response, particularly B-cell–depletion therapy. We need to do some studies to find a way to overcome that, or optimize delivery of the vaccine.”

Dr. Kim reported participating in consulting, advisory board, or speaker’s bureau for Alexion, Aurinia, Annexon Biosciences, Exagen Diagnostics, and GlaxoSmithKline, and receiving funding under a sponsored research agreement unrelated to the data in the paper from GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Winthrop reported receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Regeneron, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr. Calabrese reported no relevant disclosures.

Bovine meat and milk factors (BMMF), the recently discovered pathogenic agents found in milk products and beef, could play a role in the development of colorectal cancer, say German scientists.

The team was headed by Harald zur Hausen, MD, PhD, division of episomal-persistent DNA in cancer and chronic diseases, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, who received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2008 for his discovery of the role of human papillomaviruses in the development of cervical cancer.

The team has been researching the link between BMMF and colorectal cancer for some years, and the latest study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“The results support our hypothesis that the consumption of milk and beef is causally linked to the development of colon cancer,” Dr. Hausen said in a related press statement.
 

Pathogenic agents, found in vicinity of tumors

BMMF are infectious agents that occur as circular single strands of DNA and have a notable similarity to the sequences of some bacterial plasmids.

A few years ago, Dr. Hausen and colleagues found these pathogenic agents in colon cancer patients, in the immediate vicinity of tumors.

They therefore put forward the hypothesis that BMMF could trigger chronic local inflammation, which in turn could cause genetic mutations via oxidative stress and lead to the development of cancer over the long term.

The German researchers were also able to show in in vitro models that BMMF multiply in human cells where the H1MSB.1 Rep protein, which is required for their replication, is synthesized.

In their latest study, the scientists analyzed tissue samples from colorectal cancer patients and from individuals without the disease.

The team found that BMMF could trigger chronic inflammation in the intestinal tissue of cancer patients, as demonstrated via the presence of proinflammatory macrophages.

The researchers also used anti-Rep antibodies to show that the Rep protein was present around and inside the macrophages. In cancer patients, 7.3% of all the intestinal cells in the tumor environment were positive for Rep versus just 1.7% of those in the control group.

In addition, the researchers reported increased levels of reactive oxygen species close to Rep-positive cells.

“These oxygen radicals promote the development of genetic changes,” Dr. Hausen said.

The inflammation was particularly localized to the immediate vicinity of the intestinal crypts, where the intestinal stem cells, which are responsible for the constant regeneration of the intestinal mucosa, are found.

“We therefore think of the BMMF as indirect carcinogens, some of which will probably have an impact on dividing cells in the intestinal mucosa for decades,” Dr. Hausen explained.

He assumes that infection with BMMF typically occurs early in life. This “opens up the possibility of early intervention,” he suggested.

The early detection of BMMF could allow the identification of individuals particularly at risk, and for these patients to be offered timely colon cancer screening.

The researchers stressed, however, that further study will be required to confirm the results.

They nevertheless believed that BMMF could help explain the link between the consumption of red meat and dairy products and other cancers and diseases, in particular breast, prostate, and lung cancers.

Finally, the pathogenic agents could partially explain the preventive effect of anti-inflammatory dugs such as aspirin and ibuprofen on the incidence of colon cancer and other cancers via the reduction of chronic inflammation.

This work was supported by an unrestricted grant from ORYX Alpha. One coauthor was supported by the EOS Foundation, the SFBTR-179 and 209, and a European Research Council consolidator grant. The other coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bovine meat and milk factors (BMMF), the recently discovered pathogenic agents found in milk products and beef, could play a role in the development of colorectal cancer, say German scientists.

The team was headed by Harald zur Hausen, MD, PhD, division of episomal-persistent DNA in cancer and chronic diseases, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, who received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2008 for his discovery of the role of human papillomaviruses in the development of cervical cancer.

The team has been researching the link between BMMF and colorectal cancer for some years, and the latest study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“The results support our hypothesis that the consumption of milk and beef is causally linked to the development of colon cancer,” Dr. Hausen said in a related press statement.
 

Pathogenic agents, found in vicinity of tumors

BMMF are infectious agents that occur as circular single strands of DNA and have a notable similarity to the sequences of some bacterial plasmids.

A few years ago, Dr. Hausen and colleagues found these pathogenic agents in colon cancer patients, in the immediate vicinity of tumors.

They therefore put forward the hypothesis that BMMF could trigger chronic local inflammation, which in turn could cause genetic mutations via oxidative stress and lead to the development of cancer over the long term.

The German researchers were also able to show in in vitro models that BMMF multiply in human cells where the H1MSB.1 Rep protein, which is required for their replication, is synthesized.

In their latest study, the scientists analyzed tissue samples from colorectal cancer patients and from individuals without the disease.

The team found that BMMF could trigger chronic inflammation in the intestinal tissue of cancer patients, as demonstrated via the presence of proinflammatory macrophages.

The researchers also used anti-Rep antibodies to show that the Rep protein was present around and inside the macrophages. In cancer patients, 7.3% of all the intestinal cells in the tumor environment were positive for Rep versus just 1.7% of those in the control group.

In addition, the researchers reported increased levels of reactive oxygen species close to Rep-positive cells.

“These oxygen radicals promote the development of genetic changes,” Dr. Hausen said.

The inflammation was particularly localized to the immediate vicinity of the intestinal crypts, where the intestinal stem cells, which are responsible for the constant regeneration of the intestinal mucosa, are found.

“We therefore think of the BMMF as indirect carcinogens, some of which will probably have an impact on dividing cells in the intestinal mucosa for decades,” Dr. Hausen explained.

He assumes that infection with BMMF typically occurs early in life. This “opens up the possibility of early intervention,” he suggested.

The early detection of BMMF could allow the identification of individuals particularly at risk, and for these patients to be offered timely colon cancer screening.

The researchers stressed, however, that further study will be required to confirm the results.

They nevertheless believed that BMMF could help explain the link between the consumption of red meat and dairy products and other cancers and diseases, in particular breast, prostate, and lung cancers.

Finally, the pathogenic agents could partially explain the preventive effect of anti-inflammatory dugs such as aspirin and ibuprofen on the incidence of colon cancer and other cancers via the reduction of chronic inflammation.

This work was supported by an unrestricted grant from ORYX Alpha. One coauthor was supported by the EOS Foundation, the SFBTR-179 and 209, and a European Research Council consolidator grant. The other coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bovine meat and milk factors (BMMF), the recently discovered pathogenic agents found in milk products and beef, could play a role in the development of colorectal cancer, say German scientists.

The team was headed by Harald zur Hausen, MD, PhD, division of episomal-persistent DNA in cancer and chronic diseases, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, who received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2008 for his discovery of the role of human papillomaviruses in the development of cervical cancer.

The team has been researching the link between BMMF and colorectal cancer for some years, and the latest study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“The results support our hypothesis that the consumption of milk and beef is causally linked to the development of colon cancer,” Dr. Hausen said in a related press statement.
 

Pathogenic agents, found in vicinity of tumors

BMMF are infectious agents that occur as circular single strands of DNA and have a notable similarity to the sequences of some bacterial plasmids.

A few years ago, Dr. Hausen and colleagues found these pathogenic agents in colon cancer patients, in the immediate vicinity of tumors.

They therefore put forward the hypothesis that BMMF could trigger chronic local inflammation, which in turn could cause genetic mutations via oxidative stress and lead to the development of cancer over the long term.

The German researchers were also able to show in in vitro models that BMMF multiply in human cells where the H1MSB.1 Rep protein, which is required for their replication, is synthesized.

In their latest study, the scientists analyzed tissue samples from colorectal cancer patients and from individuals without the disease.

The team found that BMMF could trigger chronic inflammation in the intestinal tissue of cancer patients, as demonstrated via the presence of proinflammatory macrophages.

The researchers also used anti-Rep antibodies to show that the Rep protein was present around and inside the macrophages. In cancer patients, 7.3% of all the intestinal cells in the tumor environment were positive for Rep versus just 1.7% of those in the control group.

In addition, the researchers reported increased levels of reactive oxygen species close to Rep-positive cells.

“These oxygen radicals promote the development of genetic changes,” Dr. Hausen said.

The inflammation was particularly localized to the immediate vicinity of the intestinal crypts, where the intestinal stem cells, which are responsible for the constant regeneration of the intestinal mucosa, are found.

“We therefore think of the BMMF as indirect carcinogens, some of which will probably have an impact on dividing cells in the intestinal mucosa for decades,” Dr. Hausen explained.

He assumes that infection with BMMF typically occurs early in life. This “opens up the possibility of early intervention,” he suggested.

The early detection of BMMF could allow the identification of individuals particularly at risk, and for these patients to be offered timely colon cancer screening.

The researchers stressed, however, that further study will be required to confirm the results.

They nevertheless believed that BMMF could help explain the link between the consumption of red meat and dairy products and other cancers and diseases, in particular breast, prostate, and lung cancers.

Finally, the pathogenic agents could partially explain the preventive effect of anti-inflammatory dugs such as aspirin and ibuprofen on the incidence of colon cancer and other cancers via the reduction of chronic inflammation.

This work was supported by an unrestricted grant from ORYX Alpha. One coauthor was supported by the EOS Foundation, the SFBTR-179 and 209, and a European Research Council consolidator grant. The other coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The scientific evidence for airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from different researchers all point in the same direction – that infectious aerosols are the principal means of person-to-person transmission, according to experts.

Not that it’s without controversy.

The science backing aerosol transmission “is clear-cut, but it is not accepted in many circles,” Trisha Greenhalgh, PhD, said in an interview.

“In particular, some in the evidence-based medicine movement and some infectious diseases clinicians are remarkably resistant to the evidence,” added Dr. Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England).

“It’s very hard to see why, since the evidence all stacks up,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“The scientific evidence on spread from both near-field and far-field aerosols has been clear since early on in the pandemic, but there was resistance to acknowledging this in some circles, including the medical journals,” Joseph G. Allen, DSc, MPH, told this news organization when asked to comment.

“This is the week the dam broke. Three new commentaries came out … in top medical journals – BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA – all making the same point that aerosols are the dominant mode of transmission,” added Dr. Allen, associate professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues point to an increase in COVID-19 cases in the aftermath of so-called “super-spreader” events, spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people across different hotel rooms, and the relatively lower transmission detected after outdoor events.
 

Top 10 reasons

They outlined 10 scientific reasons backing airborne transmission in a commentary published online April 15 in The Lancet:

• The dominance of airborne transmission is supported by long-range transmission observed at super-spreader events.
• Long-range transmission has been reported among rooms at COVID-19 quarantine hotels, settings where infected people never spent time in the same room.
• Asymptomatic individuals account for an estimated 33%-59% of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and could be spreading the virus through speaking, which produces thousands of aerosol particles and few large droplets.
• Transmission outdoors and in well-ventilated indoor spaces is lower than in enclosed spaces.
• Nosocomial infections are reported in health care settings where protective measures address large droplets but not aerosols.
• Viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air of hospital rooms and in the car of an infected person.
• Investigators found SARS-CoV-2 in hospital air filters and building ducts.
• It’s not just humans – infected animals can infect animals in other cages connected only through an air duct.
• No strong evidence refutes airborne transmission, and contact tracing supports secondary transmission in crowded, poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
• Only limited evidence supports other means of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including through fomites or large droplets.

“We thought we’d summarize [the evidence] to clarify the arguments for and against. We looked hard for evidence against but found none,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“Although other routes can contribute, we believe that the airborne route is likely to be dominant,” the authors note.

The evidence on airborne transmission was there very early on but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and others repeated the message that the primary concern was droplets and fomites.
 

Response to a review

The top 10 list is also part rebuttal of a systematic review funded by the WHO and published last month that points to inconclusive evidence for airborne transmission. The researchers involved with that review state that “the lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission.”

However, Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues note that “this conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review’s findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.”

The current authors also argue that enough evidence already exists on airborne transmission. “Policy should change. We don’t need more research on this topic; we need different policy,” Dr. Greenhalgh said. “We need ventilation front and center, air filtration when necessary, and better-fitting masks worn whenever indoors.”

Dr. Allen agreed that guidance hasn’t always kept pace with the science. “With all of the new evidence accumulated on airborne transmission since last winter, there is still widespread confusion in the public about modes of transmission,” he said. Dr. Allen also serves as commissioner of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission and is chair of the commission’s Task Force on Safe Work, Safe Schools, and Safe Travel.

“It was only just last week that CDC pulled back on guidance on ‘deep cleaning’ and in its place correctly said that the risk from touching surfaces is low,” he added. “The science has been clear on this for over a year, but official guidance was only recently updated.”

As a result, many companies and organizations continued to focus on “hygiene theatre,” Dr. Allen said, “wasting resources on overcleaning surfaces. Unbelievably, many schools still close for an entire day each week for deep cleaning and some still quarantine library books. The message that shared air is the problem, not shared surfaces, is a message that still needs to be reinforced.”

The National Institute for Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council, and Wellcome support Dr. Greenhalgh’s research. Dr. Greenhalgh and Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

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

The scientific evidence for airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from different researchers all point in the same direction – that infectious aerosols are the principal means of person-to-person transmission, according to experts.

Not that it’s without controversy.

The science backing aerosol transmission “is clear-cut, but it is not accepted in many circles,” Trisha Greenhalgh, PhD, said in an interview.

“In particular, some in the evidence-based medicine movement and some infectious diseases clinicians are remarkably resistant to the evidence,” added Dr. Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England).

“It’s very hard to see why, since the evidence all stacks up,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“The scientific evidence on spread from both near-field and far-field aerosols has been clear since early on in the pandemic, but there was resistance to acknowledging this in some circles, including the medical journals,” Joseph G. Allen, DSc, MPH, told this news organization when asked to comment.

“This is the week the dam broke. Three new commentaries came out … in top medical journals – BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA – all making the same point that aerosols are the dominant mode of transmission,” added Dr. Allen, associate professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues point to an increase in COVID-19 cases in the aftermath of so-called “super-spreader” events, spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people across different hotel rooms, and the relatively lower transmission detected after outdoor events.
 

Top 10 reasons

They outlined 10 scientific reasons backing airborne transmission in a commentary published online April 15 in The Lancet:

• The dominance of airborne transmission is supported by long-range transmission observed at super-spreader events.
• Long-range transmission has been reported among rooms at COVID-19 quarantine hotels, settings where infected people never spent time in the same room.
• Asymptomatic individuals account for an estimated 33%-59% of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and could be spreading the virus through speaking, which produces thousands of aerosol particles and few large droplets.
• Transmission outdoors and in well-ventilated indoor spaces is lower than in enclosed spaces.
• Nosocomial infections are reported in health care settings where protective measures address large droplets but not aerosols.
• Viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air of hospital rooms and in the car of an infected person.
• Investigators found SARS-CoV-2 in hospital air filters and building ducts.
• It’s not just humans – infected animals can infect animals in other cages connected only through an air duct.
• No strong evidence refutes airborne transmission, and contact tracing supports secondary transmission in crowded, poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
• Only limited evidence supports other means of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including through fomites or large droplets.

“We thought we’d summarize [the evidence] to clarify the arguments for and against. We looked hard for evidence against but found none,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“Although other routes can contribute, we believe that the airborne route is likely to be dominant,” the authors note.

The evidence on airborne transmission was there very early on but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and others repeated the message that the primary concern was droplets and fomites.
 

Response to a review

The top 10 list is also part rebuttal of a systematic review funded by the WHO and published last month that points to inconclusive evidence for airborne transmission. The researchers involved with that review state that “the lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission.”

However, Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues note that “this conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review’s findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.”

The current authors also argue that enough evidence already exists on airborne transmission. “Policy should change. We don’t need more research on this topic; we need different policy,” Dr. Greenhalgh said. “We need ventilation front and center, air filtration when necessary, and better-fitting masks worn whenever indoors.”

Dr. Allen agreed that guidance hasn’t always kept pace with the science. “With all of the new evidence accumulated on airborne transmission since last winter, there is still widespread confusion in the public about modes of transmission,” he said. Dr. Allen also serves as commissioner of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission and is chair of the commission’s Task Force on Safe Work, Safe Schools, and Safe Travel.

“It was only just last week that CDC pulled back on guidance on ‘deep cleaning’ and in its place correctly said that the risk from touching surfaces is low,” he added. “The science has been clear on this for over a year, but official guidance was only recently updated.”

As a result, many companies and organizations continued to focus on “hygiene theatre,” Dr. Allen said, “wasting resources on overcleaning surfaces. Unbelievably, many schools still close for an entire day each week for deep cleaning and some still quarantine library books. The message that shared air is the problem, not shared surfaces, is a message that still needs to be reinforced.”

The National Institute for Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council, and Wellcome support Dr. Greenhalgh’s research. Dr. Greenhalgh and Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

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

The scientific evidence for airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from different researchers all point in the same direction – that infectious aerosols are the principal means of person-to-person transmission, according to experts.

Not that it’s without controversy.

The science backing aerosol transmission “is clear-cut, but it is not accepted in many circles,” Trisha Greenhalgh, PhD, said in an interview.

“In particular, some in the evidence-based medicine movement and some infectious diseases clinicians are remarkably resistant to the evidence,” added Dr. Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England).

“It’s very hard to see why, since the evidence all stacks up,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“The scientific evidence on spread from both near-field and far-field aerosols has been clear since early on in the pandemic, but there was resistance to acknowledging this in some circles, including the medical journals,” Joseph G. Allen, DSc, MPH, told this news organization when asked to comment.

“This is the week the dam broke. Three new commentaries came out … in top medical journals – BMJ, The Lancet, JAMA – all making the same point that aerosols are the dominant mode of transmission,” added Dr. Allen, associate professor of exposure assessment science at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues point to an increase in COVID-19 cases in the aftermath of so-called “super-spreader” events, spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people across different hotel rooms, and the relatively lower transmission detected after outdoor events.
 

Top 10 reasons

They outlined 10 scientific reasons backing airborne transmission in a commentary published online April 15 in The Lancet:

• The dominance of airborne transmission is supported by long-range transmission observed at super-spreader events.
• Long-range transmission has been reported among rooms at COVID-19 quarantine hotels, settings where infected people never spent time in the same room.
• Asymptomatic individuals account for an estimated 33%-59% of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and could be spreading the virus through speaking, which produces thousands of aerosol particles and few large droplets.
• Transmission outdoors and in well-ventilated indoor spaces is lower than in enclosed spaces.
• Nosocomial infections are reported in health care settings where protective measures address large droplets but not aerosols.
• Viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air of hospital rooms and in the car of an infected person.
• Investigators found SARS-CoV-2 in hospital air filters and building ducts.
• It’s not just humans – infected animals can infect animals in other cages connected only through an air duct.
• No strong evidence refutes airborne transmission, and contact tracing supports secondary transmission in crowded, poorly ventilated indoor spaces.
• Only limited evidence supports other means of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including through fomites or large droplets.

“We thought we’d summarize [the evidence] to clarify the arguments for and against. We looked hard for evidence against but found none,” Dr. Greenhalgh said.

“Although other routes can contribute, we believe that the airborne route is likely to be dominant,” the authors note.

The evidence on airborne transmission was there very early on but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, World Health Organization, and others repeated the message that the primary concern was droplets and fomites.
 

Response to a review

The top 10 list is also part rebuttal of a systematic review funded by the WHO and published last month that points to inconclusive evidence for airborne transmission. The researchers involved with that review state that “the lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission.”

However, Dr. Greenhalgh and colleagues note that “this conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review’s findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.”

The current authors also argue that enough evidence already exists on airborne transmission. “Policy should change. We don’t need more research on this topic; we need different policy,” Dr. Greenhalgh said. “We need ventilation front and center, air filtration when necessary, and better-fitting masks worn whenever indoors.”

Dr. Allen agreed that guidance hasn’t always kept pace with the science. “With all of the new evidence accumulated on airborne transmission since last winter, there is still widespread confusion in the public about modes of transmission,” he said. Dr. Allen also serves as commissioner of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission and is chair of the commission’s Task Force on Safe Work, Safe Schools, and Safe Travel.

“It was only just last week that CDC pulled back on guidance on ‘deep cleaning’ and in its place correctly said that the risk from touching surfaces is low,” he added. “The science has been clear on this for over a year, but official guidance was only recently updated.”

As a result, many companies and organizations continued to focus on “hygiene theatre,” Dr. Allen said, “wasting resources on overcleaning surfaces. Unbelievably, many schools still close for an entire day each week for deep cleaning and some still quarantine library books. The message that shared air is the problem, not shared surfaces, is a message that still needs to be reinforced.”

The National Institute for Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council, and Wellcome support Dr. Greenhalgh’s research. Dr. Greenhalgh and Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

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