Federal Practitioner

Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.

MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.

MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Growing interest

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in the potential of MDMA for the treatment of PTSD, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.

The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.

In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.

The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.

Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
 

‘Dramatic improvement’

Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.

The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.

Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”

Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”

In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
 

Carefully controlled

Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.

In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.

Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.

There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.

The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”

However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
 

‘On the right track’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”

“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.

He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”

The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.

The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.

MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.

MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Growing interest

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in the potential of MDMA for the treatment of PTSD, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.

The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.

In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.

The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.

Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
 

‘Dramatic improvement’

Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.

The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.

Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”

Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”

In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
 

Carefully controlled

Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.

In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.

Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.

There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.

The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”

However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
 

‘On the right track’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”

“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.

He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”

The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.

The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.

MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.

MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Growing interest

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in the potential of MDMA for the treatment of PTSD, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.

The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.

In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.

The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.

Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
 

‘Dramatic improvement’

Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.

The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.

Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”

Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”

In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
 

Carefully controlled

Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.

In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.

Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.

There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.

The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”

However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
 

‘On the right track’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”

“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.

He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”

The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.

The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID vaccines do not work well for patients with hematologic malignancies, new data suggest.

A small study involving 67 such patients shows that nearly half did not produce antibodies and were therefore still at risk of contracting COVID-19, even though they had all received both doses of one of the new mRNA COVID vaccines (Moderna or Pfizer).

“[This] is in stark contrast with the results of phase 1 mRNA vaccine immunogenicity trials, in which robust antibody responses were seen in essentially 100% of participants,” said the authors, led by Mounzer Agha, MD, director of the Mario Lemieux Center for Blood Cancers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center.

“Clinicians caring for patients with hematological malignancies and other immunocompromising conditions should be aware of the possibility of COVID-19 vaccine failure,” they emphasized.

“It’s critically important for these patients to be aware of their continued risk [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] and to seek prompt medical attention if they have COVID-19 symptoms, even after vaccination,” Dr. Agha said in a statement.

The study was published online on April 9 as preprint in medRxiv and has not yet undergone peer review.


 

Antibody responses

The authors analyzed responses in a group of 67 patients who had a hematologic malignancy, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Approximately 45% of the patients were receiving therapy for their cancer at the time of vaccination; the rest were under observation.

All patients received two doses of an mRNA COVID vaccine and so were considered to be fully vaccinated.

Antibody responses for these fully vaccinated patients were then analyzed. The median duration between receipt of the second dose of the vaccine and the antibody test was 23 days.

“In total ... 46.3% ... had a negative antibody result after vaccination and were therefore considered to be vaccine nonresponders,” the authors reported.

The worst responses occurred in patients with CLL, of whom only 23% produced measurable antibodies to either vaccine, although approximately 70% of these patients were not receiving any form of cancer therapy at the time of vaccination.

Older patients were more likely not to have a response to either vaccine compared with younger patients, the investigators added.

In contrast, gender, immunoglobulin G levels, the number of days between the second dose and the measurement of antibodies, and status of cancer therapy did not differ among patients who had a response to the vaccines and those who did not.

“Our findings underscore the importance of adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent COVID-19 in hematological malignancy patients,” the authors wrote. This is particularly important, given the fact that among patients with hematologic malignancies who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the mortality rate is in excess of 30%.

Moreover, among such patients, viral shedding may be prolonged, often lasting several months. As such, “these patients should be advised to wear masks and observe social distancing regardless of vaccination status,” the investigators advised.

As of March 2021, guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has allowed gatherings of unmasked people who have been vaccinated and of those at low risk for COVID-19 who have not yet been vaccinated. “As we see more national guidance allowing for unmasked gatherings among vaccinated people, clinicians should counsel their immunocompromised patients about the possibility that COVID-19 vaccines may not fully protect them against SARS-CoV-2,” coauthor Ghady Haidar, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, said in a statement.

“Our results show that the odds of the vaccine producing an antibody response in people with hematologic malignancies are the equivalent of a coin flip,” he said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

COVID vaccines do not work well for patients with hematologic malignancies, new data suggest.

A small study involving 67 such patients shows that nearly half did not produce antibodies and were therefore still at risk of contracting COVID-19, even though they had all received both doses of one of the new mRNA COVID vaccines (Moderna or Pfizer).

“[This] is in stark contrast with the results of phase 1 mRNA vaccine immunogenicity trials, in which robust antibody responses were seen in essentially 100% of participants,” said the authors, led by Mounzer Agha, MD, director of the Mario Lemieux Center for Blood Cancers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center.

“Clinicians caring for patients with hematological malignancies and other immunocompromising conditions should be aware of the possibility of COVID-19 vaccine failure,” they emphasized.

“It’s critically important for these patients to be aware of their continued risk [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] and to seek prompt medical attention if they have COVID-19 symptoms, even after vaccination,” Dr. Agha said in a statement.

The study was published online on April 9 as preprint in medRxiv and has not yet undergone peer review.


 

Antibody responses

The authors analyzed responses in a group of 67 patients who had a hematologic malignancy, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Approximately 45% of the patients were receiving therapy for their cancer at the time of vaccination; the rest were under observation.

All patients received two doses of an mRNA COVID vaccine and so were considered to be fully vaccinated.

Antibody responses for these fully vaccinated patients were then analyzed. The median duration between receipt of the second dose of the vaccine and the antibody test was 23 days.

“In total ... 46.3% ... had a negative antibody result after vaccination and were therefore considered to be vaccine nonresponders,” the authors reported.

The worst responses occurred in patients with CLL, of whom only 23% produced measurable antibodies to either vaccine, although approximately 70% of these patients were not receiving any form of cancer therapy at the time of vaccination.

Older patients were more likely not to have a response to either vaccine compared with younger patients, the investigators added.

In contrast, gender, immunoglobulin G levels, the number of days between the second dose and the measurement of antibodies, and status of cancer therapy did not differ among patients who had a response to the vaccines and those who did not.

“Our findings underscore the importance of adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent COVID-19 in hematological malignancy patients,” the authors wrote. This is particularly important, given the fact that among patients with hematologic malignancies who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the mortality rate is in excess of 30%.

Moreover, among such patients, viral shedding may be prolonged, often lasting several months. As such, “these patients should be advised to wear masks and observe social distancing regardless of vaccination status,” the investigators advised.

As of March 2021, guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has allowed gatherings of unmasked people who have been vaccinated and of those at low risk for COVID-19 who have not yet been vaccinated. “As we see more national guidance allowing for unmasked gatherings among vaccinated people, clinicians should counsel their immunocompromised patients about the possibility that COVID-19 vaccines may not fully protect them against SARS-CoV-2,” coauthor Ghady Haidar, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, said in a statement.

“Our results show that the odds of the vaccine producing an antibody response in people with hematologic malignancies are the equivalent of a coin flip,” he said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

COVID vaccines do not work well for patients with hematologic malignancies, new data suggest.

A small study involving 67 such patients shows that nearly half did not produce antibodies and were therefore still at risk of contracting COVID-19, even though they had all received both doses of one of the new mRNA COVID vaccines (Moderna or Pfizer).

“[This] is in stark contrast with the results of phase 1 mRNA vaccine immunogenicity trials, in which robust antibody responses were seen in essentially 100% of participants,” said the authors, led by Mounzer Agha, MD, director of the Mario Lemieux Center for Blood Cancers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Hillman Cancer Center.

“Clinicians caring for patients with hematological malignancies and other immunocompromising conditions should be aware of the possibility of COVID-19 vaccine failure,” they emphasized.

“It’s critically important for these patients to be aware of their continued risk [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] and to seek prompt medical attention if they have COVID-19 symptoms, even after vaccination,” Dr. Agha said in a statement.

The study was published online on April 9 as preprint in medRxiv and has not yet undergone peer review.


 

Antibody responses

The authors analyzed responses in a group of 67 patients who had a hematologic malignancy, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Approximately 45% of the patients were receiving therapy for their cancer at the time of vaccination; the rest were under observation.

All patients received two doses of an mRNA COVID vaccine and so were considered to be fully vaccinated.

Antibody responses for these fully vaccinated patients were then analyzed. The median duration between receipt of the second dose of the vaccine and the antibody test was 23 days.

“In total ... 46.3% ... had a negative antibody result after vaccination and were therefore considered to be vaccine nonresponders,” the authors reported.

The worst responses occurred in patients with CLL, of whom only 23% produced measurable antibodies to either vaccine, although approximately 70% of these patients were not receiving any form of cancer therapy at the time of vaccination.

Older patients were more likely not to have a response to either vaccine compared with younger patients, the investigators added.

In contrast, gender, immunoglobulin G levels, the number of days between the second dose and the measurement of antibodies, and status of cancer therapy did not differ among patients who had a response to the vaccines and those who did not.

“Our findings underscore the importance of adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions to prevent COVID-19 in hematological malignancy patients,” the authors wrote. This is particularly important, given the fact that among patients with hematologic malignancies who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, the mortality rate is in excess of 30%.

Moreover, among such patients, viral shedding may be prolonged, often lasting several months. As such, “these patients should be advised to wear masks and observe social distancing regardless of vaccination status,” the investigators advised.

As of March 2021, guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has allowed gatherings of unmasked people who have been vaccinated and of those at low risk for COVID-19 who have not yet been vaccinated. “As we see more national guidance allowing for unmasked gatherings among vaccinated people, clinicians should counsel their immunocompromised patients about the possibility that COVID-19 vaccines may not fully protect them against SARS-CoV-2,” coauthor Ghady Haidar, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, said in a statement.

“Our results show that the odds of the vaccine producing an antibody response in people with hematologic malignancies are the equivalent of a coin flip,” he said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Two recent articles in the medical literature provide new information on mucocutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children, which may help guide dermatologists in making accurate diagnoses and stratifying children at risk for serious, systemic illness due to the virus.

In a single-center descriptive study carried out over a 9-month period, researchers in Madrid found that of 50 hospitalized children infected with COVID-19, 21 (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly exanthem, followed by conjunctival hyperemia without secretion and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue. In addition, 18 (36%) fulfilled criteria for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C).

“Based on findings in adult patients, the skin manifestations of COVID-19 have been classified under five categories: acral pseudo-chilblain, vesicular eruptions, urticarial lesions, maculopapular eruptions, and livedo or necrosis,” David Andina-Martinez, MD, of Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, Madrid, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online on April 2 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Chilblain lesions in healthy children and adolescents have received much attention; these lesions resolve without complications after a few weeks,” they added. “Besides, other cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children have been the matter of case reports or small case series. Nevertheless, the mucocutaneous manifestations in hospitalized children infected with SARS-CoV-2 and their implications on the clinical course have not yet been extensively described.”

In an effort to describe the mucocutaneous manifestations in children hospitalized for COVID-19, the researchers evaluated 50 children up to 18 years of age who were admitted between March 1 and Nov. 30, 2020, to Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, which was designated as a pediatric reference center during the peak of the pandemic. The main reasons for admission were respiratory illness (40%) and MIS-C (40%).

Of the 50 patients, 44 (88%) had a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and 6 (12%) met clinical suspicion criteria and had a negative RT-PCR with a positive IgG serology. In 34 patients (68%), a close contact with a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 was referred, while the source of the infection remained unknown in the remaining 16 patients (32%).

The researchers reported that 21 patients (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly maculopapular exanthem (86%), conjunctival hyperemia (81%), and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue (43%). In addition, 18 of the 21 patients (86%) fulfilled criteria for MIS-C.

“A tricky thing about MIS-C is that it often manifests 4-5 weeks after a child had COVID-19,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was asked to comment on the study. “MIS-C is associated with characteristic bright red lips and a red tongue that might resemble a strawberry. Such oral findings should prompt rapid evaluation for other signs and symptoms. There can be redness of the eyes or other more nonspecific skin findings (large or small areas of redness on the trunk or limbs, sometimes with surface change), but more importantly, fever, a rapid heartbeat, diarrhea, or breathing issues. The risk with MIS-C is a rapid decline in a child’s health, with admission to an intensive care unit.”

Dr. Andina-Martinez and his colleagues also contrast the skin findings of MIS-C, which are not generally on the hands or feet, with the so-called “COVID toe” or finger phenomenon, which has also been associated with SARS-CoV-2, particularly in children. “Only one of the patients in this series had skin involvement of a finger, and it only appeared after recovery from MIS-C,” Dr. Ko noted. “Distinguishing COVID toes from MIS-C is important, as COVID toes has a very good outcome, while MIS-C can have severe consequences, including protracted heart disease.”

In other findings, patients who presented with mucocutaneous signs tended to be older than those without skin signs and they presented at the emergency department with poor general status and extreme tachycardia. They also had higher C-reactive protein and D-dimer levels and lower lymphocyte counts and faced a more than a 10-fold increased risk of being admitted to the PICU, compared with patients who did not have skin signs (OR, 10.24; P = .003).

In a separate study published online on April 7 in JAMA Dermatology, Zachary E. Holcomb, MD, of the combined dermatology residency program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues presented what is believed to be the first case report of reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) triggered by SARS-CoV-2. RIME is the preferred term for pediatric patients who present with mucositis and rash (often a scant or even absent skin eruption) triggered by various infectious agents.

The patient, a 17-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with 3 days of mouth pain and nonpainful penile erosions. “One week prior, he experienced transient anosmia and ageusia that had since spontaneously resolved,” the researchers wrote. “At that time, he was tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection via nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the results of which were positive.”

At presentation, the patient had no fever, his vital signs were normal, and the physical exam revealed shallow erosions of the vermilion lips and hard palate, circumferential erythematous erosions of the periurethral glans penis, and five small vesicles on the trunk and upper extremities. Serum analysis revealed a normal white blood cell count with mild absolute lymphopenia, slightly elevated creatinine level, normal liver function, slightly elevated C-reactive protein level, and normal ferritin level.

Dr. Holcomb and colleagues made a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2–associated RIME based on microbiological results, which revealed positive repeated SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal PCR and negative nasopharyngeal PCR testing for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, adenovirus, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, human metapneumovirus, influenza A/B, parainfluenza 1 to 4, rhinovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus. In addition, titers of Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgM levels were negative, but Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgG levels were elevated.

The lesions resolved with 60 mg of oral prednisone taken daily for 4 days. A recurrence of oral mucositis 3 months later responded to 80 mg oral prednisone taken daily for 6 days.

“It’s not surprising that SARS-CoV-2 is yet another trigger for RIME,” said Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of the division of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment about the case report.

“The take-home message is for clinicians to be aware of this association and distinguish these patients from those with MIS-C, because patients with MIS-C require monitoring and urgent systemic treatment. RIME and MIS-C may potentially be distinguished clinically based on the nature of the mucositis (hemorrhagic and erosive in RIME, dry, cracked lips with ‘strawberry tongue’ in MIS-C) but more importantly patients with RIME lack laboratory evidence of severe systemic inflammation,” such as ESR, CRP, or ferritin, she said.

“A final interesting point in this article was the recurrence of mucositis in this patient, which could mean that recurrent mucositis/recurrent RIME might be yet another manifestation of ‘long-COVID’ (now called post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection) in some patients,” Dr. Kirkorian added. She noted that the American Academy of Dermatology–International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 Dermatology Registry and articles like these “provide invaluable ‘hot off the presses’ information for clinicians who are facing the protean manifestations of a novel viral epidemic.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

Two recent articles in the medical literature provide new information on mucocutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children, which may help guide dermatologists in making accurate diagnoses and stratifying children at risk for serious, systemic illness due to the virus.

In a single-center descriptive study carried out over a 9-month period, researchers in Madrid found that of 50 hospitalized children infected with COVID-19, 21 (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly exanthem, followed by conjunctival hyperemia without secretion and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue. In addition, 18 (36%) fulfilled criteria for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C).

“Based on findings in adult patients, the skin manifestations of COVID-19 have been classified under five categories: acral pseudo-chilblain, vesicular eruptions, urticarial lesions, maculopapular eruptions, and livedo or necrosis,” David Andina-Martinez, MD, of Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, Madrid, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online on April 2 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Chilblain lesions in healthy children and adolescents have received much attention; these lesions resolve without complications after a few weeks,” they added. “Besides, other cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children have been the matter of case reports or small case series. Nevertheless, the mucocutaneous manifestations in hospitalized children infected with SARS-CoV-2 and their implications on the clinical course have not yet been extensively described.”

In an effort to describe the mucocutaneous manifestations in children hospitalized for COVID-19, the researchers evaluated 50 children up to 18 years of age who were admitted between March 1 and Nov. 30, 2020, to Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, which was designated as a pediatric reference center during the peak of the pandemic. The main reasons for admission were respiratory illness (40%) and MIS-C (40%).

Of the 50 patients, 44 (88%) had a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and 6 (12%) met clinical suspicion criteria and had a negative RT-PCR with a positive IgG serology. In 34 patients (68%), a close contact with a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 was referred, while the source of the infection remained unknown in the remaining 16 patients (32%).

The researchers reported that 21 patients (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly maculopapular exanthem (86%), conjunctival hyperemia (81%), and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue (43%). In addition, 18 of the 21 patients (86%) fulfilled criteria for MIS-C.

“A tricky thing about MIS-C is that it often manifests 4-5 weeks after a child had COVID-19,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was asked to comment on the study. “MIS-C is associated with characteristic bright red lips and a red tongue that might resemble a strawberry. Such oral findings should prompt rapid evaluation for other signs and symptoms. There can be redness of the eyes or other more nonspecific skin findings (large or small areas of redness on the trunk or limbs, sometimes with surface change), but more importantly, fever, a rapid heartbeat, diarrhea, or breathing issues. The risk with MIS-C is a rapid decline in a child’s health, with admission to an intensive care unit.”

Dr. Andina-Martinez and his colleagues also contrast the skin findings of MIS-C, which are not generally on the hands or feet, with the so-called “COVID toe” or finger phenomenon, which has also been associated with SARS-CoV-2, particularly in children. “Only one of the patients in this series had skin involvement of a finger, and it only appeared after recovery from MIS-C,” Dr. Ko noted. “Distinguishing COVID toes from MIS-C is important, as COVID toes has a very good outcome, while MIS-C can have severe consequences, including protracted heart disease.”

In other findings, patients who presented with mucocutaneous signs tended to be older than those without skin signs and they presented at the emergency department with poor general status and extreme tachycardia. They also had higher C-reactive protein and D-dimer levels and lower lymphocyte counts and faced a more than a 10-fold increased risk of being admitted to the PICU, compared with patients who did not have skin signs (OR, 10.24; P = .003).

In a separate study published online on April 7 in JAMA Dermatology, Zachary E. Holcomb, MD, of the combined dermatology residency program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues presented what is believed to be the first case report of reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) triggered by SARS-CoV-2. RIME is the preferred term for pediatric patients who present with mucositis and rash (often a scant or even absent skin eruption) triggered by various infectious agents.

The patient, a 17-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with 3 days of mouth pain and nonpainful penile erosions. “One week prior, he experienced transient anosmia and ageusia that had since spontaneously resolved,” the researchers wrote. “At that time, he was tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection via nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the results of which were positive.”

At presentation, the patient had no fever, his vital signs were normal, and the physical exam revealed shallow erosions of the vermilion lips and hard palate, circumferential erythematous erosions of the periurethral glans penis, and five small vesicles on the trunk and upper extremities. Serum analysis revealed a normal white blood cell count with mild absolute lymphopenia, slightly elevated creatinine level, normal liver function, slightly elevated C-reactive protein level, and normal ferritin level.

Dr. Holcomb and colleagues made a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2–associated RIME based on microbiological results, which revealed positive repeated SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal PCR and negative nasopharyngeal PCR testing for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, adenovirus, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, human metapneumovirus, influenza A/B, parainfluenza 1 to 4, rhinovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus. In addition, titers of Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgM levels were negative, but Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgG levels were elevated.

The lesions resolved with 60 mg of oral prednisone taken daily for 4 days. A recurrence of oral mucositis 3 months later responded to 80 mg oral prednisone taken daily for 6 days.

“It’s not surprising that SARS-CoV-2 is yet another trigger for RIME,” said Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of the division of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment about the case report.

“The take-home message is for clinicians to be aware of this association and distinguish these patients from those with MIS-C, because patients with MIS-C require monitoring and urgent systemic treatment. RIME and MIS-C may potentially be distinguished clinically based on the nature of the mucositis (hemorrhagic and erosive in RIME, dry, cracked lips with ‘strawberry tongue’ in MIS-C) but more importantly patients with RIME lack laboratory evidence of severe systemic inflammation,” such as ESR, CRP, or ferritin, she said.

“A final interesting point in this article was the recurrence of mucositis in this patient, which could mean that recurrent mucositis/recurrent RIME might be yet another manifestation of ‘long-COVID’ (now called post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection) in some patients,” Dr. Kirkorian added. She noted that the American Academy of Dermatology–International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 Dermatology Registry and articles like these “provide invaluable ‘hot off the presses’ information for clinicians who are facing the protean manifestations of a novel viral epidemic.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

Two recent articles in the medical literature provide new information on mucocutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children, which may help guide dermatologists in making accurate diagnoses and stratifying children at risk for serious, systemic illness due to the virus.

In a single-center descriptive study carried out over a 9-month period, researchers in Madrid found that of 50 hospitalized children infected with COVID-19, 21 (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly exanthem, followed by conjunctival hyperemia without secretion and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue. In addition, 18 (36%) fulfilled criteria for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C).

“Based on findings in adult patients, the skin manifestations of COVID-19 have been classified under five categories: acral pseudo-chilblain, vesicular eruptions, urticarial lesions, maculopapular eruptions, and livedo or necrosis,” David Andina-Martinez, MD, of Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, Madrid, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online on April 2 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Chilblain lesions in healthy children and adolescents have received much attention; these lesions resolve without complications after a few weeks,” they added. “Besides, other cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children have been the matter of case reports or small case series. Nevertheless, the mucocutaneous manifestations in hospitalized children infected with SARS-CoV-2 and their implications on the clinical course have not yet been extensively described.”

In an effort to describe the mucocutaneous manifestations in children hospitalized for COVID-19, the researchers evaluated 50 children up to 18 years of age who were admitted between March 1 and Nov. 30, 2020, to Hospital Infantil Universitario Niño Jesús, which was designated as a pediatric reference center during the peak of the pandemic. The main reasons for admission were respiratory illness (40%) and MIS-C (40%).

Of the 50 patients, 44 (88%) had a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and 6 (12%) met clinical suspicion criteria and had a negative RT-PCR with a positive IgG serology. In 34 patients (68%), a close contact with a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 was referred, while the source of the infection remained unknown in the remaining 16 patients (32%).

The researchers reported that 21 patients (42%) had mucocutaneous symptoms, most commonly maculopapular exanthem (86%), conjunctival hyperemia (81%), and red cracked lips or strawberry tongue (43%). In addition, 18 of the 21 patients (86%) fulfilled criteria for MIS-C.

“A tricky thing about MIS-C is that it often manifests 4-5 weeks after a child had COVID-19,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was asked to comment on the study. “MIS-C is associated with characteristic bright red lips and a red tongue that might resemble a strawberry. Such oral findings should prompt rapid evaluation for other signs and symptoms. There can be redness of the eyes or other more nonspecific skin findings (large or small areas of redness on the trunk or limbs, sometimes with surface change), but more importantly, fever, a rapid heartbeat, diarrhea, or breathing issues. The risk with MIS-C is a rapid decline in a child’s health, with admission to an intensive care unit.”

Dr. Andina-Martinez and his colleagues also contrast the skin findings of MIS-C, which are not generally on the hands or feet, with the so-called “COVID toe” or finger phenomenon, which has also been associated with SARS-CoV-2, particularly in children. “Only one of the patients in this series had skin involvement of a finger, and it only appeared after recovery from MIS-C,” Dr. Ko noted. “Distinguishing COVID toes from MIS-C is important, as COVID toes has a very good outcome, while MIS-C can have severe consequences, including protracted heart disease.”

In other findings, patients who presented with mucocutaneous signs tended to be older than those without skin signs and they presented at the emergency department with poor general status and extreme tachycardia. They also had higher C-reactive protein and D-dimer levels and lower lymphocyte counts and faced a more than a 10-fold increased risk of being admitted to the PICU, compared with patients who did not have skin signs (OR, 10.24; P = .003).

In a separate study published online on April 7 in JAMA Dermatology, Zachary E. Holcomb, MD, of the combined dermatology residency program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues presented what is believed to be the first case report of reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) triggered by SARS-CoV-2. RIME is the preferred term for pediatric patients who present with mucositis and rash (often a scant or even absent skin eruption) triggered by various infectious agents.

The patient, a 17-year-old male, presented to the emergency department with 3 days of mouth pain and nonpainful penile erosions. “One week prior, he experienced transient anosmia and ageusia that had since spontaneously resolved,” the researchers wrote. “At that time, he was tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection via nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the results of which were positive.”

At presentation, the patient had no fever, his vital signs were normal, and the physical exam revealed shallow erosions of the vermilion lips and hard palate, circumferential erythematous erosions of the periurethral glans penis, and five small vesicles on the trunk and upper extremities. Serum analysis revealed a normal white blood cell count with mild absolute lymphopenia, slightly elevated creatinine level, normal liver function, slightly elevated C-reactive protein level, and normal ferritin level.

Dr. Holcomb and colleagues made a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2–associated RIME based on microbiological results, which revealed positive repeated SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal PCR and negative nasopharyngeal PCR testing for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, adenovirus, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, human metapneumovirus, influenza A/B, parainfluenza 1 to 4, rhinovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus. In addition, titers of Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgM levels were negative, but Mycoplasma pneumoniae IgG levels were elevated.

The lesions resolved with 60 mg of oral prednisone taken daily for 4 days. A recurrence of oral mucositis 3 months later responded to 80 mg oral prednisone taken daily for 6 days.

“It’s not surprising that SARS-CoV-2 is yet another trigger for RIME,” said Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of the division of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment about the case report.

“The take-home message is for clinicians to be aware of this association and distinguish these patients from those with MIS-C, because patients with MIS-C require monitoring and urgent systemic treatment. RIME and MIS-C may potentially be distinguished clinically based on the nature of the mucositis (hemorrhagic and erosive in RIME, dry, cracked lips with ‘strawberry tongue’ in MIS-C) but more importantly patients with RIME lack laboratory evidence of severe systemic inflammation,” such as ESR, CRP, or ferritin, she said.

“A final interesting point in this article was the recurrence of mucositis in this patient, which could mean that recurrent mucositis/recurrent RIME might be yet another manifestation of ‘long-COVID’ (now called post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection) in some patients,” Dr. Kirkorian added. She noted that the American Academy of Dermatology–International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 Dermatology Registry and articles like these “provide invaluable ‘hot off the presses’ information for clinicians who are facing the protean manifestations of a novel viral epidemic.”

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

A personalized genomic cancer vaccine proved feasible to manufacture and was well tolerated in a phase 1 trial, according to researchers.

The vaccine, PGV-001, was given to 13 patients with solid tumors or multiple myeloma who had a high risk of recurrence after surgery or autologous stem cell transplant.

At last follow-up, four patients were still alive without evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy, four were alive and receiving therapy, three had died, and two were lost to follow-up.

Thomas Marron, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai in New York presented these results in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 ( Abstract LB048 ). Data in the abstract differ from the data presented.

“While cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, we know that the majority of patients fail to achieve significant clinical response,” Dr. Marron said during his presentation. “One reason for this may be due to lack of preexisting primed T-cell response needed for PD-1 blockade to have a significant effect. To address this, personalized neoantigen vaccines may help prime an improved immune response against tumor cells.”

With this in mind, Dr. Marron and colleagues developed PGV-001, a vaccine consisting of patient-specific synthetic neoantigen peptides given to patients in the adjuvant setting.
 

Creating a personalized vaccine

The researchers synthesized PGV-001 for 15 patients with advanced malignancies. The patients first underwent tumor and germline DNA sequencing as well as HLA typing. Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on patients’ tumors as well.

Then, the researchers used a computational pipeline called OpenVax to identify candidate neoantigens. This pipeline, developed at Mount Sinai, identified and prioritized candidate neoantigens using predicted MHC class I binding affinity and neoantigen abundance.

OpenVax identified an average of 71.5 neoantigens per patient (range, 7-193). The goal was to synthesize a maximum of 10 peptides per patient, but two patients did not have an adequate number of neoantigens.
 

Vaccine administration

The peptides were administered over the course of 27 weeks along with poly-ICLC and a tetanus helper peptide. Before receiving their vaccine doses, patients with solid tumors had undergone curative-intent surgery, and those with multiple myeloma had undergone autologous stem cell transplant.

“Most experimental personalized cancer vaccines are administered in the metastatic setting, but prior research indicates that immunotherapies tend to be more effective in patients who have less cancer spread,” principal investigator Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai, explained in a press release .

“We have, therefore, developed a neoantigen vaccine that is administered after standard-of-care adjuvant therapy, such as surgery in solid tumors and bone marrow transplant in multiple myeloma, when patients have minimal, typically microscopic, residual disease.”
 

Feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity

PGV-001 was synthesized for 15 patients and administered to 13 of them. Six of the 13 patients had head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, three had multiple myeloma, two had non–small cell lung cancer, one had breast cancer, and one had urothelial carcinoma.

Eleven patients received all 10 intended doses, and two patients received at least 8 doses.

“The vaccine was well tolerated, with only half of patients experiencing mild, grade 1 adverse events,” Dr. Marron said.

Transient injection site reactions occurred in four patients, and grade 1 fever was reported in one patient.

Immune monitoring is ongoing, but an initial analysis in one patient showed “robust responses” in CD4 and CD8 T cells by intracellular cytokine staining for interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, and interleukin-2 after in vitro expansion in the presence of vaccine antigens, according to the researchers.

Dr. Marron noted that robust T-cell reactivity was seen at the completion of all 10 doses but was not seen after the 6th dose, and this supports the need for a prolonged dosing schedule.
 

Survival and subsequent therapy

At a mean follow-up of 880 days, four patients had no evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy. This includes one patient with stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer, one with stage IVA HER-2 positive breast cancer, one with stage II urothelial carcinoma, and one with multiple myeloma.

Four patients were alive and receiving subsequent lines of therapy. Two of these patients had significant responses to anti–PD-1 therapy.

Three patients have died, two of whom had documented recurrence of their malignancy. The last two patients were lost to follow-up without documented recurrence.

“Our results demonstrate that the OpenVax pipeline is a viable approach to generate a safe, personalized cancer vaccine, which could potentially be used to treat a range of tumor types,” Dr. Bhardwaj said.

Trials combining neoantigens identified with the OpenVax platform are ongoing in patients with urothelial carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme, Dr. Marron said.

The current study ( NCT02721043 ) is sponsored by Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Marron and Dr. Bhardwaj reported having no disclosures. Their colleagues disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Sema4, and Related Sciences.

A personalized genomic cancer vaccine proved feasible to manufacture and was well tolerated in a phase 1 trial, according to researchers.

The vaccine, PGV-001, was given to 13 patients with solid tumors or multiple myeloma who had a high risk of recurrence after surgery or autologous stem cell transplant.

At last follow-up, four patients were still alive without evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy, four were alive and receiving therapy, three had died, and two were lost to follow-up.

Thomas Marron, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai in New York presented these results in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 ( Abstract LB048 ). Data in the abstract differ from the data presented.

“While cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, we know that the majority of patients fail to achieve significant clinical response,” Dr. Marron said during his presentation. “One reason for this may be due to lack of preexisting primed T-cell response needed for PD-1 blockade to have a significant effect. To address this, personalized neoantigen vaccines may help prime an improved immune response against tumor cells.”

With this in mind, Dr. Marron and colleagues developed PGV-001, a vaccine consisting of patient-specific synthetic neoantigen peptides given to patients in the adjuvant setting.
 

Creating a personalized vaccine

The researchers synthesized PGV-001 for 15 patients with advanced malignancies. The patients first underwent tumor and germline DNA sequencing as well as HLA typing. Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on patients’ tumors as well.

Then, the researchers used a computational pipeline called OpenVax to identify candidate neoantigens. This pipeline, developed at Mount Sinai, identified and prioritized candidate neoantigens using predicted MHC class I binding affinity and neoantigen abundance.

OpenVax identified an average of 71.5 neoantigens per patient (range, 7-193). The goal was to synthesize a maximum of 10 peptides per patient, but two patients did not have an adequate number of neoantigens.
 

Vaccine administration

The peptides were administered over the course of 27 weeks along with poly-ICLC and a tetanus helper peptide. Before receiving their vaccine doses, patients with solid tumors had undergone curative-intent surgery, and those with multiple myeloma had undergone autologous stem cell transplant.

“Most experimental personalized cancer vaccines are administered in the metastatic setting, but prior research indicates that immunotherapies tend to be more effective in patients who have less cancer spread,” principal investigator Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai, explained in a press release .

“We have, therefore, developed a neoantigen vaccine that is administered after standard-of-care adjuvant therapy, such as surgery in solid tumors and bone marrow transplant in multiple myeloma, when patients have minimal, typically microscopic, residual disease.”
 

Feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity

PGV-001 was synthesized for 15 patients and administered to 13 of them. Six of the 13 patients had head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, three had multiple myeloma, two had non–small cell lung cancer, one had breast cancer, and one had urothelial carcinoma.

Eleven patients received all 10 intended doses, and two patients received at least 8 doses.

“The vaccine was well tolerated, with only half of patients experiencing mild, grade 1 adverse events,” Dr. Marron said.

Transient injection site reactions occurred in four patients, and grade 1 fever was reported in one patient.

Immune monitoring is ongoing, but an initial analysis in one patient showed “robust responses” in CD4 and CD8 T cells by intracellular cytokine staining for interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, and interleukin-2 after in vitro expansion in the presence of vaccine antigens, according to the researchers.

Dr. Marron noted that robust T-cell reactivity was seen at the completion of all 10 doses but was not seen after the 6th dose, and this supports the need for a prolonged dosing schedule.
 

Survival and subsequent therapy

At a mean follow-up of 880 days, four patients had no evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy. This includes one patient with stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer, one with stage IVA HER-2 positive breast cancer, one with stage II urothelial carcinoma, and one with multiple myeloma.

Four patients were alive and receiving subsequent lines of therapy. Two of these patients had significant responses to anti–PD-1 therapy.

Three patients have died, two of whom had documented recurrence of their malignancy. The last two patients were lost to follow-up without documented recurrence.

“Our results demonstrate that the OpenVax pipeline is a viable approach to generate a safe, personalized cancer vaccine, which could potentially be used to treat a range of tumor types,” Dr. Bhardwaj said.

Trials combining neoantigens identified with the OpenVax platform are ongoing in patients with urothelial carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme, Dr. Marron said.

The current study ( NCT02721043 ) is sponsored by Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Marron and Dr. Bhardwaj reported having no disclosures. Their colleagues disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Sema4, and Related Sciences.

A personalized genomic cancer vaccine proved feasible to manufacture and was well tolerated in a phase 1 trial, according to researchers.

The vaccine, PGV-001, was given to 13 patients with solid tumors or multiple myeloma who had a high risk of recurrence after surgery or autologous stem cell transplant.

At last follow-up, four patients were still alive without evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy, four were alive and receiving therapy, three had died, and two were lost to follow-up.

Thomas Marron, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai in New York presented these results in a poster at the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021: Week 1 ( Abstract LB048 ). Data in the abstract differ from the data presented.

“While cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, we know that the majority of patients fail to achieve significant clinical response,” Dr. Marron said during his presentation. “One reason for this may be due to lack of preexisting primed T-cell response needed for PD-1 blockade to have a significant effect. To address this, personalized neoantigen vaccines may help prime an improved immune response against tumor cells.”

With this in mind, Dr. Marron and colleagues developed PGV-001, a vaccine consisting of patient-specific synthetic neoantigen peptides given to patients in the adjuvant setting.
 

Creating a personalized vaccine

The researchers synthesized PGV-001 for 15 patients with advanced malignancies. The patients first underwent tumor and germline DNA sequencing as well as HLA typing. Bulk RNA sequencing was performed on patients’ tumors as well.

Then, the researchers used a computational pipeline called OpenVax to identify candidate neoantigens. This pipeline, developed at Mount Sinai, identified and prioritized candidate neoantigens using predicted MHC class I binding affinity and neoantigen abundance.

OpenVax identified an average of 71.5 neoantigens per patient (range, 7-193). The goal was to synthesize a maximum of 10 peptides per patient, but two patients did not have an adequate number of neoantigens.
 

Vaccine administration

The peptides were administered over the course of 27 weeks along with poly-ICLC and a tetanus helper peptide. Before receiving their vaccine doses, patients with solid tumors had undergone curative-intent surgery, and those with multiple myeloma had undergone autologous stem cell transplant.

“Most experimental personalized cancer vaccines are administered in the metastatic setting, but prior research indicates that immunotherapies tend to be more effective in patients who have less cancer spread,” principal investigator Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD , of Mount Sinai, explained in a press release .

“We have, therefore, developed a neoantigen vaccine that is administered after standard-of-care adjuvant therapy, such as surgery in solid tumors and bone marrow transplant in multiple myeloma, when patients have minimal, typically microscopic, residual disease.”
 

Feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity

PGV-001 was synthesized for 15 patients and administered to 13 of them. Six of the 13 patients had head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, three had multiple myeloma, two had non–small cell lung cancer, one had breast cancer, and one had urothelial carcinoma.

Eleven patients received all 10 intended doses, and two patients received at least 8 doses.

“The vaccine was well tolerated, with only half of patients experiencing mild, grade 1 adverse events,” Dr. Marron said.

Transient injection site reactions occurred in four patients, and grade 1 fever was reported in one patient.

Immune monitoring is ongoing, but an initial analysis in one patient showed “robust responses” in CD4 and CD8 T cells by intracellular cytokine staining for interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor–alpha, and interleukin-2 after in vitro expansion in the presence of vaccine antigens, according to the researchers.

Dr. Marron noted that robust T-cell reactivity was seen at the completion of all 10 doses but was not seen after the 6th dose, and this supports the need for a prolonged dosing schedule.
 

Survival and subsequent therapy

At a mean follow-up of 880 days, four patients had no evidence of disease and had not received subsequent therapy. This includes one patient with stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer, one with stage IVA HER-2 positive breast cancer, one with stage II urothelial carcinoma, and one with multiple myeloma.

Four patients were alive and receiving subsequent lines of therapy. Two of these patients had significant responses to anti–PD-1 therapy.

Three patients have died, two of whom had documented recurrence of their malignancy. The last two patients were lost to follow-up without documented recurrence.

“Our results demonstrate that the OpenVax pipeline is a viable approach to generate a safe, personalized cancer vaccine, which could potentially be used to treat a range of tumor types,” Dr. Bhardwaj said.

Trials combining neoantigens identified with the OpenVax platform are ongoing in patients with urothelial carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme, Dr. Marron said.

The current study ( NCT02721043 ) is sponsored by Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Marron and Dr. Bhardwaj reported having no disclosures. Their colleagues disclosed relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Sema4, and Related Sciences.

The next 20 years will see a big shift in cancer type rankings, researchers predict.

At the moment, the most common cancers in the United States are breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, and melanoma.

By 2040, melanoma will have become the second most common cancer type, while prostate cancer will drop in incidence all the way to 14, the study authors predicted. Breast cancer will remain the top cancer to be diagnosed, lung cancer will drop from second to third, and colorectal cancer will remain at fourth.

These predicted rankings of cancer types by their total number of annual cases were published online April 7, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

The authors also rank cancer type by mortality. Currently, most cancer deaths are caused by lung cancer, followed by colorectal, pancreatic, and breast. By 2040, the most notable change in cancer deaths is that liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer, currently at sixth, will jump up to third.

Two decades from now, the ranking in terms of cancer deaths will be lung, pancreatic, liver and intrahepatic bile duct, and colorectal.

“Our findings reflect the shifting dynamics of cancer screening and treatment,” lead author Lola Rahib, PhD, a pancreatic cancer scientist at Cancer Commons, the advocacy nonprofit, commented in a press statement.

The new analysis used population-growth projections (based on 2010 U.S. Census data) and current population-based cancer incidence and death rates (from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 2014-2016) to calculate the changes in incidences and deaths to the year 2040.

The projected, estimated numbers are not ironclad, the researchers acknowledged.

“Our projections assume that the observed rates and trends [from recent years] don’t change over time,” Dr. Rahib said in an interview, but she pointed out that change may indeed happen.

“Any long-term projections should be considered with a grain of salt,” said Kim Miller, MPH, a surveillance research scientist at the American Cancer Society, who was approached for comment.

Dr. Miller explained that “cancer trends can sometimes rapidly change within a few years.” Projections just 2-4 years ahead are “extremely difficult” and those 20 years ahead are even more so, she added in an interview.

“We’re encouraged to see the projected decreases in deaths from lung, colorectal, and breast cancer in the coming years,” said coauthor Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA, chief science officer at the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. “It’s time to shift focus to some of the less commonly diagnosed cancers with the lowest survival rates, like pancreatic and liver cancer.”
 

Difference in opinion on prostate cancer

The huge fall in the incidence of prostate cancer that the authors predict will come about as a result of changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–screening recommendations over the last 15 years, they suggested.

“The most recent change in 2018 recommends that men aged 55-69 can make their own decisions regarding screening, but previous changes recommended against PSA screening,” said Dr. Rahib.

“These changes in screening guidelines have influenced the number of diagnoses of prostate cancer in recent years and will continue to do so to 2040,” Dr. Rahib commented.

Dr. Miller casts doubt on this prediction.

Using data through 2017, “we have seen that the patterns in prostate cancer incidence are already shifting from the steep declines we saw in the early 2010s,” she said. “I would use caution when interpreting the overall trends for prostate, because this cancer in particular is dramatically affected by changes in recommendations for screening with the PSA test.”

Screening has also influenced colorectal cancer incidence, the authors pointed out, saying that the uptake of colorectal cancer screening is associated with a decrease in the number of colorectal cancers and deaths out to 2040, as a result of effectiveness of screening.

For breast cancer, the authors highlighted the fact that, although the number of breast cancers will continue to increase, the number of breast cancer deaths will decrease. That ongoing trend is most likely attributable to increased screening and advancements in treatment.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, Cancer Commons and the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. The study authors and Dr. Miller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The next 20 years will see a big shift in cancer type rankings, researchers predict.

At the moment, the most common cancers in the United States are breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, and melanoma.

By 2040, melanoma will have become the second most common cancer type, while prostate cancer will drop in incidence all the way to 14, the study authors predicted. Breast cancer will remain the top cancer to be diagnosed, lung cancer will drop from second to third, and colorectal cancer will remain at fourth.

These predicted rankings of cancer types by their total number of annual cases were published online April 7, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

The authors also rank cancer type by mortality. Currently, most cancer deaths are caused by lung cancer, followed by colorectal, pancreatic, and breast. By 2040, the most notable change in cancer deaths is that liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer, currently at sixth, will jump up to third.

Two decades from now, the ranking in terms of cancer deaths will be lung, pancreatic, liver and intrahepatic bile duct, and colorectal.

“Our findings reflect the shifting dynamics of cancer screening and treatment,” lead author Lola Rahib, PhD, a pancreatic cancer scientist at Cancer Commons, the advocacy nonprofit, commented in a press statement.

The new analysis used population-growth projections (based on 2010 U.S. Census data) and current population-based cancer incidence and death rates (from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 2014-2016) to calculate the changes in incidences and deaths to the year 2040.

The projected, estimated numbers are not ironclad, the researchers acknowledged.

“Our projections assume that the observed rates and trends [from recent years] don’t change over time,” Dr. Rahib said in an interview, but she pointed out that change may indeed happen.

“Any long-term projections should be considered with a grain of salt,” said Kim Miller, MPH, a surveillance research scientist at the American Cancer Society, who was approached for comment.

Dr. Miller explained that “cancer trends can sometimes rapidly change within a few years.” Projections just 2-4 years ahead are “extremely difficult” and those 20 years ahead are even more so, she added in an interview.

“We’re encouraged to see the projected decreases in deaths from lung, colorectal, and breast cancer in the coming years,” said coauthor Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA, chief science officer at the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. “It’s time to shift focus to some of the less commonly diagnosed cancers with the lowest survival rates, like pancreatic and liver cancer.”
 

Difference in opinion on prostate cancer

The huge fall in the incidence of prostate cancer that the authors predict will come about as a result of changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–screening recommendations over the last 15 years, they suggested.

“The most recent change in 2018 recommends that men aged 55-69 can make their own decisions regarding screening, but previous changes recommended against PSA screening,” said Dr. Rahib.

“These changes in screening guidelines have influenced the number of diagnoses of prostate cancer in recent years and will continue to do so to 2040,” Dr. Rahib commented.

Dr. Miller casts doubt on this prediction.

Using data through 2017, “we have seen that the patterns in prostate cancer incidence are already shifting from the steep declines we saw in the early 2010s,” she said. “I would use caution when interpreting the overall trends for prostate, because this cancer in particular is dramatically affected by changes in recommendations for screening with the PSA test.”

Screening has also influenced colorectal cancer incidence, the authors pointed out, saying that the uptake of colorectal cancer screening is associated with a decrease in the number of colorectal cancers and deaths out to 2040, as a result of effectiveness of screening.

For breast cancer, the authors highlighted the fact that, although the number of breast cancers will continue to increase, the number of breast cancer deaths will decrease. That ongoing trend is most likely attributable to increased screening and advancements in treatment.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, Cancer Commons and the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. The study authors and Dr. Miller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The next 20 years will see a big shift in cancer type rankings, researchers predict.

At the moment, the most common cancers in the United States are breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, and melanoma.

By 2040, melanoma will have become the second most common cancer type, while prostate cancer will drop in incidence all the way to 14, the study authors predicted. Breast cancer will remain the top cancer to be diagnosed, lung cancer will drop from second to third, and colorectal cancer will remain at fourth.

These predicted rankings of cancer types by their total number of annual cases were published online April 7, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

The authors also rank cancer type by mortality. Currently, most cancer deaths are caused by lung cancer, followed by colorectal, pancreatic, and breast. By 2040, the most notable change in cancer deaths is that liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer, currently at sixth, will jump up to third.

Two decades from now, the ranking in terms of cancer deaths will be lung, pancreatic, liver and intrahepatic bile duct, and colorectal.

“Our findings reflect the shifting dynamics of cancer screening and treatment,” lead author Lola Rahib, PhD, a pancreatic cancer scientist at Cancer Commons, the advocacy nonprofit, commented in a press statement.

The new analysis used population-growth projections (based on 2010 U.S. Census data) and current population-based cancer incidence and death rates (from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 2014-2016) to calculate the changes in incidences and deaths to the year 2040.

The projected, estimated numbers are not ironclad, the researchers acknowledged.

“Our projections assume that the observed rates and trends [from recent years] don’t change over time,” Dr. Rahib said in an interview, but she pointed out that change may indeed happen.

“Any long-term projections should be considered with a grain of salt,” said Kim Miller, MPH, a surveillance research scientist at the American Cancer Society, who was approached for comment.

Dr. Miller explained that “cancer trends can sometimes rapidly change within a few years.” Projections just 2-4 years ahead are “extremely difficult” and those 20 years ahead are even more so, she added in an interview.

“We’re encouraged to see the projected decreases in deaths from lung, colorectal, and breast cancer in the coming years,” said coauthor Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA, chief science officer at the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. “It’s time to shift focus to some of the less commonly diagnosed cancers with the lowest survival rates, like pancreatic and liver cancer.”
 

Difference in opinion on prostate cancer

The huge fall in the incidence of prostate cancer that the authors predict will come about as a result of changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–screening recommendations over the last 15 years, they suggested.

“The most recent change in 2018 recommends that men aged 55-69 can make their own decisions regarding screening, but previous changes recommended against PSA screening,” said Dr. Rahib.

“These changes in screening guidelines have influenced the number of diagnoses of prostate cancer in recent years and will continue to do so to 2040,” Dr. Rahib commented.

Dr. Miller casts doubt on this prediction.

Using data through 2017, “we have seen that the patterns in prostate cancer incidence are already shifting from the steep declines we saw in the early 2010s,” she said. “I would use caution when interpreting the overall trends for prostate, because this cancer in particular is dramatically affected by changes in recommendations for screening with the PSA test.”

Screening has also influenced colorectal cancer incidence, the authors pointed out, saying that the uptake of colorectal cancer screening is associated with a decrease in the number of colorectal cancers and deaths out to 2040, as a result of effectiveness of screening.

For breast cancer, the authors highlighted the fact that, although the number of breast cancers will continue to increase, the number of breast cancer deaths will decrease. That ongoing trend is most likely attributable to increased screening and advancements in treatment.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, Cancer Commons and the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. The study authors and Dr. Miller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Psychiatric Association (WPA) has released new global telemedicine guidelines.

Prompted by the worldwide explosion of interest in telepsychiatry driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines emphasize the need for international collaboration in psychiatry.

“Global teamwork is the light at the end of the tunnel” of the current crisis, lead author Davor Mucic, MD, The Little Prince Treatment Center, Copenhagen, told meeting attendees.

“Now is the time to build a user-friendly digital health care system that can better meet the inevitable future challenges,” Dr. Mucic said. “The hope is that WPA’s global guidelines for telepsychiatry can help us to move forward.”

The guidelines, which also address concerns over data security and device intercompatibility, were presented at the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Breaking down barriers

Although telepsychiatry has been around since 1959, only with the rapid technologic advances of the past decade has it become available to the majority of psychiatric patients, Dr. Mucic noted.

“Unfortunately, regulatory constraints, in combination with clinicians’ concerns, kept telepsychiatry from being widely adopted and implemented prior to the current COVID-19 pandemic,” he added.

Concerns have been with regard to data safety, reimbursement for consultations, quality of care, lack of technical experience, and difficulties in changing routines.

For many clinicians, the pandemic was the “first time they used telepsychiatry, and very few have received training in how to do it,” Dr. Mucic said.

He pointed out that guidelines are available in the United States, Canada, Australia, and India, including the 2018 Best Practices in Videoconferencing-Based Telemental Health, released by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Telemedicine Association.

Dr. Mucic noted that because these documents are relevant and useful, clinicians may wonder, “Why do we need another set of guidelines?”

He explained that the current WPA guidelines outline universal recommendations that apply “regardless of local or regional regulations.” Therefore, they can be used just as easily in low- and middle-income countries as in countries where telepsychiatry is already established.
 

A new paradigm

Similar to other guidelines, the WPA’s guidelines discuss legal and regulatory requirements, informed consent, billing and reimbursement, patient selection, clinician training, the clinical setting, and more.

However, what makes the new document “so new and special” is that it opens the door to “some new and previously undiscussed aspects of telepsychiatry ... that are capable of changing the whole delivery of mental health care,” Dr. Mucic said.

The first of these new aspects is in regard to cross-cultural telepsychiatry. The goal is to eliminate the need for interpreters or competency in a different language for patients who do not speak the host country’s language by connecting them remotely with a bilingual health care professional who shares their cultural or ethnic background.

This “ethnic matching” model may lead to a “more precise and detailed symptomatology,” the authors note. They add that minimizing the risk for misinterpretation and misunderstanding can enable better diagnosis and treatment.

The second area highlighted by Dr. Mucic is in regard to international telepsychiatry; the technology could be used to obtain a second opinion from colleagues who share the relevant cultural and linguistic background.

“Further, international expertise may be brought via [telepsychiatry] to local health workers as a part of education, supervision, and scientific collaboration,” he said.

“The hope is the guidelines will pave the way for improved international collaboration, not only by clinicians but also by policymakers.”
 

A blended future?

Also at EPA 2021, two experts debated whether the COVID-19 pandemic represented a turning point for e-health in psychiatry.

Taking the pro stance, Heleen Riper, PhD, professor of eMental-Health at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, argued that the future is likely to blend face-to-face interaction with video conferencing.

She believes that to maintain current progress, the focus should be on treatment personalization, engagement, and improvement, rather than cost-effectiveness.

Hans-Jürgen Möller, MD, professor emeritus, department of psychiatry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, argued against the idea that e-health represented a turning point in psychiatry. He noted that a survey of German psychotherapists indicated that there have been a number of drawbacks to video sessions during the pandemic.

Cautious optimism

Session chair Judit Simon, MD, DPhil, professor of health economics, Medical University of Vienna, asked the debaters whether video interventions will continue to replace in-person interventions once the pandemic is over or whether things will return to “where we were prepandemic.”

Dr. Riper said she did not believe that clinicians will return completely to in-patient practice. However, she emphasized the need for training and the development of new skills to improve the therapeutic relationship with patients.

Although Dr. Riper believes there is still a need for in-person doctor/patient interactions, “we will never get back to the pre-COVID phase, both in terms of diagnostics and treatment,” she said.

Dr. Möller added that although he has “some reservations” regarding the adoption of technologies by older patients and the lack of long-term data on telepsychiatry, he partially shares Dr. Riper’s optimism.

He suggested that there is an opportunity in psychiatry to use video conferencing for multidisciplinary team meetings similar to those seen in oncology.

This would allow discussion of patient diagnosis and treatment and would enable experts in mental health to help clinicians in other specialties. For example, it could help a general practitioner differentiate between depression and a depressive phase of schizophrenia, Dr. Riper said.

The presenters have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Psychiatric Association (WPA) has released new global telemedicine guidelines.

Prompted by the worldwide explosion of interest in telepsychiatry driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines emphasize the need for international collaboration in psychiatry.

“Global teamwork is the light at the end of the tunnel” of the current crisis, lead author Davor Mucic, MD, The Little Prince Treatment Center, Copenhagen, told meeting attendees.

“Now is the time to build a user-friendly digital health care system that can better meet the inevitable future challenges,” Dr. Mucic said. “The hope is that WPA’s global guidelines for telepsychiatry can help us to move forward.”

The guidelines, which also address concerns over data security and device intercompatibility, were presented at the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Breaking down barriers

Although telepsychiatry has been around since 1959, only with the rapid technologic advances of the past decade has it become available to the majority of psychiatric patients, Dr. Mucic noted.

“Unfortunately, regulatory constraints, in combination with clinicians’ concerns, kept telepsychiatry from being widely adopted and implemented prior to the current COVID-19 pandemic,” he added.

Concerns have been with regard to data safety, reimbursement for consultations, quality of care, lack of technical experience, and difficulties in changing routines.

For many clinicians, the pandemic was the “first time they used telepsychiatry, and very few have received training in how to do it,” Dr. Mucic said.

He pointed out that guidelines are available in the United States, Canada, Australia, and India, including the 2018 Best Practices in Videoconferencing-Based Telemental Health, released by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Telemedicine Association.

Dr. Mucic noted that because these documents are relevant and useful, clinicians may wonder, “Why do we need another set of guidelines?”

He explained that the current WPA guidelines outline universal recommendations that apply “regardless of local or regional regulations.” Therefore, they can be used just as easily in low- and middle-income countries as in countries where telepsychiatry is already established.
 

A new paradigm

Similar to other guidelines, the WPA’s guidelines discuss legal and regulatory requirements, informed consent, billing and reimbursement, patient selection, clinician training, the clinical setting, and more.

However, what makes the new document “so new and special” is that it opens the door to “some new and previously undiscussed aspects of telepsychiatry ... that are capable of changing the whole delivery of mental health care,” Dr. Mucic said.

The first of these new aspects is in regard to cross-cultural telepsychiatry. The goal is to eliminate the need for interpreters or competency in a different language for patients who do not speak the host country’s language by connecting them remotely with a bilingual health care professional who shares their cultural or ethnic background.

This “ethnic matching” model may lead to a “more precise and detailed symptomatology,” the authors note. They add that minimizing the risk for misinterpretation and misunderstanding can enable better diagnosis and treatment.

The second area highlighted by Dr. Mucic is in regard to international telepsychiatry; the technology could be used to obtain a second opinion from colleagues who share the relevant cultural and linguistic background.

“Further, international expertise may be brought via [telepsychiatry] to local health workers as a part of education, supervision, and scientific collaboration,” he said.

“The hope is the guidelines will pave the way for improved international collaboration, not only by clinicians but also by policymakers.”
 

A blended future?

Also at EPA 2021, two experts debated whether the COVID-19 pandemic represented a turning point for e-health in psychiatry.

Taking the pro stance, Heleen Riper, PhD, professor of eMental-Health at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, argued that the future is likely to blend face-to-face interaction with video conferencing.

She believes that to maintain current progress, the focus should be on treatment personalization, engagement, and improvement, rather than cost-effectiveness.

Hans-Jürgen Möller, MD, professor emeritus, department of psychiatry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, argued against the idea that e-health represented a turning point in psychiatry. He noted that a survey of German psychotherapists indicated that there have been a number of drawbacks to video sessions during the pandemic.

Cautious optimism

Session chair Judit Simon, MD, DPhil, professor of health economics, Medical University of Vienna, asked the debaters whether video interventions will continue to replace in-person interventions once the pandemic is over or whether things will return to “where we were prepandemic.”

Dr. Riper said she did not believe that clinicians will return completely to in-patient practice. However, she emphasized the need for training and the development of new skills to improve the therapeutic relationship with patients.

Although Dr. Riper believes there is still a need for in-person doctor/patient interactions, “we will never get back to the pre-COVID phase, both in terms of diagnostics and treatment,” she said.

Dr. Möller added that although he has “some reservations” regarding the adoption of technologies by older patients and the lack of long-term data on telepsychiatry, he partially shares Dr. Riper’s optimism.

He suggested that there is an opportunity in psychiatry to use video conferencing for multidisciplinary team meetings similar to those seen in oncology.

This would allow discussion of patient diagnosis and treatment and would enable experts in mental health to help clinicians in other specialties. For example, it could help a general practitioner differentiate between depression and a depressive phase of schizophrenia, Dr. Riper said.

The presenters have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Psychiatric Association (WPA) has released new global telemedicine guidelines.

Prompted by the worldwide explosion of interest in telepsychiatry driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines emphasize the need for international collaboration in psychiatry.

“Global teamwork is the light at the end of the tunnel” of the current crisis, lead author Davor Mucic, MD, The Little Prince Treatment Center, Copenhagen, told meeting attendees.

“Now is the time to build a user-friendly digital health care system that can better meet the inevitable future challenges,” Dr. Mucic said. “The hope is that WPA’s global guidelines for telepsychiatry can help us to move forward.”

The guidelines, which also address concerns over data security and device intercompatibility, were presented at the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Breaking down barriers

Although telepsychiatry has been around since 1959, only with the rapid technologic advances of the past decade has it become available to the majority of psychiatric patients, Dr. Mucic noted.

“Unfortunately, regulatory constraints, in combination with clinicians’ concerns, kept telepsychiatry from being widely adopted and implemented prior to the current COVID-19 pandemic,” he added.

Concerns have been with regard to data safety, reimbursement for consultations, quality of care, lack of technical experience, and difficulties in changing routines.

For many clinicians, the pandemic was the “first time they used telepsychiatry, and very few have received training in how to do it,” Dr. Mucic said.

He pointed out that guidelines are available in the United States, Canada, Australia, and India, including the 2018 Best Practices in Videoconferencing-Based Telemental Health, released by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Telemedicine Association.

Dr. Mucic noted that because these documents are relevant and useful, clinicians may wonder, “Why do we need another set of guidelines?”

He explained that the current WPA guidelines outline universal recommendations that apply “regardless of local or regional regulations.” Therefore, they can be used just as easily in low- and middle-income countries as in countries where telepsychiatry is already established.
 

A new paradigm

Similar to other guidelines, the WPA’s guidelines discuss legal and regulatory requirements, informed consent, billing and reimbursement, patient selection, clinician training, the clinical setting, and more.

However, what makes the new document “so new and special” is that it opens the door to “some new and previously undiscussed aspects of telepsychiatry ... that are capable of changing the whole delivery of mental health care,” Dr. Mucic said.

The first of these new aspects is in regard to cross-cultural telepsychiatry. The goal is to eliminate the need for interpreters or competency in a different language for patients who do not speak the host country’s language by connecting them remotely with a bilingual health care professional who shares their cultural or ethnic background.

This “ethnic matching” model may lead to a “more precise and detailed symptomatology,” the authors note. They add that minimizing the risk for misinterpretation and misunderstanding can enable better diagnosis and treatment.

The second area highlighted by Dr. Mucic is in regard to international telepsychiatry; the technology could be used to obtain a second opinion from colleagues who share the relevant cultural and linguistic background.

“Further, international expertise may be brought via [telepsychiatry] to local health workers as a part of education, supervision, and scientific collaboration,” he said.

“The hope is the guidelines will pave the way for improved international collaboration, not only by clinicians but also by policymakers.”
 

A blended future?

Also at EPA 2021, two experts debated whether the COVID-19 pandemic represented a turning point for e-health in psychiatry.

Taking the pro stance, Heleen Riper, PhD, professor of eMental-Health at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, argued that the future is likely to blend face-to-face interaction with video conferencing.

She believes that to maintain current progress, the focus should be on treatment personalization, engagement, and improvement, rather than cost-effectiveness.

Hans-Jürgen Möller, MD, professor emeritus, department of psychiatry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, argued against the idea that e-health represented a turning point in psychiatry. He noted that a survey of German psychotherapists indicated that there have been a number of drawbacks to video sessions during the pandemic.

Cautious optimism

Session chair Judit Simon, MD, DPhil, professor of health economics, Medical University of Vienna, asked the debaters whether video interventions will continue to replace in-person interventions once the pandemic is over or whether things will return to “where we were prepandemic.”

Dr. Riper said she did not believe that clinicians will return completely to in-patient practice. However, she emphasized the need for training and the development of new skills to improve the therapeutic relationship with patients.

Although Dr. Riper believes there is still a need for in-person doctor/patient interactions, “we will never get back to the pre-COVID phase, both in terms of diagnostics and treatment,” she said.

Dr. Möller added that although he has “some reservations” regarding the adoption of technologies by older patients and the lack of long-term data on telepsychiatry, he partially shares Dr. Riper’s optimism.

He suggested that there is an opportunity in psychiatry to use video conferencing for multidisciplinary team meetings similar to those seen in oncology.

This would allow discussion of patient diagnosis and treatment and would enable experts in mental health to help clinicians in other specialties. For example, it could help a general practitioner differentiate between depression and a depressive phase of schizophrenia, Dr. Riper said.

The presenters have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children and adolescents with leukemia who were placed on a restrictive diet and exercise regimen concurrent with starting chemotherapy showed responses to treatment that were better than those historically seen in such patients.

This apparently improved response suggests it is possible to boost treatment efficacy without raising the dose – or toxicity – of chemotherapy.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study in any hematologic malignancy to demonstrate potential benefit from caloric restriction via diet and exercise to augment chemotherapy efficacy and improve disease response, the authors reported.

The findings come from the IDEAL pilot trial, conducted in 40 young patients (mean age, 15 years; range, 10-21 years) diagnosed with high-risk B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

The study was published online April 1 in Blood Advances.

The diet and exercise regimen is a departure from current recommendations for patients with leukemia.

“This was a major paradigm shift – until now, many oncologists encouraged ‘comfort foods’ and increased calories to get through the rigor of chemotherapy,” first author Etan Orgel, MD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and the University of Southern California, also in Los Angeles.

The results from this pilot trial suggest that “the era of encouraging comfort food should be in the past; over-nutrition is likely harmful, and diet and exercise are important tools to harness during chemotherapy,” he said.

Dr. Orgel added that childhood ALL was selected because it is the most common cancer of childhood, but the findings could have potential relevance in other cancer types in children as well as adults.

Commenting on the study, Patrick Brown, MD, director of the pediatric leukemia program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the findings are important, albeit preliminary.

“I think the most important contribution of this pilot study is to show that it is possible to change the nutrition and exercise habits of children and adolescents during the initial month of treatment for ALL,” he said in an interview.

“We have to be cautious about the preliminary finding that these changes resulted in deeper remissions – this will need to be confirmed in a larger study,” added Dr. Brown, who was not involved with the research.

Dr. Orgel noted that a prospective, randomized trial, IDEAL-2, is launching later this year to further evaluate the intervention.
 

Obesity linked to poorer chemotherapy response

Among children and adolescents who start treatment for B-ALL, as many as 40% are overweight or obese, noted the study authors.

Those who are obese have more than a twofold greater risk of having persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of chemotherapy, considered the strongest patient-level predictor of poor outcome and a common guide for therapy intensification.

The problem is compounded by weight gain that is common during treatment as a result of prolonged chemotherapy and sedentary behavior, they commented.

With studies of obese mice linking calorie and fat restriction to improved survival after chemotherapy, the authors theorized that a calorie- and fat-restrictive diet and exercise could help improve outcomes after chemotherapy in humans.

Participants were enrolled at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and City of Hope National Medical Center in nearby Duarte. After they were started on chemotherapy, they were placed on a low-carb, low-fat, and low-sugar diet tailored to patient needs and preferences, as well as a moderate daily exercise regimen, and continued on this regimen throughout the 4-week induction phase.

Following the intervention, there were no significant reductions observed in median gain of fat mass at the end of the intervention, compared with baseline (P = .13). However, in the subgroup of patients who were overweight or obese at baseline, the reduction in fat mass was indeed significant versus baseline (+1.5% vs. +9.7% at baseline; P = .02).

Importantly, after adjustment for prognostic factors, adherence to the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of MRD, compared with recent historical controls who received the same induction therapy at the same institution, but no intervention (odds ratio, 0.30; P = .02).

The intervention was also associated with a lower detectable MRD, compared with the historical controls (OR, 0.16; one-sided P = .002).

“Most importantly, the IDEAL intervention reduced risk of MRD at the end of induction in all patients, irrespective of starting [body mass index] and after accounting for prognostic features,” the authors noted.
 

Adherence to diet high, exercise low

As many as 82% of study participants achieved the goal of 20% or more caloric deficit throughout the chemotherapy.

“Adherence to the diet was excellent, with caloric deficits and macronutrient goals achieved in nearly all patients, including in the lean group,” the authors reported.

Dr. Orgel added that families embraced the chance to play an active role in the cancer therapy. “In our view, they couldn’t control their disease or their chemotherapy, but this, they could,” he said.

Conversely, adherence to the prescribed exercise was low – just 31.2%, with the inactivity during the first month likely contributed to the similar loss of muscle mass that occurred in both cohorts, Dr. Orgel noted.

“The [low exercise adherence] unfortunately was not a surprise, as it is often difficult to exercise and be active during chemotherapy,” he said.

Key aspects of physical activity will be refined in further studies, Dr. Orgel added.
 

Insulin sensitivity, adiponectin key factors?

Patients receiving the intervention showed improved insulin sensitivity and reductions in circulating insulin, which are notable in that insulin has been linked to mechanisms that counter chemoresistance, the authors noted.

Furthermore, the decreases in insulin were accompanied by notable elevations in circulating adiponectin, a protein hormone produced and secreted by fat cells.

“Adiponectin was certainly a surprise, as until now it did not appear to play a major role in cancer cell resistance to chemotherapy,” Dr. Orgel said.

“It is too soon to say they are central to the mechanism of the intervention, but the large differences in adiponectin and insulin sensitivity found in children in the trial have definitely highlighted these as important for future study,” he added.

Dr. Orgel, the study coauthors, and Dr. Brown disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children and adolescents with leukemia who were placed on a restrictive diet and exercise regimen concurrent with starting chemotherapy showed responses to treatment that were better than those historically seen in such patients.

This apparently improved response suggests it is possible to boost treatment efficacy without raising the dose – or toxicity – of chemotherapy.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study in any hematologic malignancy to demonstrate potential benefit from caloric restriction via diet and exercise to augment chemotherapy efficacy and improve disease response, the authors reported.

The findings come from the IDEAL pilot trial, conducted in 40 young patients (mean age, 15 years; range, 10-21 years) diagnosed with high-risk B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

The study was published online April 1 in Blood Advances.

The diet and exercise regimen is a departure from current recommendations for patients with leukemia.

“This was a major paradigm shift – until now, many oncologists encouraged ‘comfort foods’ and increased calories to get through the rigor of chemotherapy,” first author Etan Orgel, MD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and the University of Southern California, also in Los Angeles.

The results from this pilot trial suggest that “the era of encouraging comfort food should be in the past; over-nutrition is likely harmful, and diet and exercise are important tools to harness during chemotherapy,” he said.

Dr. Orgel added that childhood ALL was selected because it is the most common cancer of childhood, but the findings could have potential relevance in other cancer types in children as well as adults.

Commenting on the study, Patrick Brown, MD, director of the pediatric leukemia program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the findings are important, albeit preliminary.

“I think the most important contribution of this pilot study is to show that it is possible to change the nutrition and exercise habits of children and adolescents during the initial month of treatment for ALL,” he said in an interview.

“We have to be cautious about the preliminary finding that these changes resulted in deeper remissions – this will need to be confirmed in a larger study,” added Dr. Brown, who was not involved with the research.

Dr. Orgel noted that a prospective, randomized trial, IDEAL-2, is launching later this year to further evaluate the intervention.
 

Obesity linked to poorer chemotherapy response

Among children and adolescents who start treatment for B-ALL, as many as 40% are overweight or obese, noted the study authors.

Those who are obese have more than a twofold greater risk of having persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of chemotherapy, considered the strongest patient-level predictor of poor outcome and a common guide for therapy intensification.

The problem is compounded by weight gain that is common during treatment as a result of prolonged chemotherapy and sedentary behavior, they commented.

With studies of obese mice linking calorie and fat restriction to improved survival after chemotherapy, the authors theorized that a calorie- and fat-restrictive diet and exercise could help improve outcomes after chemotherapy in humans.

Participants were enrolled at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and City of Hope National Medical Center in nearby Duarte. After they were started on chemotherapy, they were placed on a low-carb, low-fat, and low-sugar diet tailored to patient needs and preferences, as well as a moderate daily exercise regimen, and continued on this regimen throughout the 4-week induction phase.

Following the intervention, there were no significant reductions observed in median gain of fat mass at the end of the intervention, compared with baseline (P = .13). However, in the subgroup of patients who were overweight or obese at baseline, the reduction in fat mass was indeed significant versus baseline (+1.5% vs. +9.7% at baseline; P = .02).

Importantly, after adjustment for prognostic factors, adherence to the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of MRD, compared with recent historical controls who received the same induction therapy at the same institution, but no intervention (odds ratio, 0.30; P = .02).

The intervention was also associated with a lower detectable MRD, compared with the historical controls (OR, 0.16; one-sided P = .002).

“Most importantly, the IDEAL intervention reduced risk of MRD at the end of induction in all patients, irrespective of starting [body mass index] and after accounting for prognostic features,” the authors noted.
 

Adherence to diet high, exercise low

As many as 82% of study participants achieved the goal of 20% or more caloric deficit throughout the chemotherapy.

“Adherence to the diet was excellent, with caloric deficits and macronutrient goals achieved in nearly all patients, including in the lean group,” the authors reported.

Dr. Orgel added that families embraced the chance to play an active role in the cancer therapy. “In our view, they couldn’t control their disease or their chemotherapy, but this, they could,” he said.

Conversely, adherence to the prescribed exercise was low – just 31.2%, with the inactivity during the first month likely contributed to the similar loss of muscle mass that occurred in both cohorts, Dr. Orgel noted.

“The [low exercise adherence] unfortunately was not a surprise, as it is often difficult to exercise and be active during chemotherapy,” he said.

Key aspects of physical activity will be refined in further studies, Dr. Orgel added.
 

Insulin sensitivity, adiponectin key factors?

Patients receiving the intervention showed improved insulin sensitivity and reductions in circulating insulin, which are notable in that insulin has been linked to mechanisms that counter chemoresistance, the authors noted.

Furthermore, the decreases in insulin were accompanied by notable elevations in circulating adiponectin, a protein hormone produced and secreted by fat cells.

“Adiponectin was certainly a surprise, as until now it did not appear to play a major role in cancer cell resistance to chemotherapy,” Dr. Orgel said.

“It is too soon to say they are central to the mechanism of the intervention, but the large differences in adiponectin and insulin sensitivity found in children in the trial have definitely highlighted these as important for future study,” he added.

Dr. Orgel, the study coauthors, and Dr. Brown disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children and adolescents with leukemia who were placed on a restrictive diet and exercise regimen concurrent with starting chemotherapy showed responses to treatment that were better than those historically seen in such patients.

This apparently improved response suggests it is possible to boost treatment efficacy without raising the dose – or toxicity – of chemotherapy.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study in any hematologic malignancy to demonstrate potential benefit from caloric restriction via diet and exercise to augment chemotherapy efficacy and improve disease response, the authors reported.

The findings come from the IDEAL pilot trial, conducted in 40 young patients (mean age, 15 years; range, 10-21 years) diagnosed with high-risk B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

The study was published online April 1 in Blood Advances.

The diet and exercise regimen is a departure from current recommendations for patients with leukemia.

“This was a major paradigm shift – until now, many oncologists encouraged ‘comfort foods’ and increased calories to get through the rigor of chemotherapy,” first author Etan Orgel, MD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and the University of Southern California, also in Los Angeles.

The results from this pilot trial suggest that “the era of encouraging comfort food should be in the past; over-nutrition is likely harmful, and diet and exercise are important tools to harness during chemotherapy,” he said.

Dr. Orgel added that childhood ALL was selected because it is the most common cancer of childhood, but the findings could have potential relevance in other cancer types in children as well as adults.

Commenting on the study, Patrick Brown, MD, director of the pediatric leukemia program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the findings are important, albeit preliminary.

“I think the most important contribution of this pilot study is to show that it is possible to change the nutrition and exercise habits of children and adolescents during the initial month of treatment for ALL,” he said in an interview.

“We have to be cautious about the preliminary finding that these changes resulted in deeper remissions – this will need to be confirmed in a larger study,” added Dr. Brown, who was not involved with the research.

Dr. Orgel noted that a prospective, randomized trial, IDEAL-2, is launching later this year to further evaluate the intervention.
 

Obesity linked to poorer chemotherapy response

Among children and adolescents who start treatment for B-ALL, as many as 40% are overweight or obese, noted the study authors.

Those who are obese have more than a twofold greater risk of having persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of chemotherapy, considered the strongest patient-level predictor of poor outcome and a common guide for therapy intensification.

The problem is compounded by weight gain that is common during treatment as a result of prolonged chemotherapy and sedentary behavior, they commented.

With studies of obese mice linking calorie and fat restriction to improved survival after chemotherapy, the authors theorized that a calorie- and fat-restrictive diet and exercise could help improve outcomes after chemotherapy in humans.

Participants were enrolled at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and City of Hope National Medical Center in nearby Duarte. After they were started on chemotherapy, they were placed on a low-carb, low-fat, and low-sugar diet tailored to patient needs and preferences, as well as a moderate daily exercise regimen, and continued on this regimen throughout the 4-week induction phase.

Following the intervention, there were no significant reductions observed in median gain of fat mass at the end of the intervention, compared with baseline (P = .13). However, in the subgroup of patients who were overweight or obese at baseline, the reduction in fat mass was indeed significant versus baseline (+1.5% vs. +9.7% at baseline; P = .02).

Importantly, after adjustment for prognostic factors, adherence to the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of MRD, compared with recent historical controls who received the same induction therapy at the same institution, but no intervention (odds ratio, 0.30; P = .02).

The intervention was also associated with a lower detectable MRD, compared with the historical controls (OR, 0.16; one-sided P = .002).

“Most importantly, the IDEAL intervention reduced risk of MRD at the end of induction in all patients, irrespective of starting [body mass index] and after accounting for prognostic features,” the authors noted.
 

Adherence to diet high, exercise low

As many as 82% of study participants achieved the goal of 20% or more caloric deficit throughout the chemotherapy.

“Adherence to the diet was excellent, with caloric deficits and macronutrient goals achieved in nearly all patients, including in the lean group,” the authors reported.

Dr. Orgel added that families embraced the chance to play an active role in the cancer therapy. “In our view, they couldn’t control their disease or their chemotherapy, but this, they could,” he said.

Conversely, adherence to the prescribed exercise was low – just 31.2%, with the inactivity during the first month likely contributed to the similar loss of muscle mass that occurred in both cohorts, Dr. Orgel noted.

“The [low exercise adherence] unfortunately was not a surprise, as it is often difficult to exercise and be active during chemotherapy,” he said.

Key aspects of physical activity will be refined in further studies, Dr. Orgel added.
 

Insulin sensitivity, adiponectin key factors?

Patients receiving the intervention showed improved insulin sensitivity and reductions in circulating insulin, which are notable in that insulin has been linked to mechanisms that counter chemoresistance, the authors noted.

Furthermore, the decreases in insulin were accompanied by notable elevations in circulating adiponectin, a protein hormone produced and secreted by fat cells.

“Adiponectin was certainly a surprise, as until now it did not appear to play a major role in cancer cell resistance to chemotherapy,” Dr. Orgel said.

“It is too soon to say they are central to the mechanism of the intervention, but the large differences in adiponectin and insulin sensitivity found in children in the trial have definitely highlighted these as important for future study,” he added.

Dr. Orgel, the study coauthors, and Dr. Brown disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Seven years after concluding that evidence was insufficient to recommend screening for vitamin D deficiency in the general population, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has revisited the issue – and come up with the same conclusion.

Overall, “the current evidence is inadequate to determine whether screening for and treatment of asymptomatic low 25(OH)D levels improve clinical outcomes in community dwelling adults,” the task force concluded in its statement, recommending an “I” for insufficient.

The statement was published online April 13 in JAMA.

In the absence of screening recommendations, clinicians may be best advised to instead focus on diet and supplementation for those considered at risk, said Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Rather than posing the question of screening the general population for vitamin D deficiency, let’s focus on ensuring that everyone consumes the age-based recommended daily allowance of vitamin D instead,” Dr. Cappola, a coauthor of the accompanying editorial, said in an interview.
 

No studies have directly evaluated benefits of screening

The latest USPSTF recommendation is based on a systematic review of the benefits and harms of screening and early treatment for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic, community-dwelling nonpregnant adults aged 18 or older in the primary care setting with no signs or symptoms of deficiency.

The review found no studies that directly evaluated the benefits of screening for vitamin D deficiency.

However, 26 randomized clinical trials and one nested case-control study evaluated the effectiveness of treatment of vitamin D deficiency with supplementation.

And while observational studies have linked lower vitamin D levels with a multitude of conditions and risks, evidence of any benefit was inconsistent, with none identified for most major outcomes in asymptomatic adults – the focus of the Task Force recommendation.

“Among asymptomatic, community-dwelling populations with low vitamin D levels, the evidence suggests that treatment with vitamin D has no effect on mortality or the incidence of fractures, falls, depression, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, or adverse events,” the review authors stress.

“The evidence is inconclusive about the effect of treatment on physical functioning and infection.”
 

One in four are vitamin D deficient

In terms of the further question of the potential harms of vitamin D screening of asymptomatic individuals, a key concern is the potential for misclassification and over- or underdiagnosis due to inconsistent cutoffs and variability of different screening assays, the review concluded.

However, with the rare exception of vitamin D toxicity from supplementation well above sufficient levels, treatment with vitamin D supplementation appears relatively safe.

With a lack of consensus even over the basic cutoff for vitamin D deficiency, the National Academy of Medicine determined in 2011 that hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels below 20 ng/mL are deficient for bone health, with no evidence of different thresholds for any other health condition.

Based on that cutoff, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), reported in 2014 that 25% of the U.S. population over the age of 1 was vitamin D deficient, with 18% of the population having 25(OH)D levels of 12-19 ng/mL and 5% having very low levels (< 12 ng/mL).
 

More work needed to determine groups at risk

While the task force report did not delve into testing or treatment recommendations for symptomatic adults, key established risk factors that may help clinicians identify those who are vitamin D deficient include obesity, receiving little or no UVB light exposure, and older age.

In general, obesity is associated with a 1.3- to 2-fold risk of being vitamin D deficient based on the criteria used, while non-Hispanic Blacks are 2-10 times more likely to be deficient compared with non-Hispanic White patients, the task force noted.

However, the implications of vitamin D deficiency in certain populations can vary. For instance, non-Hispanic Black people, despite having a higher prevalence of lower vitamin D levels compared with White people, in fact, have lower reported rates of fractures.

To address the various issues and gain a better understanding of the complexities of vitamin D deficiency, the task force calls for further research in key areas.

“More research is needed to determine whether total serum 25(OH)D levels are the best measure of vitamin D deficiency and whether the best measure of vitamin D deficiency varies by subgroups defined by race, ethnicity, or sex,” the authors indicated.

Furthermore, “more research is needed to determine the cutoff that defines vitamin D deficiency and whether that cutoff varies by specific clinical outcome or by subgroups defined by race, ethnicity, or sex.”
 

No support for population-based screening in guidelines

With the lack of conclusive evidence, no organizations currently recommend population-based screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic patients, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology endorses this stance.

The Endocrine Society and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists meanwhile do recommend screening for vitamin D deficiency in patients considered at risk.

Data show there was as much as an 80-fold increase in Medicare reimbursement volumes for vitamin D testing among clinicians from 2000 to 2010; however, that rate may have leveled off after the National Academy of Medicine reported on set deficiency levels, said Sherri-Ann M. Burnett-Bowie, MD, MPH, Dr. Cappola’s editorial coauthor.

Dr. Burnett-Bowie noted that she regularly tests her patients’ vitamin D levels, however most of her patients have osteoporosis or fractures.

“I do screen them for vitamin D deficiency since optimizing their vitamin D will improve calcium absorption, which is important for treating their osteoporosis,” Dr. Burnett-Bowie, of the endocrine division, department of medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

In terms of broader testing of asymptomatic patients in the general population, however, any changes in screening will likely be contingent on developments in the effects of treatment, she said.

“Given the challenge in finding benefits of vitamin D supplementation in those who are deficient, it will likely be more challenging to find benefits from wider screening,” she concluded.

The USPSTF and editorialists reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Seven years after concluding that evidence was insufficient to recommend screening for vitamin D deficiency in the general population, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has revisited the issue – and come up with the same conclusion.

Overall, “the current evidence is inadequate to determine whether screening for and treatment of asymptomatic low 25(OH)D levels improve clinical outcomes in community dwelling adults,” the task force concluded in its statement, recommending an “I” for insufficient.

The statement was published online April 13 in JAMA.

In the absence of screening recommendations, clinicians may be best advised to instead focus on diet and supplementation for those considered at risk, said Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Rather than posing the question of screening the general population for vitamin D deficiency, let’s focus on ensuring that everyone consumes the age-based recommended daily allowance of vitamin D instead,” Dr. Cappola, a coauthor of the accompanying editorial, said in an interview.
 

No studies have directly evaluated benefits of screening

The latest USPSTF recommendation is based on a systematic review of the benefits and harms of screening and early treatment for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic, community-dwelling nonpregnant adults aged 18 or older in the primary care setting with no signs or symptoms of deficiency.

The review found no studies that directly evaluated the benefits of screening for vitamin D deficiency.

However, 26 randomized clinical trials and one nested case-control study evaluated the effectiveness of treatment of vitamin D deficiency with supplementation.

And while observational studies have linked lower vitamin D levels with a multitude of conditions and risks, evidence of any benefit was inconsistent, with none identified for most major outcomes in asymptomatic adults – the focus of the Task Force recommendation.

“Among asymptomatic, community-dwelling populations with low vitamin D levels, the evidence suggests that treatment with vitamin D has no effect on mortality or the incidence of fractures, falls, depression, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, or adverse events,” the review authors stress.

“The evidence is inconclusive about the effect of treatment on physical functioning and infection.”
 

One in four are vitamin D deficient

In terms of the further question of the potential harms of vitamin D screening of asymptomatic individuals, a key concern is the potential for misclassification and over- or underdiagnosis due to inconsistent cutoffs and variability of different screening assays, the review concluded.

However, with the rare exception of vitamin D toxicity from supplementation well above sufficient levels, treatment with vitamin D supplementation appears relatively safe.

With a lack of consensus even over the basic cutoff for vitamin D deficiency, the National Academy of Medicine determined in 2011 that hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels below 20 ng/mL are deficient for bone health, with no evidence of different thresholds for any other health condition.

Based on that cutoff, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), reported in 2014 that 25% of the U.S. population over the age of 1 was vitamin D deficient, with 18% of the population having 25(OH)D levels of 12-19 ng/mL and 5% having very low levels (< 12 ng/mL).
 

More work needed to determine groups at risk

While the task force report did not delve into testing or treatment recommendations for symptomatic adults, key established risk factors that may help clinicians identify those who are vitamin D deficient include obesity, receiving little or no UVB light exposure, and older age.

In general, obesity is associated with a 1.3- to 2-fold risk of being vitamin D deficient based on the criteria used, while non-Hispanic Blacks are 2-10 times more likely to be deficient compared with non-Hispanic White patients, the task force noted.

However, the implications of vitamin D deficiency in certain populations can vary. For instance, non-Hispanic Black people, despite having a higher prevalence of lower vitamin D levels compared with White people, in fact, have lower reported rates of fractures.

To address the various issues and gain a better understanding of the complexities of vitamin D deficiency, the task force calls for further research in key areas.

“More research is needed to determine whether total serum 25(OH)D levels are the best measure of vitamin D deficiency and whether the best measure of vitamin D deficiency varies by subgroups defined by race, ethnicity, or sex,” the authors indicated.

Furthermore, “more research is needed to determine the cutoff that defines vitamin D deficiency and whether that cutoff varies by specific clinical outcome or by subgroups defined by race, ethnicity, or sex.”
 

No support for population-based screening in guidelines

With the lack of conclusive evidence, no organizations currently recommend population-based screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic patients, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology endorses this stance.

The Endocrine Society and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists meanwhile do recommend screening for vitamin D deficiency in patients considered at risk.

Data show there was as much as an 80-fold increase in Medicare reimbursement volumes for vitamin D testing among clinicians from 2000 to 2010; however, that rate may have leveled off after the National Academy of Medicine reported on set deficiency levels, said Sherri-Ann M. Burnett-Bowie, MD, MPH, Dr. Cappola’s editorial coauthor.

Dr. Burnett-Bowie noted that she regularly tests her patients’ vitamin D levels, however most of her patients have osteoporosis or fractures.

“I do screen them for vitamin D deficiency since optimizing their vitamin D will improve calcium absorption, which is important for treating their osteoporosis,” Dr. Burnett-Bowie, of the endocrine division, department of medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

In terms of broader testing of asymptomatic patients in the general population, however, any changes in screening will likely be contingent on developments in the effects of treatment, she said.

“Given the challenge in finding benefits of vitamin D supplementation in those who are deficient, it will likely be more challenging to find benefits from wider screening,” she concluded.

The USPSTF and editorialists reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Seven years after concluding that evidence was insufficient to recommend screening for vitamin D deficiency in the general population, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has revisited the issue – and come up with the same conclusion.

Overall, “the current evidence is inadequate to determine whether screening for and treatment of asymptomatic low 25(OH)D levels improve clinical outcomes in community dwelling adults,” the task force concluded in its statement, recommending an “I” for insufficient.

The statement was published online April 13 in JAMA.

In the absence of screening recommendations, clinicians may be best advised to instead focus on diet and supplementation for those considered at risk, said Anne R. Cappola, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“Rather than posing the question of screening the general population for vitamin D deficiency, let’s focus on ensuring that everyone consumes the age-based recommended daily allowance of vitamin D instead,” Dr. Cappola, a coauthor of the accompanying editorial, said in an interview.
 

No studies have directly evaluated benefits of screening

The latest USPSTF recommendation is based on a systematic review of the benefits and harms of screening and early treatment for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic, community-dwelling nonpregnant adults aged 18 or older in the primary care setting with no signs or symptoms of deficiency.

The review found no studies that directly evaluated the benefits of screening for vitamin D deficiency.

However, 26 randomized clinical trials and one nested case-control study evaluated the effectiveness of treatment of vitamin D deficiency with supplementation.

And while observational studies have linked lower vitamin D levels with a multitude of conditions and risks, evidence of any benefit was inconsistent, with none identified for most major outcomes in asymptomatic adults – the focus of the Task Force recommendation.

“Among asymptomatic, community-dwelling populations with low vitamin D levels, the evidence suggests that treatment with vitamin D has no effect on mortality or the incidence of fractures, falls, depression, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, or adverse events,” the review authors stress.

“The evidence is inconclusive about the effect of treatment on physical functioning and infection.”
 

One in four are vitamin D deficient

In terms of the further question of the potential harms of vitamin D screening of asymptomatic individuals, a key concern is the potential for misclassification and over- or underdiagnosis due to inconsistent cutoffs and variability of different screening assays, the review concluded.

However, with the rare exception of vitamin D toxicity from supplementation well above sufficient levels, treatment with vitamin D supplementation appears relatively safe.

With a lack of consensus even over the basic cutoff for vitamin D deficiency, the National Academy of Medicine determined in 2011 that hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels below 20 ng/mL are deficient for bone health, with no evidence of different thresholds for any other health condition.

Based on that cutoff, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), reported in 2014 that 25% of the U.S. population over the age of 1 was vitamin D deficient, with 18% of the population having 25(OH)D levels of 12-19 ng/mL and 5% having very low levels (< 12 ng/mL).