The US Food and Drug Administration approvals of dupilumab (Dupixent, Regeneron/Sanofi) for adults and children with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) affirmed the safety and efficacy of the drug, which is the first product indicated specifically for treatment of this disease.

The recent expanded approval for its use in kids aged 1 year and older imply that clinicians can prescribe it for just about any patient with the immune disorder.

But is dupilumab right for everyone?
 

What the Trials Said

Dupilumab, given by injection, is a recombinant human immunoglobulin-G4 monoclonal antibody that inhibits interleukin 4 (IL-4) and IL-13 signaling.

The first approval for EoE, on May 22, 2022, for adults and children aged 12 years and older weighing at least 40 kg, was based on data from 321 participants in the first two parts of a three-part phase 3 trial involving patients with EoE despite 8 weeks of high-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and with substantial symptom burden.

At 24 weeks, histologic remission occurred in 60% of patients in Part A of the trial and 59% in Part B who received a weekly 300-mg dose of dupilumab compared with 5% and 6% taking placebo. Additionally, Part A and B participants taking the drug weekly experienced a 69% and 64% reduction in disease symptoms, respectively, vs 32% and 41% for placebo. The drug also outperformed placebo in reducing patients’ esophageal eosinophilic counts and abnormal endoscopic findings.

The second approval, on January 25, 2024, for children aged 1 year and older weighing at least 15 kg, was based on data from a two-part, placebo-controlled trial involving 102 children, ages 1-11 years, with EoE. The study involved a 16-week treatment period and a 36-week extended period during which eligible children from the dupilumab group continued to receive their weight-based dose level and those who were on placebo switched to active treatment. The trial showed that a greater proportion of children taking the drug achieved histological remission.
 

A Major Advance but Temper Expectations

Dupilumab is a “major advance for EoE that has to find its place but should be looked at with optimism and what I call tempered expectations,” Philip Katz, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine in the gastroenterology division at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, said in an interview. “I’ve been using it since The New England Journal of Medicine paper was published about a year and a half ago , and as a slow adopter, I like it.”

Dr. Katz and his colleagues have been prescribing dupilumab mainly for patients who haven’t responded to other medications, mainly PPIs and steroids.

“We start people on it without stopping anything else,” Dr. Katz said. “Then, as symptoms evolve and people have a positive response, we stop the other medications. For example, in one patient who did very well on the drug, we stopped his steroids and now, we’re weaning him off his PPI. It’s a process. This is not a disease where you can rush people.”

The tempered approach is in part because of payer issues, he noted.

“It’s very difficult to get it reimbursed in the US if you haven’t tried something else first,” Dr. Katz said. “And because it’s still relatively new in this field, standard treatment is still used frequently.”

Although Dr. Katz has had “incredible success” with dupilumab so far, “nothing should be considered a miracle drug,” he said. “A couple of people have had injection reactions, and one person couldn’t tolerate the drug. So, while it seems to have an excellent response rate, it’s not 100%. Like any new drug, it will have to find its true success rate.”
 

Taking a Step-Up Approach

Like Dr. Katz, Evan Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, director of the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, is enthusiastic about dupilumab.

“It’s a boon to the field, and now, some real-world data are coming out and looking very much like the clinical trial data, which are reassuring,” said Dr. Dellon, a coauthor of The New England Journal of Medicine paper.

It’s been a “game changer,” particularly for people who weren’t doing well with their current treatments, he said. “In my practice, I’ve been seeing a lowish response rate for PPIs, and about 30%-40% not responding to topical steroids, since we don’t have a standard formulation for that. The diet elimination therapy is effective if people can do it well and adhere to it. But there’s a group of people who don’t respond, and probably, a larger group who can’t really do that treatment long term. So, the drug has been fantastic for those patients.”

Although the drug is approved for patients aged 1 year and older with no caveats, “it’s not the right medicine for every patient,” he said. “Patients in the clinical trials had EoE for 5 years, many of them were treatment refractory, and just under half had dilations and strictures,” he said. “They represent a certain group of patients.”

Dr. Dellon is taking a “step-up approach” to EoE treatment, first trying the standard interventions — PPIs, steroids, and an elimination diet — that many patients do respond to.

For new patients who choose medication therapy, he prescribes PPIs and then topical steroids and then steps up to dupilumab for patients who aren’t responding or who have a strong preference for starting the drug early.

In addition to EoE, the drug is approved for certain patients with atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. As such, Dr. Dellon said that he will try dupilumab early on in patients with multiple atopic conditions, such as asthma, eczema, or nasal disease.

“Even if their EoE is not that severe, those patients can still benefit from a more streamlined systemic therapy,” he said.
 

Challenges and Questions Still Remain

Not surprisingly, both Dr. Katz and Dr. Dellon pointed to dupilumab’s cost and the related challenge of convincing insurance companies to cover the drug as major challenges to more widespread use. The lack of long-term data also poses a challenge.

Side effects, which often stand in the way of the use of a new drug, are not an issue, for the most part, at least in the short term, according to Dr. Dellon. The most common side effects are discomfort, redness at the injection site, and pain related to the injection.

“Keeping the medication out of the refrigerator for a bit to bring it up to room temperature can help, as can doing the injection in the lower abdomen,” he said. “Otherwise, it’s well tolerated, with no side effects that are unique to EoE.”

Data from the third part of the clinical trial, which followed patients from weeks 24-52 of treatment, indicated that improvements in histological, symptomatic, endoscopic, and molecular features of EoE among patients taking weekly dupilumab continued or improved.

In my practice, “my observations have been that people are maintaining their responses,” said Dr. Dellon, a coauthor of the paper on the study’s third part.

However, one critical question is whether the dose intensity and/or frequency can be decreased over time without reducing the response rate.

“Hopefully, we’ll start getting data on that in the next year or two,” Dr. Dellon said. “It’s hard to do that yet because the drug has only been out for a year or year and a half, and people are just getting to that year of the initial dosing.”

Another question is how to use the drug in people who are different from the clinical trial population, such as those who have been responding to other therapies but want to switch, and people who are newly diagnosed but who have severe disease. Can the drug be used earlier in these populations?

Dr. Dellon would like to see a study that utilizes the new EoE index of severity metric to focus specifically on dupilumab use in patients with severe disease.

Early findings from his recent real-world study of 46 patients with severe disease who would not have qualified for the clinical trials found histologic, endoscopic, and symptom improvement in 91% of patients with refractory and fibrostenotic EoE after 6 months of dupilumab treatment.

While women tend to be well represented in the clinical trial, the drug needs to be tested in a more diverse population, Dr. Dellon noted. Research is underway looking at dupilumab effectiveness in people with different race/ethnicities.

EoE is more common among White people but that may be the result of a “detection issue,” he said. “When clinicians see a Black or Hispanic patient with dysphagia, for example, they may not be thinking of EoE. And there are also some data suggesting that EoE presents slightly differently in non-White populations, which again could decrease the suspicion for it. This is an area we need to learn more about.”
 

Don’t ‘Abandon’ Current Interventions

“We’ve got an exciting drug that is going to help a lot of people with a complex disease,” Dr. Katz said. “But we should not forget that there are other interventions that have been successful, and quite frankly, they don’t need to be abandoned.”

“Learn about the drug if you’ve never used it,” he advised. “Read the studies so you understand who the patients were as a baseline for where you’re going to use it. Be prepared to do the appropriate paperwork requirements to get approvals from insurers. And look for more literature because it’s coming.”

“Overall, dupilumab has really changed care in people with moderate to severe disease who are not responding or are intolerant to the other treatments,” Dr. Dellon said. “That’s the natural place for the medication to go at this point.”

Dr. Katz is a consultant to Phathom Pharma, Sebela Pharma, Medpace (not active), and Medtronic.

Dr. Dellon received research funding from Adare/Ellodi, Allakos, Arena/Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eupraxia, Ferring, GSK, Meritage, Miraca, Nutricia, Celgene/Receptos/BMS, Regeneron, Revolo, and Shire/Takeda. He served as a consultant to Abbott, AbbVie, Adare/Ellodi, Aimmune, Akesobio, Alfasigma, ALK, Allakos, Amgen, Aqilion, Arena/Pfizer, Aslan, AstraZeneca, Avir, Biorasi, Calypso, Celgene/Receptos/BMS, Celldex, Eli Lilly, EsoCap, Eupraxia, Dr. Falk Pharma, Ferring, GSK, Gossamer Bio, Holoclara, Invea, Knightpoint, Landos, LucidDx, Morphic, Nexstone Immunology/Uniquity, Nutricia, Parexel/Calyx, Phathom, Regeneron, Revolo, Robarts/Alimentiv, Salix, Sanofi, Shire/Takeda, Target RWE, and Upstream Bio. He also received educational grants from Allakos, Aqilion, Holoclara, and Invea.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration approvals of dupilumab (Dupixent, Regeneron/Sanofi) for adults and children with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) affirmed the safety and efficacy of the drug, which is the first product indicated specifically for treatment of this disease.

The recent expanded approval for its use in kids aged 1 year and older imply that clinicians can prescribe it for just about any patient with the immune disorder.

But is dupilumab right for everyone?
 

What the Trials Said

Dupilumab, given by injection, is a recombinant human immunoglobulin-G4 monoclonal antibody that inhibits interleukin 4 (IL-4) and IL-13 signaling.

The first approval for EoE, on May 22, 2022, for adults and children aged 12 years and older weighing at least 40 kg, was based on data from 321 participants in the first two parts of a three-part phase 3 trial involving patients with EoE despite 8 weeks of high-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and with substantial symptom burden.

At 24 weeks, histologic remission occurred in 60% of patients in Part A of the trial and 59% in Part B who received a weekly 300-mg dose of dupilumab compared with 5% and 6% taking placebo. Additionally, Part A and B participants taking the drug weekly experienced a 69% and 64% reduction in disease symptoms, respectively, vs 32% and 41% for placebo. The drug also outperformed placebo in reducing patients’ esophageal eosinophilic counts and abnormal endoscopic findings.

The second approval, on January 25, 2024, for children aged 1 year and older weighing at least 15 kg, was based on data from a two-part, placebo-controlled trial involving 102 children, ages 1-11 years, with EoE. The study involved a 16-week treatment period and a 36-week extended period during which eligible children from the dupilumab group continued to receive their weight-based dose level and those who were on placebo switched to active treatment. The trial showed that a greater proportion of children taking the drug achieved histological remission.
 

A Major Advance but Temper Expectations

Dupilumab is a “major advance for EoE that has to find its place but should be looked at with optimism and what I call tempered expectations,” Philip Katz, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine in the gastroenterology division at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, said in an interview. “I’ve been using it since The New England Journal of Medicine paper was published about a year and a half ago , and as a slow adopter, I like it.”

Dr. Katz and his colleagues have been prescribing dupilumab mainly for patients who haven’t responded to other medications, mainly PPIs and steroids.

“We start people on it without stopping anything else,” Dr. Katz said. “Then, as symptoms evolve and people have a positive response, we stop the other medications. For example, in one patient who did very well on the drug, we stopped his steroids and now, we’re weaning him off his PPI. It’s a process. This is not a disease where you can rush people.”

The tempered approach is in part because of payer issues, he noted.

“It’s very difficult to get it reimbursed in the US if you haven’t tried something else first,” Dr. Katz said. “And because it’s still relatively new in this field, standard treatment is still used frequently.”

Although Dr. Katz has had “incredible success” with dupilumab so far, “nothing should be considered a miracle drug,” he said. “A couple of people have had injection reactions, and one person couldn’t tolerate the drug. So, while it seems to have an excellent response rate, it’s not 100%. Like any new drug, it will have to find its true success rate.”
 

Taking a Step-Up Approach

Like Dr. Katz, Evan Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, director of the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, is enthusiastic about dupilumab.

“It’s a boon to the field, and now, some real-world data are coming out and looking very much like the clinical trial data, which are reassuring,” said Dr. Dellon, a coauthor of The New England Journal of Medicine paper.

It’s been a “game changer,” particularly for people who weren’t doing well with their current treatments, he said. “In my practice, I’ve been seeing a lowish response rate for PPIs, and about 30%-40% not responding to topical steroids, since we don’t have a standard formulation for that. The diet elimination therapy is effective if people can do it well and adhere to it. But there’s a group of people who don’t respond, and probably, a larger group who can’t really do that treatment long term. So, the drug has been fantastic for those patients.”

Although the drug is approved for patients aged 1 year and older with no caveats, “it’s not the right medicine for every patient,” he said. “Patients in the clinical trials had EoE for 5 years, many of them were treatment refractory, and just under half had dilations and strictures,” he said. “They represent a certain group of patients.”

Dr. Dellon is taking a “step-up approach” to EoE treatment, first trying the standard interventions — PPIs, steroids, and an elimination diet — that many patients do respond to.

For new patients who choose medication therapy, he prescribes PPIs and then topical steroids and then steps up to dupilumab for patients who aren’t responding or who have a strong preference for starting the drug early.

In addition to EoE, the drug is approved for certain patients with atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. As such, Dr. Dellon said that he will try dupilumab early on in patients with multiple atopic conditions, such as asthma, eczema, or nasal disease.

“Even if their EoE is not that severe, those patients can still benefit from a more streamlined systemic therapy,” he said.
 

Challenges and Questions Still Remain

Not surprisingly, both Dr. Katz and Dr. Dellon pointed to dupilumab’s cost and the related challenge of convincing insurance companies to cover the drug as major challenges to more widespread use. The lack of long-term data also poses a challenge.

Side effects, which often stand in the way of the use of a new drug, are not an issue, for the most part, at least in the short term, according to Dr. Dellon. The most common side effects are discomfort, redness at the injection site, and pain related to the injection.

“Keeping the medication out of the refrigerator for a bit to bring it up to room temperature can help, as can doing the injection in the lower abdomen,” he said. “Otherwise, it’s well tolerated, with no side effects that are unique to EoE.”

Data from the third part of the clinical trial, which followed patients from weeks 24-52 of treatment, indicated that improvements in histological, symptomatic, endoscopic, and molecular features of EoE among patients taking weekly dupilumab continued or improved.

In my practice, “my observations have been that people are maintaining their responses,” said Dr. Dellon, a coauthor of the paper on the study’s third part.

However, one critical question is whether the dose intensity and/or frequency can be decreased over time without reducing the response rate.

“Hopefully, we’ll start getting data on that in the next year or two,” Dr. Dellon said. “It’s hard to do that yet because the drug has only been out for a year or year and a half, and people are just getting to that year of the initial dosing.”

Another question is how to use the drug in people who are different from the clinical trial population, such as those who have been responding to other therapies but want to switch, and people who are newly diagnosed but who have severe disease. Can the drug be used earlier in these populations?

Dr. Dellon would like to see a study that utilizes the new EoE index of severity metric to focus specifically on dupilumab use in patients with severe disease.

Early findings from his recent real-world study of 46 patients with severe disease who would not have qualified for the clinical trials found histologic, endoscopic, and symptom improvement in 91% of patients with refractory and fibrostenotic EoE after 6 months of dupilumab treatment.

While women tend to be well represented in the clinical trial, the drug needs to be tested in a more diverse population, Dr. Dellon noted. Research is underway looking at dupilumab effectiveness in people with different race/ethnicities.

EoE is more common among White people but that may be the result of a “detection issue,” he said. “When clinicians see a Black or Hispanic patient with dysphagia, for example, they may not be thinking of EoE. And there are also some data suggesting that EoE presents slightly differently in non-White populations, which again could decrease the suspicion for it. This is an area we need to learn more about.”
 

Don’t ‘Abandon’ Current Interventions

“We’ve got an exciting drug that is going to help a lot of people with a complex disease,” Dr. Katz said. “But we should not forget that there are other interventions that have been successful, and quite frankly, they don’t need to be abandoned.”

“Learn about the drug if you’ve never used it,” he advised. “Read the studies so you understand who the patients were as a baseline for where you’re going to use it. Be prepared to do the appropriate paperwork requirements to get approvals from insurers. And look for more literature because it’s coming.”

“Overall, dupilumab has really changed care in people with moderate to severe disease who are not responding or are intolerant to the other treatments,” Dr. Dellon said. “That’s the natural place for the medication to go at this point.”

Dr. Katz is a consultant to Phathom Pharma, Sebela Pharma, Medpace (not active), and Medtronic.

Dr. Dellon received research funding from Adare/Ellodi, Allakos, Arena/Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eupraxia, Ferring, GSK, Meritage, Miraca, Nutricia, Celgene/Receptos/BMS, Regeneron, Revolo, and Shire/Takeda. He served as a consultant to Abbott, AbbVie, Adare/Ellodi, Aimmune, Akesobio, Alfasigma, ALK, Allakos, Amgen, Aqilion, Arena/Pfizer, Aslan, AstraZeneca, Avir, Biorasi, Calypso, Celgene/Receptos/BMS, Celldex, Eli Lilly, EsoCap, Eupraxia, Dr. Falk Pharma, Ferring, GSK, Gossamer Bio, Holoclara, Invea, Knightpoint, Landos, LucidDx, Morphic, Nexstone Immunology/Uniquity, Nutricia, Parexel/Calyx, Phathom, Regeneron, Revolo, Robarts/Alimentiv, Salix, Sanofi, Shire/Takeda, Target RWE, and Upstream Bio. He also received educational grants from Allakos, Aqilion, Holoclara, and Invea.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration approvals of dupilumab (Dupixent, Regeneron/Sanofi) for adults and children with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) affirmed the safety and efficacy of the drug, which is the first product indicated specifically for treatment of this disease.

The recent expanded approval for its use in kids aged 1 year and older imply that clinicians can prescribe it for just about any patient with the immune disorder.

But is dupilumab right for everyone?
 

What the Trials Said

Dupilumab, given by injection, is a recombinant human immunoglobulin-G4 monoclonal antibody that inhibits interleukin 4 (IL-4) and IL-13 signaling.

The first approval for EoE, on May 22, 2022, for adults and children aged 12 years and older weighing at least 40 kg, was based on data from 321 participants in the first two parts of a three-part phase 3 trial involving patients with EoE despite 8 weeks of high-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and with substantial symptom burden.

At 24 weeks, histologic remission occurred in 60% of patients in Part A of the trial and 59% in Part B who received a weekly 300-mg dose of dupilumab compared with 5% and 6% taking placebo. Additionally, Part A and B participants taking the drug weekly experienced a 69% and 64% reduction in disease symptoms, respectively, vs 32% and 41% for placebo. The drug also outperformed placebo in reducing patients’ esophageal eosinophilic counts and abnormal endoscopic findings.

The second approval, on January 25, 2024, for children aged 1 year and older weighing at least 15 kg, was based on data from a two-part, placebo-controlled trial involving 102 children, ages 1-11 years, with EoE. The study involved a 16-week treatment period and a 36-week extended period during which eligible children from the dupilumab group continued to receive their weight-based dose level and those who were on placebo switched to active treatment. The trial showed that a greater proportion of children taking the drug achieved histological remission.
 

A Major Advance but Temper Expectations

Dupilumab is a “major advance for EoE that has to find its place but should be looked at with optimism and what I call tempered expectations,” Philip Katz, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine in the gastroenterology division at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, said in an interview. “I’ve been using it since The New England Journal of Medicine paper was published about a year and a half ago , and as a slow adopter, I like it.”

Dr. Katz and his colleagues have been prescribing dupilumab mainly for patients who haven’t responded to other medications, mainly PPIs and steroids.

“We start people on it without stopping anything else,” Dr. Katz said. “Then, as symptoms evolve and people have a positive response, we stop the other medications. For example, in one patient who did very well on the drug, we stopped his steroids and now, we’re weaning him off his PPI. It’s a process. This is not a disease where you can rush people.”

The tempered approach is in part because of payer issues, he noted.

“It’s very difficult to get it reimbursed in the US if you haven’t tried something else first,” Dr. Katz said. “And because it’s still relatively new in this field, standard treatment is still used frequently.”

Although Dr. Katz has had “incredible success” with dupilumab so far, “nothing should be considered a miracle drug,” he said. “A couple of people have had injection reactions, and one person couldn’t tolerate the drug. So, while it seems to have an excellent response rate, it’s not 100%. Like any new drug, it will have to find its true success rate.”
 

Taking a Step-Up Approach

Like Dr. Katz, Evan Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, director of the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, is enthusiastic about dupilumab.

“It’s a boon to the field, and now, some real-world data are coming out and looking very much like the clinical trial data, which are reassuring,” said Dr. Dellon, a coauthor of The New England Journal of Medicine paper.

It’s been a “game changer,” particularly for people who weren’t doing well with their current treatments, he said. “In my practice, I’ve been seeing a lowish response rate for PPIs, and about 30%-40% not responding to topical steroids, since we don’t have a standard formulation for that. The diet elimination therapy is effective if people can do it well and adhere to it. But there’s a group of people who don’t respond, and probably, a larger group who can’t really do that treatment long term. So, the drug has been fantastic for those patients.”

Although the drug is approved for patients aged 1 year and older with no caveats, “it’s not the right medicine for every patient,” he said. “Patients in the clinical trials had EoE for 5 years, many of them were treatment refractory, and just under half had dilations and strictures,” he said. “They represent a certain group of patients.”

Dr. Dellon is taking a “step-up approach” to EoE treatment, first trying the standard interventions — PPIs, steroids, and an elimination diet — that many patients do respond to.

For new patients who choose medication therapy, he prescribes PPIs and then topical steroids and then steps up to dupilumab for patients who aren’t responding or who have a strong preference for starting the drug early.

In addition to EoE, the drug is approved for certain patients with atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. As such, Dr. Dellon said that he will try dupilumab early on in patients with multiple atopic conditions, such as asthma, eczema, or nasal disease.

“Even if their EoE is not that severe, those patients can still benefit from a more streamlined systemic therapy,” he said.
 

Challenges and Questions Still Remain

Not surprisingly, both Dr. Katz and Dr. Dellon pointed to dupilumab’s cost and the related challenge of convincing insurance companies to cover the drug as major challenges to more widespread use. The lack of long-term data also poses a challenge.

Side effects, which often stand in the way of the use of a new drug, are not an issue, for the most part, at least in the short term, according to Dr. Dellon. The most common side effects are discomfort, redness at the injection site, and pain related to the injection.

“Keeping the medication out of the refrigerator for a bit to bring it up to room temperature can help, as can doing the injection in the lower abdomen,” he said. “Otherwise, it’s well tolerated, with no side effects that are unique to EoE.”

Data from the third part of the clinical trial, which followed patients from weeks 24-52 of treatment, indicated that improvements in histological, symptomatic, endoscopic, and molecular features of EoE among patients taking weekly dupilumab continued or improved.

In my practice, “my observations have been that people are maintaining their responses,” said Dr. Dellon, a coauthor of the paper on the study’s third part.

However, one critical question is whether the dose intensity and/or frequency can be decreased over time without reducing the response rate.

“Hopefully, we’ll start getting data on that in the next year or two,” Dr. Dellon said. “It’s hard to do that yet because the drug has only been out for a year or year and a half, and people are just getting to that year of the initial dosing.”

Another question is how to use the drug in people who are different from the clinical trial population, such as those who have been responding to other therapies but want to switch, and people who are newly diagnosed but who have severe disease. Can the drug be used earlier in these populations?

Dr. Dellon would like to see a study that utilizes the new EoE index of severity metric to focus specifically on dupilumab use in patients with severe disease.

Early findings from his recent real-world study of 46 patients with severe disease who would not have qualified for the clinical trials found histologic, endoscopic, and symptom improvement in 91% of patients with refractory and fibrostenotic EoE after 6 months of dupilumab treatment.

While women tend to be well represented in the clinical trial, the drug needs to be tested in a more diverse population, Dr. Dellon noted. Research is underway looking at dupilumab effectiveness in people with different race/ethnicities.

EoE is more common among White people but that may be the result of a “detection issue,” he said. “When clinicians see a Black or Hispanic patient with dysphagia, for example, they may not be thinking of EoE. And there are also some data suggesting that EoE presents slightly differently in non-White populations, which again could decrease the suspicion for it. This is an area we need to learn more about.”
 

Don’t ‘Abandon’ Current Interventions

“We’ve got an exciting drug that is going to help a lot of people with a complex disease,” Dr. Katz said. “But we should not forget that there are other interventions that have been successful, and quite frankly, they don’t need to be abandoned.”

“Learn about the drug if you’ve never used it,” he advised. “Read the studies so you understand who the patients were as a baseline for where you’re going to use it. Be prepared to do the appropriate paperwork requirements to get approvals from insurers. And look for more literature because it’s coming.”

“Overall, dupilumab has really changed care in people with moderate to severe disease who are not responding or are intolerant to the other treatments,” Dr. Dellon said. “That’s the natural place for the medication to go at this point.”

Dr. Katz is a consultant to Phathom Pharma, Sebela Pharma, Medpace (not active), and Medtronic.

Dr. Dellon received research funding from Adare/Ellodi, Allakos, Arena/Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eupraxia, Ferring, GSK, Meritage, Miraca, Nutricia, Celgene/Receptos/BMS, Regeneron, Revolo, and Shire/Takeda. He served as a consultant to Abbott, AbbVie, Adare/Ellodi, Aimmune, Akesobio, Alfasigma, ALK, Allakos, Amgen, Aqilion, Arena/Pfizer, Aslan, AstraZeneca, Avir, Biorasi, Calypso, Celgene/Receptos/BMS, Celldex, Eli Lilly, EsoCap, Eupraxia, Dr. Falk Pharma, Ferring, GSK, Gossamer Bio, Holoclara, Invea, Knightpoint, Landos, LucidDx, Morphic, Nexstone Immunology/Uniquity, Nutricia, Parexel/Calyx, Phathom, Regeneron, Revolo, Robarts/Alimentiv, Salix, Sanofi, Shire/Takeda, Target RWE, and Upstream Bio. He also received educational grants from Allakos, Aqilion, Holoclara, and Invea.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In contrast to most diseases, as achalasia progresses, the symptoms improve. Specifically, reduction of symptoms of dysphagia lulls the gastroenterologist into thinking their patients are doing well.

This improvement in dysphagia is likely due to two mechanisms. The first is that as the esophagus dilates, there is a greater capacity for food accumulation before sensation occurs. Whether this is completely a volume issue or whether there is a contribution from increased esophageal body distensibility is unclear. Similarly, as achalasia results from inflammation and destruction of the motor neurons of the myenteric plexus, sensory neurons are also damaged. As a result, the patient’s ability to sense food retention lessens. To some degree, this explains the phenomenon of patients presenting with megaesophagus; after years of initially diminishing or stable symptoms managed with patient accommodation, patients present with end-stage disease manifested by a food-impacted esophagus, nocturnal aspiration, and weight loss.

This aspect of the natural history of achalasia has led esophagologists to follow patients with achalasia after treatment at regular intervals with objective examinations such as timed esophagography to mitigate against this worsening yet symptomatically stable course.

Dr. Katzka is based in the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Columbia University Medical Center, New York. He receives research support from Medtronic and is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News. Previously published in Gastro Hep Advances. 2024 Jan 19. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2024.01.006.

In contrast to most diseases, as achalasia progresses, the symptoms improve. Specifically, reduction of symptoms of dysphagia lulls the gastroenterologist into thinking their patients are doing well.

This improvement in dysphagia is likely due to two mechanisms. The first is that as the esophagus dilates, there is a greater capacity for food accumulation before sensation occurs. Whether this is completely a volume issue or whether there is a contribution from increased esophageal body distensibility is unclear. Similarly, as achalasia results from inflammation and destruction of the motor neurons of the myenteric plexus, sensory neurons are also damaged. As a result, the patient’s ability to sense food retention lessens. To some degree, this explains the phenomenon of patients presenting with megaesophagus; after years of initially diminishing or stable symptoms managed with patient accommodation, patients present with end-stage disease manifested by a food-impacted esophagus, nocturnal aspiration, and weight loss.

This aspect of the natural history of achalasia has led esophagologists to follow patients with achalasia after treatment at regular intervals with objective examinations such as timed esophagography to mitigate against this worsening yet symptomatically stable course.

Dr. Katzka is based in the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Columbia University Medical Center, New York. He receives research support from Medtronic and is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News. Previously published in Gastro Hep Advances. 2024 Jan 19. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2024.01.006.

In contrast to most diseases, as achalasia progresses, the symptoms improve. Specifically, reduction of symptoms of dysphagia lulls the gastroenterologist into thinking their patients are doing well.

This improvement in dysphagia is likely due to two mechanisms. The first is that as the esophagus dilates, there is a greater capacity for food accumulation before sensation occurs. Whether this is completely a volume issue or whether there is a contribution from increased esophageal body distensibility is unclear. Similarly, as achalasia results from inflammation and destruction of the motor neurons of the myenteric plexus, sensory neurons are also damaged. As a result, the patient’s ability to sense food retention lessens. To some degree, this explains the phenomenon of patients presenting with megaesophagus; after years of initially diminishing or stable symptoms managed with patient accommodation, patients present with end-stage disease manifested by a food-impacted esophagus, nocturnal aspiration, and weight loss.

This aspect of the natural history of achalasia has led esophagologists to follow patients with achalasia after treatment at regular intervals with objective examinations such as timed esophagography to mitigate against this worsening yet symptomatically stable course.

Dr. Katzka is based in the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Columbia University Medical Center, New York. He receives research support from Medtronic and is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News. Previously published in Gastro Hep Advances. 2024 Jan 19. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2024.01.006.

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

While severe COVID-19 is associated with a significantly higher risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders a year after infection, mild does not carry the same risk, a new study shows.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had twice the risk for psychiatric or neurologic diagnoses during the 12 months after acute infection, compared with individuals who never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, less severe COVID-19 was not linked to a higher incidence of psychiatric diagnoses and was associated with only a slightly higher risk for neurologic disorders.

The new research challenges previous findings of long-term risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 in patients who had not been hospitalized for the condition.

“Our study does not support previous findings of substantial post-acute neurologic and psychiatric morbidities among the general population of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals but does corroborate an elevated risk among the most severe cases with COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online on February 21 in Neurology.

‘Alarming’ Findings

Previous studies have reported nervous system symptoms in patients who have experienced COVID-19, which may persist for several weeks or months after the acute phase, even in milder cases.

But these findings haven’t been consistent across all studies, and few studies have addressed the potential effect of different viral variants and vaccination status on post-acute psychiatric and neurologic morbidities.

“Our study was partly motivated by our strong research interest in the associations between infectious disease and later chronic disease and partly by international studies, such as those conducted in the US Veterans Health databases, that have suggested substantial risks of psychiatric and neurological conditions associated with infection,” senior author Anders Hviid, MSc, DrMedSci, head of the department and professor of pharmacoepidemiology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark, told this news organization.

Investigators drew on data from the Danish National Patient Registry to compare the risk for neurologic and psychiatric disorders during the 12 months after acute COVID-19 infection to risk among people who never tested positive.

They examined data on all recorded hospital contacts between January 2005 and January 2023 for a discharge diagnosis of at least one of 11 psychiatric illnesses or at least one of 30 neurologic disorders.

The researchers compared the incidence of each disorder within 1-12 months after infection with those of COVID-naive individuals and stratified analyses according to time since infection, vaccination status, variant period, age, sex, and infection severity.

The final study cohort included 1.8 million individuals who tested positive during the study period and 1.5 who didn’t. Three quarters of those who tested positive were infected primarily with the Omicron variant.

Hospitalized vs Nonhospitalized

Overall, individuals who tested positive had a 24% lower risk for psychiatric disorders during the post-acute period (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74-0.78) compared with the control group, but a 5% higher risk for any neurologic disorder (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07).

Age, sex, and variant had less influence on risk than infection severity, where the differences between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients were significant.

Compared with COVID-negative individuals, the risk for any psychiatric disorder was double for hospitalized patients (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.37) but was 25% lower among nonhospitalized patients (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.77).

For neurologic disorders, the IRR for hospitalized patients was 2.44 (95% CI, 2.29-2.60) compared with COVID-negative individuals vs an IRR of only 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01-1.04) among nonhospitalized patients.

“In a general population, there was little support for clinically relevant post-acute risk increases of psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection without hospitalization. This was particularly true for vaccinated individuals and for the more recent variants,” the authors wrote, adding that the only exception was for change in sense and smell.

‘Flaws’ in Previous Studies?

The findings in hospitalized patients were in line with previous findings, but those in nonhospitalized patients stand out, they added.

Previous studies were done predominantly in older males with comorbidities and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged, which could lead to a bias, Dr. Hviid said.

Those other studies “had a number of fundamental flaws that we do not believe our study has,” Dr. Hviid said. “Our study was conducted in the general population, with free and universal testing and healthcare.”

Researchers stress that sequelae after infection are predominantly associated with severe illness.

“Today, a healthy vaccinated adult having an asymptomatic or mild bout of COVID-19 with the current variants shouldn’t fear developing serious psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the months or years after infection.”

One limitation is that only hospital contacts were included, omitting possible diagnoses given outside hospital settings.

‘Extreme Caution’ Required

The link between COVID-19 and brain health is “complex,” and the new findings should be viewed cautiously, said Maxime Taquet, MRCPsych, PhD, National Institute for Health and Care Research clinical lecturer and specialty registrar in Psychiatry, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, England, who commented on the findings.

Previous research by Dr. Taquet, who was not involved in the current study, found an increased risk for neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses during the first 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis.

The current study “contributes to better understanding this link by providing data from another country with a different organization of healthcare provision than the US, where most of the existing data come from,” Dr. Taquet said.

However, “some observations — for example, that COVID-19 is associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of autism, a condition present from very early in life — call for extreme caution in the interpretation of the findings, as they suggest that residual bias has not been accounted for,” Dr. Taquet continued.

Authors of an accompanying editorial, Eric Chow, MD, MS, MPH, of the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, School of Public Health, and Anita Chopra, MD, of the post-COVID Clinic, University of Washington, Seattle, called the study a “critical contribution to the published literature.”

The association of neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses with severe disease “is a reminder of the importance of risk reduction by combining vaccinations with improved indoor ventilation and masking,” they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Hviid and coauthors, Dr. Chopra, and Dr. Taquet reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow received a travel award from the Infectious Diseases Society of America to attend ID Week 2022.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While severe COVID-19 is associated with a significantly higher risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders a year after infection, mild does not carry the same risk, a new study shows.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had twice the risk for psychiatric or neurologic diagnoses during the 12 months after acute infection, compared with individuals who never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, less severe COVID-19 was not linked to a higher incidence of psychiatric diagnoses and was associated with only a slightly higher risk for neurologic disorders.

The new research challenges previous findings of long-term risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 in patients who had not been hospitalized for the condition.

“Our study does not support previous findings of substantial post-acute neurologic and psychiatric morbidities among the general population of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals but does corroborate an elevated risk among the most severe cases with COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online on February 21 in Neurology.

‘Alarming’ Findings

Previous studies have reported nervous system symptoms in patients who have experienced COVID-19, which may persist for several weeks or months after the acute phase, even in milder cases.

But these findings haven’t been consistent across all studies, and few studies have addressed the potential effect of different viral variants and vaccination status on post-acute psychiatric and neurologic morbidities.

“Our study was partly motivated by our strong research interest in the associations between infectious disease and later chronic disease and partly by international studies, such as those conducted in the US Veterans Health databases, that have suggested substantial risks of psychiatric and neurological conditions associated with infection,” senior author Anders Hviid, MSc, DrMedSci, head of the department and professor of pharmacoepidemiology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark, told this news organization.

Investigators drew on data from the Danish National Patient Registry to compare the risk for neurologic and psychiatric disorders during the 12 months after acute COVID-19 infection to risk among people who never tested positive.

They examined data on all recorded hospital contacts between January 2005 and January 2023 for a discharge diagnosis of at least one of 11 psychiatric illnesses or at least one of 30 neurologic disorders.

The researchers compared the incidence of each disorder within 1-12 months after infection with those of COVID-naive individuals and stratified analyses according to time since infection, vaccination status, variant period, age, sex, and infection severity.

The final study cohort included 1.8 million individuals who tested positive during the study period and 1.5 who didn’t. Three quarters of those who tested positive were infected primarily with the Omicron variant.

Hospitalized vs Nonhospitalized

Overall, individuals who tested positive had a 24% lower risk for psychiatric disorders during the post-acute period (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74-0.78) compared with the control group, but a 5% higher risk for any neurologic disorder (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07).

Age, sex, and variant had less influence on risk than infection severity, where the differences between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients were significant.

Compared with COVID-negative individuals, the risk for any psychiatric disorder was double for hospitalized patients (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.37) but was 25% lower among nonhospitalized patients (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.77).

For neurologic disorders, the IRR for hospitalized patients was 2.44 (95% CI, 2.29-2.60) compared with COVID-negative individuals vs an IRR of only 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01-1.04) among nonhospitalized patients.

“In a general population, there was little support for clinically relevant post-acute risk increases of psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection without hospitalization. This was particularly true for vaccinated individuals and for the more recent variants,” the authors wrote, adding that the only exception was for change in sense and smell.

‘Flaws’ in Previous Studies?

The findings in hospitalized patients were in line with previous findings, but those in nonhospitalized patients stand out, they added.

Previous studies were done predominantly in older males with comorbidities and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged, which could lead to a bias, Dr. Hviid said.

Those other studies “had a number of fundamental flaws that we do not believe our study has,” Dr. Hviid said. “Our study was conducted in the general population, with free and universal testing and healthcare.”

Researchers stress that sequelae after infection are predominantly associated with severe illness.

“Today, a healthy vaccinated adult having an asymptomatic or mild bout of COVID-19 with the current variants shouldn’t fear developing serious psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the months or years after infection.”

One limitation is that only hospital contacts were included, omitting possible diagnoses given outside hospital settings.

‘Extreme Caution’ Required

The link between COVID-19 and brain health is “complex,” and the new findings should be viewed cautiously, said Maxime Taquet, MRCPsych, PhD, National Institute for Health and Care Research clinical lecturer and specialty registrar in Psychiatry, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, England, who commented on the findings.

Previous research by Dr. Taquet, who was not involved in the current study, found an increased risk for neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses during the first 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis.

The current study “contributes to better understanding this link by providing data from another country with a different organization of healthcare provision than the US, where most of the existing data come from,” Dr. Taquet said.

However, “some observations — for example, that COVID-19 is associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of autism, a condition present from very early in life — call for extreme caution in the interpretation of the findings, as they suggest that residual bias has not been accounted for,” Dr. Taquet continued.

Authors of an accompanying editorial, Eric Chow, MD, MS, MPH, of the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, School of Public Health, and Anita Chopra, MD, of the post-COVID Clinic, University of Washington, Seattle, called the study a “critical contribution to the published literature.”

The association of neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses with severe disease “is a reminder of the importance of risk reduction by combining vaccinations with improved indoor ventilation and masking,” they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Hviid and coauthors, Dr. Chopra, and Dr. Taquet reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow received a travel award from the Infectious Diseases Society of America to attend ID Week 2022.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While severe COVID-19 is associated with a significantly higher risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders a year after infection, mild does not carry the same risk, a new study shows.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had twice the risk for psychiatric or neurologic diagnoses during the 12 months after acute infection, compared with individuals who never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, less severe COVID-19 was not linked to a higher incidence of psychiatric diagnoses and was associated with only a slightly higher risk for neurologic disorders.

The new research challenges previous findings of long-term risk for psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 in patients who had not been hospitalized for the condition.

“Our study does not support previous findings of substantial post-acute neurologic and psychiatric morbidities among the general population of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals but does corroborate an elevated risk among the most severe cases with COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

The study was published online on February 21 in Neurology.

‘Alarming’ Findings

Previous studies have reported nervous system symptoms in patients who have experienced COVID-19, which may persist for several weeks or months after the acute phase, even in milder cases.

But these findings haven’t been consistent across all studies, and few studies have addressed the potential effect of different viral variants and vaccination status on post-acute psychiatric and neurologic morbidities.

“Our study was partly motivated by our strong research interest in the associations between infectious disease and later chronic disease and partly by international studies, such as those conducted in the US Veterans Health databases, that have suggested substantial risks of psychiatric and neurological conditions associated with infection,” senior author Anders Hviid, MSc, DrMedSci, head of the department and professor of pharmacoepidemiology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark, told this news organization.

Investigators drew on data from the Danish National Patient Registry to compare the risk for neurologic and psychiatric disorders during the 12 months after acute COVID-19 infection to risk among people who never tested positive.

They examined data on all recorded hospital contacts between January 2005 and January 2023 for a discharge diagnosis of at least one of 11 psychiatric illnesses or at least one of 30 neurologic disorders.

The researchers compared the incidence of each disorder within 1-12 months after infection with those of COVID-naive individuals and stratified analyses according to time since infection, vaccination status, variant period, age, sex, and infection severity.

The final study cohort included 1.8 million individuals who tested positive during the study period and 1.5 who didn’t. Three quarters of those who tested positive were infected primarily with the Omicron variant.

Hospitalized vs Nonhospitalized

Overall, individuals who tested positive had a 24% lower risk for psychiatric disorders during the post-acute period (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74-0.78) compared with the control group, but a 5% higher risk for any neurologic disorder (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07).

Age, sex, and variant had less influence on risk than infection severity, where the differences between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients were significant.

Compared with COVID-negative individuals, the risk for any psychiatric disorder was double for hospitalized patients (IRR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.37) but was 25% lower among nonhospitalized patients (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.77).

For neurologic disorders, the IRR for hospitalized patients was 2.44 (95% CI, 2.29-2.60) compared with COVID-negative individuals vs an IRR of only 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01-1.04) among nonhospitalized patients.

“In a general population, there was little support for clinically relevant post-acute risk increases of psychiatric and neurologic disorders associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection without hospitalization. This was particularly true for vaccinated individuals and for the more recent variants,” the authors wrote, adding that the only exception was for change in sense and smell.

‘Flaws’ in Previous Studies?

The findings in hospitalized patients were in line with previous findings, but those in nonhospitalized patients stand out, they added.

Previous studies were done predominantly in older males with comorbidities and those who were more socioeconomically disadvantaged, which could lead to a bias, Dr. Hviid said.

Those other studies “had a number of fundamental flaws that we do not believe our study has,” Dr. Hviid said. “Our study was conducted in the general population, with free and universal testing and healthcare.”

Researchers stress that sequelae after infection are predominantly associated with severe illness.

“Today, a healthy vaccinated adult having an asymptomatic or mild bout of COVID-19 with the current variants shouldn’t fear developing serious psychiatric or neurologic disorders in the months or years after infection.”

One limitation is that only hospital contacts were included, omitting possible diagnoses given outside hospital settings.

‘Extreme Caution’ Required

The link between COVID-19 and brain health is “complex,” and the new findings should be viewed cautiously, said Maxime Taquet, MRCPsych, PhD, National Institute for Health and Care Research clinical lecturer and specialty registrar in Psychiatry, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, England, who commented on the findings.

Previous research by Dr. Taquet, who was not involved in the current study, found an increased risk for neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses during the first 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis.

The current study “contributes to better understanding this link by providing data from another country with a different organization of healthcare provision than the US, where most of the existing data come from,” Dr. Taquet said.

However, “some observations — for example, that COVID-19 is associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of autism, a condition present from very early in life — call for extreme caution in the interpretation of the findings, as they suggest that residual bias has not been accounted for,” Dr. Taquet continued.

Authors of an accompanying editorial, Eric Chow, MD, MS, MPH, of the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, School of Public Health, and Anita Chopra, MD, of the post-COVID Clinic, University of Washington, Seattle, called the study a “critical contribution to the published literature.”

The association of neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses with severe disease “is a reminder of the importance of risk reduction by combining vaccinations with improved indoor ventilation and masking,” they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Hviid and coauthors, Dr. Chopra, and Dr. Taquet reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow received a travel award from the Infectious Diseases Society of America to attend ID Week 2022.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to a new study, patients found to have microplastics and nanoplastics in their carotid artery plaque had a higher risk for death or major cardiovascular events compared with patients who had plaques where particles were not found.

This is the first study to show plastic particles are present in atheroma plaques, but the most important finding is that this was related to a four times higher risk for cardiovascular events, study coauthor Antonio Ceriello, MD, IRCCS MultiMedica, Milan, told this news organization. 

“I believe we have demonstrated that plastics are a new risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” he added. And while plastics may have made our lives easier in many respects, it appears that the price we are paying for that is a shortening of our lives. That is not a good balance.”

The trial involved 304 patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease, whose excised plaque specimens were analyzed for the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics, ultimately found in almost 60% of patients. 

After a mean follow-up of 34 months, patients in whom microplastics and nanoplastics were detected within the atheroma had a 4.5 times higher risk for the composite endpoint of all cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke than those in whom these substances were not detected (hazard ratio, 4.53; 95% CI, 2.00-10.27; P < .001).

The study, led by Raffaele Marfella, MD, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine on March 7, 2024.

The researchers say the study does not prove causality, and many other unmeasured confounding factors could have contributed to the findings. 

However, Dr. Ceriello noted that many important risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, were controlled for. 

“In this study, all the patients involved were at high risk of cardiovascular events and they were well treated with statins and antithrombotics, so the relationship between the presence of plastic particles in plaque and cardiovascular events is seen on top of good preventive therapy,” he said. 

“While we cannot say for sure that we have shown a causal relationship, we found a large effect and there is a great deal of literature than supports this. We know that plastic particles can penetrate cells and act at the mitochondrial level to increase free radical production and produce chronic inflammation which is the basis for atherosclerosis,” Dr. Ceriello added. 

He believes there is only one approach to addressing this issue, and that is to reduce the amount of plastic in the environment. 

“Plastic is everywhere — in water pipes, in the ocean. We are hoping that this study will increase the push for government to act on this. This is even more important for the long-term health of our children, who will be exposed to high levels of plastics for the whole of their lives,” he said. 
 

‘Strongly Suggestive of a Causal Relationship’

Commenting for this news organization, Philip J. Landrigan, MD, author of an editorial accompanying publication of the study in the NEJM, described the link as “strongly suggestive.”

“Because this was just a single observational study, it doesn’t prove cause and effect, but I think this is strongly suggestive of a causal relationship,” he said. “While there may be some other confounding factors at play, it is hard for me to imagine that these could account for a hazard ratio of 4.5 — that is a large and alarming increase in just 3 years.”

Dr. Landrigan, who is director of the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good, Boston College, points out that although it is not known what other exposures may have contributed to the adverse outcomes in patients in this study, the finding of microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque tissue is itself a breakthrough discovery that raises a series of urgent questions. These include: “Should exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics be considered a cardiovascular risk factor? What organs in addition to the heart may be at risk? How can we reduce exposure?”

Dr. Landrigan said he was not surprised that plastic particles had been found in carotid plaques. “Previous studies have found microplastics in other tissues including the lungs, colon and placenta. Now they have turned up in the vessel wall,” he said. “But what is really striking about this study is that it suggests the presence of these plastic particles is causing serious harm.”

He says this should be a wake-up call. “It is telling us that we need to worry about the amount of plastic in our environment. And it is not something that’s going to be a problem down the line — it is affecting us now.” 

Dr. Landrigan explained that plastic particles are taken into the body predominantly by ingestion, which could include drinking from plastic bottles or eating food wrapped in plastic. He said it is particularly damaging to use plastic containers to heat food in the microwave, as heating plastic up drives particles into the food. “That will really increase exposure.” 

He noted that plastics are often already in the food itself, especially seafood. 

“Plastics are dumped in the ocean, they break down and get picked up by the fish. Especially if you eat fish at the top of the food chain like tuna, or if you eat oysters or mussels that are filter feeders, you are more likely to ingest microplastics.” 

Dr. Landrigan said he would not advise against eating fish in general, however. “Maybe tuna or other predatory fish may be an issue, but fish in general are good for us, and fish like salmon which have a mainly vegetarian diet are probably safer in this regard.”

The other route is inhalation, with these small plastic particles being widely present in the air, from sources such as vehicle tires becoming abraded from running along the highway.

While it is impossible to avoid taking in plastic completely, Dr. Landrigan says individuals can make efforts to reduce their exposure. 

“People can make intelligent choices in their homes about what they purchase for themselves and their families, and they can act in their local environments and workplace to try and reduce plastics.”

He noted that 40% of all plastic currently being made is single use plastic, and that percentage is growing, with global production of plastic on track to double by 2040 and triple by 2060, and most of this rapid growth being single use plastic. 

“We are all members of the broader society, and we need to become educated about the plastic situation and lobby our elected officials to come up with a good strong legally binding treaty that will place a cap on plastic production,” Dr. Landrigan said. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to a new study, patients found to have microplastics and nanoplastics in their carotid artery plaque had a higher risk for death or major cardiovascular events compared with patients who had plaques where particles were not found.

This is the first study to show plastic particles are present in atheroma plaques, but the most important finding is that this was related to a four times higher risk for cardiovascular events, study coauthor Antonio Ceriello, MD, IRCCS MultiMedica, Milan, told this news organization. 

“I believe we have demonstrated that plastics are a new risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” he added. And while plastics may have made our lives easier in many respects, it appears that the price we are paying for that is a shortening of our lives. That is not a good balance.”

The trial involved 304 patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease, whose excised plaque specimens were analyzed for the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics, ultimately found in almost 60% of patients. 

After a mean follow-up of 34 months, patients in whom microplastics and nanoplastics were detected within the atheroma had a 4.5 times higher risk for the composite endpoint of all cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke than those in whom these substances were not detected (hazard ratio, 4.53; 95% CI, 2.00-10.27; P < .001).

The study, led by Raffaele Marfella, MD, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine on March 7, 2024.

The researchers say the study does not prove causality, and many other unmeasured confounding factors could have contributed to the findings. 

However, Dr. Ceriello noted that many important risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, were controlled for. 

“In this study, all the patients involved were at high risk of cardiovascular events and they were well treated with statins and antithrombotics, so the relationship between the presence of plastic particles in plaque and cardiovascular events is seen on top of good preventive therapy,” he said. 

“While we cannot say for sure that we have shown a causal relationship, we found a large effect and there is a great deal of literature than supports this. We know that plastic particles can penetrate cells and act at the mitochondrial level to increase free radical production and produce chronic inflammation which is the basis for atherosclerosis,” Dr. Ceriello added. 

He believes there is only one approach to addressing this issue, and that is to reduce the amount of plastic in the environment. 

“Plastic is everywhere — in water pipes, in the ocean. We are hoping that this study will increase the push for government to act on this. This is even more important for the long-term health of our children, who will be exposed to high levels of plastics for the whole of their lives,” he said. 
 

‘Strongly Suggestive of a Causal Relationship’

Commenting for this news organization, Philip J. Landrigan, MD, author of an editorial accompanying publication of the study in the NEJM, described the link as “strongly suggestive.”

“Because this was just a single observational study, it doesn’t prove cause and effect, but I think this is strongly suggestive of a causal relationship,” he said. “While there may be some other confounding factors at play, it is hard for me to imagine that these could account for a hazard ratio of 4.5 — that is a large and alarming increase in just 3 years.”

Dr. Landrigan, who is director of the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good, Boston College, points out that although it is not known what other exposures may have contributed to the adverse outcomes in patients in this study, the finding of microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque tissue is itself a breakthrough discovery that raises a series of urgent questions. These include: “Should exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics be considered a cardiovascular risk factor? What organs in addition to the heart may be at risk? How can we reduce exposure?”

Dr. Landrigan said he was not surprised that plastic particles had been found in carotid plaques. “Previous studies have found microplastics in other tissues including the lungs, colon and placenta. Now they have turned up in the vessel wall,” he said. “But what is really striking about this study is that it suggests the presence of these plastic particles is causing serious harm.”

He says this should be a wake-up call. “It is telling us that we need to worry about the amount of plastic in our environment. And it is not something that’s going to be a problem down the line — it is affecting us now.” 

Dr. Landrigan explained that plastic particles are taken into the body predominantly by ingestion, which could include drinking from plastic bottles or eating food wrapped in plastic. He said it is particularly damaging to use plastic containers to heat food in the microwave, as heating plastic up drives particles into the food. “That will really increase exposure.” 

He noted that plastics are often already in the food itself, especially seafood. 

“Plastics are dumped in the ocean, they break down and get picked up by the fish. Especially if you eat fish at the top of the food chain like tuna, or if you eat oysters or mussels that are filter feeders, you are more likely to ingest microplastics.” 

Dr. Landrigan said he would not advise against eating fish in general, however. “Maybe tuna or other predatory fish may be an issue, but fish in general are good for us, and fish like salmon which have a mainly vegetarian diet are probably safer in this regard.”

The other route is inhalation, with these small plastic particles being widely present in the air, from sources such as vehicle tires becoming abraded from running along the highway.

While it is impossible to avoid taking in plastic completely, Dr. Landrigan says individuals can make efforts to reduce their exposure. 

“People can make intelligent choices in their homes about what they purchase for themselves and their families, and they can act in their local environments and workplace to try and reduce plastics.”

He noted that 40% of all plastic currently being made is single use plastic, and that percentage is growing, with global production of plastic on track to double by 2040 and triple by 2060, and most of this rapid growth being single use plastic. 

“We are all members of the broader society, and we need to become educated about the plastic situation and lobby our elected officials to come up with a good strong legally binding treaty that will place a cap on plastic production,” Dr. Landrigan said. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to a new study, patients found to have microplastics and nanoplastics in their carotid artery plaque had a higher risk for death or major cardiovascular events compared with patients who had plaques where particles were not found.

This is the first study to show plastic particles are present in atheroma plaques, but the most important finding is that this was related to a four times higher risk for cardiovascular events, study coauthor Antonio Ceriello, MD, IRCCS MultiMedica, Milan, told this news organization. 

“I believe we have demonstrated that plastics are a new risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” he added. And while plastics may have made our lives easier in many respects, it appears that the price we are paying for that is a shortening of our lives. That is not a good balance.”

The trial involved 304 patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease, whose excised plaque specimens were analyzed for the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics, ultimately found in almost 60% of patients. 

After a mean follow-up of 34 months, patients in whom microplastics and nanoplastics were detected within the atheroma had a 4.5 times higher risk for the composite endpoint of all cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke than those in whom these substances were not detected (hazard ratio, 4.53; 95% CI, 2.00-10.27; P < .001).

The study, led by Raffaele Marfella, MD, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine on March 7, 2024.

The researchers say the study does not prove causality, and many other unmeasured confounding factors could have contributed to the findings. 

However, Dr. Ceriello noted that many important risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, were controlled for. 

“In this study, all the patients involved were at high risk of cardiovascular events and they were well treated with statins and antithrombotics, so the relationship between the presence of plastic particles in plaque and cardiovascular events is seen on top of good preventive therapy,” he said. 

“While we cannot say for sure that we have shown a causal relationship, we found a large effect and there is a great deal of literature than supports this. We know that plastic particles can penetrate cells and act at the mitochondrial level to increase free radical production and produce chronic inflammation which is the basis for atherosclerosis,” Dr. Ceriello added. 

He believes there is only one approach to addressing this issue, and that is to reduce the amount of plastic in the environment. 

“Plastic is everywhere — in water pipes, in the ocean. We are hoping that this study will increase the push for government to act on this. This is even more important for the long-term health of our children, who will be exposed to high levels of plastics for the whole of their lives,” he said. 
 

‘Strongly Suggestive of a Causal Relationship’

Commenting for this news organization, Philip J. Landrigan, MD, author of an editorial accompanying publication of the study in the NEJM, described the link as “strongly suggestive.”

“Because this was just a single observational study, it doesn’t prove cause and effect, but I think this is strongly suggestive of a causal relationship,” he said. “While there may be some other confounding factors at play, it is hard for me to imagine that these could account for a hazard ratio of 4.5 — that is a large and alarming increase in just 3 years.”

Dr. Landrigan, who is director of the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good, Boston College, points out that although it is not known what other exposures may have contributed to the adverse outcomes in patients in this study, the finding of microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque tissue is itself a breakthrough discovery that raises a series of urgent questions. These include: “Should exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics be considered a cardiovascular risk factor? What organs in addition to the heart may be at risk? How can we reduce exposure?”

Dr. Landrigan said he was not surprised that plastic particles had been found in carotid plaques. “Previous studies have found microplastics in other tissues including the lungs, colon and placenta. Now they have turned up in the vessel wall,” he said. “But what is really striking about this study is that it suggests the presence of these plastic particles is causing serious harm.”

He says this should be a wake-up call. “It is telling us that we need to worry about the amount of plastic in our environment. And it is not something that’s going to be a problem down the line — it is affecting us now.” 

Dr. Landrigan explained that plastic particles are taken into the body predominantly by ingestion, which could include drinking from plastic bottles or eating food wrapped in plastic. He said it is particularly damaging to use plastic containers to heat food in the microwave, as heating plastic up drives particles into the food. “That will really increase exposure.” 

He noted that plastics are often already in the food itself, especially seafood. 

“Plastics are dumped in the ocean, they break down and get picked up by the fish. Especially if you eat fish at the top of the food chain like tuna, or if you eat oysters or mussels that are filter feeders, you are more likely to ingest microplastics.” 

Dr. Landrigan said he would not advise against eating fish in general, however. “Maybe tuna or other predatory fish may be an issue, but fish in general are good for us, and fish like salmon which have a mainly vegetarian diet are probably safer in this regard.”

The other route is inhalation, with these small plastic particles being widely present in the air, from sources such as vehicle tires becoming abraded from running along the highway.

While it is impossible to avoid taking in plastic completely, Dr. Landrigan says individuals can make efforts to reduce their exposure. 

“People can make intelligent choices in their homes about what they purchase for themselves and their families, and they can act in their local environments and workplace to try and reduce plastics.”

He noted that 40% of all plastic currently being made is single use plastic, and that percentage is growing, with global production of plastic on track to double by 2040 and triple by 2060, and most of this rapid growth being single use plastic. 

“We are all members of the broader society, and we need to become educated about the plastic situation and lobby our elected officials to come up with a good strong legally binding treaty that will place a cap on plastic production,” Dr. Landrigan said. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted breakthrough designation to an LSD-based treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) based on promising topline data from a phase 2b clinical trial. Mind Medicine (MindMed) Inc is developing the treatment — MM120 (lysergide d-tartrate).

In a news release, the company reports that a single oral dose of MM120 met its key secondary endpoint, maintaining “clinically and statistically significant” reductions in Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score, compared with placebo, at 12 weeks with a 65% clinical response rate and 48% clinical remission rate.

The company previously announced statistically significant improvements on the HAM-A compared with placebo at 4 weeks, which was the trial’s primary endpoint.

“I’ve conducted clinical research studies in psychiatry for over two decades and have seen studies of many drugs under development for the treatment of anxiety. That MM120 exhibited rapid and robust efficacy, solidly sustained for 12 weeks after a single dose, is truly remarkable,” study investigator David Feifel, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, and director of the Kadima Neuropsychiatry Institute in La Jolla, California, said in the news release.

“These results suggest the potential MM120 has in the treatment of anxiety, and those of us who struggle every day to alleviate anxiety in our patients look forward to seeing results from future phase 3 trials,” Dr. Feifel added.

MM120 was administered as a single dose in a monitored clinical setting with no additional therapeutic intervention. Prior to treatment with MM120, study participants were clinically tapered and then washed out from any anxiolytic or antidepressant treatments and did not receive any form of study-related psychotherapy for the duration of their participation in the study.

MM120 100 µg — the dose that demonstrated optimal clinical activity — produced a 7.7-point improvement over placebo at week 12 (P < .003; Cohen’s d = 0.81), with a 65% clinical response rate and a 48% clinical remission rate sustained to week 12.

Also at week 12, Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scores on average improved from 4.8 to 2.2 in the 100-µg dose group, representing a two-category shift from ‘markedly ill’ to ‘borderline ill’ at week 12 (P < .004), the company reported.

Improvement was noted as early as study day 2, and durable with further improvements observed in mean HAM-A or CGI-S scores between 4 and 12 weeks.

MM120 was generally well-tolerated with most adverse events rated as mild to moderate and transient and occurred on the day of administration day, in line with the expected acute effects of the study drug.

The most common adverse events on dosing day included illusion, hallucinations, euphoric mood, anxiety, abnormal thinking, headache, paresthesia, dizziness, tremor, nausea, vomiting, feeling abnormal, mydriasis, and hyperhidrosis.

The company plans to hold an end-of-phase 2 meeting with the FDA in the first half of 2024 and start phase 3 testing in the second half of 2024.

“The FDA’s decision to designate MM120 as a breakthrough therapy for GAD and the durability data from our phase 2b study provide further validation of the important potential role this treatment can play in addressing the huge unmet need among individuals living with GAD,” Robert Barrow, director and CEO of MindMed said in the release.

The primary data analyses from the trial will be presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) annual meeting in May.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted breakthrough designation to an LSD-based treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) based on promising topline data from a phase 2b clinical trial. Mind Medicine (MindMed) Inc is developing the treatment — MM120 (lysergide d-tartrate).

In a news release, the company reports that a single oral dose of MM120 met its key secondary endpoint, maintaining “clinically and statistically significant” reductions in Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score, compared with placebo, at 12 weeks with a 65% clinical response rate and 48% clinical remission rate.

The company previously announced statistically significant improvements on the HAM-A compared with placebo at 4 weeks, which was the trial’s primary endpoint.

“I’ve conducted clinical research studies in psychiatry for over two decades and have seen studies of many drugs under development for the treatment of anxiety. That MM120 exhibited rapid and robust efficacy, solidly sustained for 12 weeks after a single dose, is truly remarkable,” study investigator David Feifel, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, and director of the Kadima Neuropsychiatry Institute in La Jolla, California, said in the news release.

“These results suggest the potential MM120 has in the treatment of anxiety, and those of us who struggle every day to alleviate anxiety in our patients look forward to seeing results from future phase 3 trials,” Dr. Feifel added.

MM120 was administered as a single dose in a monitored clinical setting with no additional therapeutic intervention. Prior to treatment with MM120, study participants were clinically tapered and then washed out from any anxiolytic or antidepressant treatments and did not receive any form of study-related psychotherapy for the duration of their participation in the study.

MM120 100 µg — the dose that demonstrated optimal clinical activity — produced a 7.7-point improvement over placebo at week 12 (P < .003; Cohen’s d = 0.81), with a 65% clinical response rate and a 48% clinical remission rate sustained to week 12.

Also at week 12, Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scores on average improved from 4.8 to 2.2 in the 100-µg dose group, representing a two-category shift from ‘markedly ill’ to ‘borderline ill’ at week 12 (P < .004), the company reported.

Improvement was noted as early as study day 2, and durable with further improvements observed in mean HAM-A or CGI-S scores between 4 and 12 weeks.

MM120 was generally well-tolerated with most adverse events rated as mild to moderate and transient and occurred on the day of administration day, in line with the expected acute effects of the study drug.

The most common adverse events on dosing day included illusion, hallucinations, euphoric mood, anxiety, abnormal thinking, headache, paresthesia, dizziness, tremor, nausea, vomiting, feeling abnormal, mydriasis, and hyperhidrosis.

The company plans to hold an end-of-phase 2 meeting with the FDA in the first half of 2024 and start phase 3 testing in the second half of 2024.

“The FDA’s decision to designate MM120 as a breakthrough therapy for GAD and the durability data from our phase 2b study provide further validation of the important potential role this treatment can play in addressing the huge unmet need among individuals living with GAD,” Robert Barrow, director and CEO of MindMed said in the release.

The primary data analyses from the trial will be presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) annual meeting in May.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted breakthrough designation to an LSD-based treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) based on promising topline data from a phase 2b clinical trial. Mind Medicine (MindMed) Inc is developing the treatment — MM120 (lysergide d-tartrate).

In a news release, the company reports that a single oral dose of MM120 met its key secondary endpoint, maintaining “clinically and statistically significant” reductions in Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score, compared with placebo, at 12 weeks with a 65% clinical response rate and 48% clinical remission rate.

The company previously announced statistically significant improvements on the HAM-A compared with placebo at 4 weeks, which was the trial’s primary endpoint.

“I’ve conducted clinical research studies in psychiatry for over two decades and have seen studies of many drugs under development for the treatment of anxiety. That MM120 exhibited rapid and robust efficacy, solidly sustained for 12 weeks after a single dose, is truly remarkable,” study investigator David Feifel, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, and director of the Kadima Neuropsychiatry Institute in La Jolla, California, said in the news release.

“These results suggest the potential MM120 has in the treatment of anxiety, and those of us who struggle every day to alleviate anxiety in our patients look forward to seeing results from future phase 3 trials,” Dr. Feifel added.

MM120 was administered as a single dose in a monitored clinical setting with no additional therapeutic intervention. Prior to treatment with MM120, study participants were clinically tapered and then washed out from any anxiolytic or antidepressant treatments and did not receive any form of study-related psychotherapy for the duration of their participation in the study.

MM120 100 µg — the dose that demonstrated optimal clinical activity — produced a 7.7-point improvement over placebo at week 12 (P < .003; Cohen’s d = 0.81), with a 65% clinical response rate and a 48% clinical remission rate sustained to week 12.

Also at week 12, Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scores on average improved from 4.8 to 2.2 in the 100-µg dose group, representing a two-category shift from ‘markedly ill’ to ‘borderline ill’ at week 12 (P < .004), the company reported.

Improvement was noted as early as study day 2, and durable with further improvements observed in mean HAM-A or CGI-S scores between 4 and 12 weeks.

MM120 was generally well-tolerated with most adverse events rated as mild to moderate and transient and occurred on the day of administration day, in line with the expected acute effects of the study drug.

The most common adverse events on dosing day included illusion, hallucinations, euphoric mood, anxiety, abnormal thinking, headache, paresthesia, dizziness, tremor, nausea, vomiting, feeling abnormal, mydriasis, and hyperhidrosis.

The company plans to hold an end-of-phase 2 meeting with the FDA in the first half of 2024 and start phase 3 testing in the second half of 2024.

“The FDA’s decision to designate MM120 as a breakthrough therapy for GAD and the durability data from our phase 2b study provide further validation of the important potential role this treatment can play in addressing the huge unmet need among individuals living with GAD,” Robert Barrow, director and CEO of MindMed said in the release.

The primary data analyses from the trial will be presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) annual meeting in May.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to the Bruton’s kinase inhibitor zanubrutinib (Brukinsa, BeiGene USA) with obinutuzumab (Gazyva, Roche) for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy.

Approval was based on the ROSEWOOD trial, which included 217 adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma randomized 2:1 to obinutuzumab plus zanubrutinib 160 mg orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or to obinutuzumab alone. Participants had a median of three prior lines of treatment and as many as 11. 

The overall response rate was 69% with zanubrutinib add-on vs 46% with stand-alone obinutuzumab (P = .0012). After a median follow-up of 19 months, the median duration of response was 14 months with obinutuzumab alone but not reached in the combination arm and estimated to be 69% at 18 months.

Across clinical trials, the most common adverse events with zanubrutinib were decreased neutrophil counts (51%), decreased platelet counts (41%), upper respiratory tract infection (38%), hemorrhage (32%), and musculoskeletal pain (31%). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 35% of patients.

The recommended zanubrutinib dose is 160 mg taken orally twice daily or 320 mg taken orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Previously approved indications for the kinase inhibitor include mantle cell lymphoma, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and small lymphocytic lymphoma.

According to drugs.com, 120 80-mg capsules cost $15,874.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to the Bruton’s kinase inhibitor zanubrutinib (Brukinsa, BeiGene USA) with obinutuzumab (Gazyva, Roche) for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy.

Approval was based on the ROSEWOOD trial, which included 217 adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma randomized 2:1 to obinutuzumab plus zanubrutinib 160 mg orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or to obinutuzumab alone. Participants had a median of three prior lines of treatment and as many as 11. 

The overall response rate was 69% with zanubrutinib add-on vs 46% with stand-alone obinutuzumab (P = .0012). After a median follow-up of 19 months, the median duration of response was 14 months with obinutuzumab alone but not reached in the combination arm and estimated to be 69% at 18 months.

Across clinical trials, the most common adverse events with zanubrutinib were decreased neutrophil counts (51%), decreased platelet counts (41%), upper respiratory tract infection (38%), hemorrhage (32%), and musculoskeletal pain (31%). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 35% of patients.

The recommended zanubrutinib dose is 160 mg taken orally twice daily or 320 mg taken orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Previously approved indications for the kinase inhibitor include mantle cell lymphoma, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and small lymphocytic lymphoma.

According to drugs.com, 120 80-mg capsules cost $15,874.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to the Bruton’s kinase inhibitor zanubrutinib (Brukinsa, BeiGene USA) with obinutuzumab (Gazyva, Roche) for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy.

Approval was based on the ROSEWOOD trial, which included 217 adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma randomized 2:1 to obinutuzumab plus zanubrutinib 160 mg orally twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or to obinutuzumab alone. Participants had a median of three prior lines of treatment and as many as 11. 

The overall response rate was 69% with zanubrutinib add-on vs 46% with stand-alone obinutuzumab (P = .0012). After a median follow-up of 19 months, the median duration of response was 14 months with obinutuzumab alone but not reached in the combination arm and estimated to be 69% at 18 months.

Across clinical trials, the most common adverse events with zanubrutinib were decreased neutrophil counts (51%), decreased platelet counts (41%), upper respiratory tract infection (38%), hemorrhage (32%), and musculoskeletal pain (31%). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 35% of patients.

The recommended zanubrutinib dose is 160 mg taken orally twice daily or 320 mg taken orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Previously approved indications for the kinase inhibitor include mantle cell lymphoma, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and small lymphocytic lymphoma.

According to drugs.com, 120 80-mg capsules cost $15,874.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Sulfites, present in foods, drinks, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products, have been named the “Allergen of the Year” for 2024 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS).

Sulfites are currently not found in most screening patch test series, so may be missed as a relevant contact allergen, Donald V. Belsito, MD, emeritus professor in the Department of Dermatology at Columbia University, New York City, said in his presentation on the Allergen of the Year on March 7 at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society in San Diego. Sulfites, he noted, are distinct from sulfates, and the groups do not cross-react with each other.

FabrikaCr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sodium disulfite, an inorganic compound, belongs to a group of sulfiting agents, which contain the sulfite ion SO₃²⁻ and include ammonium sulfite, potassium sulfite, and sodium sulfite, Dr. Belsito said. Sulfites function as antioxidants and preservatives in a range of products including food and beverages, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals.

The type of sulfite allergy diagnosed by patch testing is type IV hypersensitivity or delayed-type hypersensitivity, where patients present with pruritic, red, scaling macules, papulovesicles, and patches, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “It is not the type I, immediate hypersensitivity that causes hives and, in some cases, anaphylaxis,” he said. Sulfites also can cause these side effects, so correct labeling of food and beverages is important, he noted.

Some common nonoccupational sulfite sources include hair coloring and bleach products, hairspray, tanning lotions, makeup, sunscreens, and deodorants, Dr. Belsito said in his presentation. Medications including topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and nasal solutions can be culprits, as can water in swimming pools, he noted.

In occupational settings, sulfites may be present not only in food and drink products but also can be used in production of products, such as those used for sterilization during beer and wine fermentation, Dr. Belsito said. Other potential occupational sources of sulfite exposure include healthcare settings and textile, chemical, rubber, and pharmaceutical manufacturing.

High-sulfite food products (> 100 ppm) to be aware of include dried fruit (raisins and prunes are exceptions), bottled lemon or lime juice (but not frozen products), wine, molasses, grape juice (white, or white, pink, and red sparkling), and pickled cocktail onions, Dr. Belsito said.

“Like other contact allergens, the clinical presentation correlates with exposure,” he added. A study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found that 28.8% of patients positive for sulfite allergy on patch testing presented with facial dermatitis, which was not only related to cosmetics and medications used on the face but also from products, such as shampoo, used on the scalp that dripped onto the face. “The scalp is relatively resistant to the expression of contact allergy and may not be involved at all,” he said.

According to the NACDG study, the hands were the second most common site of dermatitis associated with sulfites (20.5%) followed by generalized distribution (13.6%). These sites are to be expected, given the sources of food and beverage, personal care products, and occupational materials, Dr. Belsito said.

“Eczematous dermatitis of the lips is also common in patients with ingested food sources of sulfites,” he said.

Systemic contact dermatitis to sulfites has been documented following oral, rectal, and parental exposure, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “Systemic dermatitis may present as a scattered/generalized dermatitis, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (also referred to as baboon syndrome), or erythroderma,” he said.
 

How to Spot Sulfite Allergies

The exclusion of sulfites from most patch test series means that sulfite allergy diagnoses are often missed, despite the wide range of potential exposures, Dr. Belsito said.

“Most cases of allergic contact dermatitis occur at the site of application of the allergen,” he noted. Depending on the location of the dermatitis, a detailed history of exposures that includes cosmetics and topical medications, work-related materials, and foods and beverages might suggest a sulfite allergy, he said.

Given the range of potential clinical presentations and the many and varied exposures to sulfites, Dr. Belsito’s best tip for clinicians is to routinely screen for them and evaluate the many avenues of exposure if a patch test is positive, he said.

For now, he said he does not think additional research is needed on sulfites as allergens; instead, sulfites, such as sodium metabisulfite/sodium disulfite, should be included in all clinicians’ baseline screening series, he said.

The Allergen of the Year was also recently announced in the journal Dermatitis. Authors Samuel F. Ekstein, MS, and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, noted that the ACDS hoped to raise awareness of sulfites as a “significant allergen” and called for their increased inclusion in screening patch test series.

Patients identified with sulfite allergies can find alternative products on the ACDS CAMP (Contact Allergen Management Program) website, Dr. Warshaw said in an interview.

She also highlighted some examples of sulfites as allergens in healthcare settings in particular. She described one patient who presented with dermatitis at the site of three previous hand orthopedic procedures.

“Although surgical cleansers were suspected, the patient reacted to sodium metabisulfite. Review of the operating room contactants confirmed sulfites as preservatives in an injectable anesthetic and antibiotic used for wound irrigation,” she said. Another patient who had been treated for recurrent otitis externa and seborrheic dermatitis was found to be allergic to sulfites in an otic antibiotic suspension as well as in a ketoconazole cream product, she added.

In the paper, Dr. Warshaw and Mr. Ekstein called for the addition of sulfites to the test series. Although the NACDG added sodium metabisulfite to the series in 2017, sulfites are not part of the American Contact Dermatitis Core Series, they wrote. Sodium metabisulfite, they said, was added to the European baseline standard series after review of the 2019-2020 patch test reactivity and clinical relevance data.

The ACDS meeting is held every year the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Belsito and Dr. Warshaw had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sulfites, present in foods, drinks, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products, have been named the “Allergen of the Year” for 2024 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS).

Sulfites are currently not found in most screening patch test series, so may be missed as a relevant contact allergen, Donald V. Belsito, MD, emeritus professor in the Department of Dermatology at Columbia University, New York City, said in his presentation on the Allergen of the Year on March 7 at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society in San Diego. Sulfites, he noted, are distinct from sulfates, and the groups do not cross-react with each other.

FabrikaCr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sodium disulfite, an inorganic compound, belongs to a group of sulfiting agents, which contain the sulfite ion SO₃²⁻ and include ammonium sulfite, potassium sulfite, and sodium sulfite, Dr. Belsito said. Sulfites function as antioxidants and preservatives in a range of products including food and beverages, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals.

The type of sulfite allergy diagnosed by patch testing is type IV hypersensitivity or delayed-type hypersensitivity, where patients present with pruritic, red, scaling macules, papulovesicles, and patches, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “It is not the type I, immediate hypersensitivity that causes hives and, in some cases, anaphylaxis,” he said. Sulfites also can cause these side effects, so correct labeling of food and beverages is important, he noted.

Some common nonoccupational sulfite sources include hair coloring and bleach products, hairspray, tanning lotions, makeup, sunscreens, and deodorants, Dr. Belsito said in his presentation. Medications including topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and nasal solutions can be culprits, as can water in swimming pools, he noted.

In occupational settings, sulfites may be present not only in food and drink products but also can be used in production of products, such as those used for sterilization during beer and wine fermentation, Dr. Belsito said. Other potential occupational sources of sulfite exposure include healthcare settings and textile, chemical, rubber, and pharmaceutical manufacturing.

High-sulfite food products (> 100 ppm) to be aware of include dried fruit (raisins and prunes are exceptions), bottled lemon or lime juice (but not frozen products), wine, molasses, grape juice (white, or white, pink, and red sparkling), and pickled cocktail onions, Dr. Belsito said.

“Like other contact allergens, the clinical presentation correlates with exposure,” he added. A study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found that 28.8% of patients positive for sulfite allergy on patch testing presented with facial dermatitis, which was not only related to cosmetics and medications used on the face but also from products, such as shampoo, used on the scalp that dripped onto the face. “The scalp is relatively resistant to the expression of contact allergy and may not be involved at all,” he said.

According to the NACDG study, the hands were the second most common site of dermatitis associated with sulfites (20.5%) followed by generalized distribution (13.6%). These sites are to be expected, given the sources of food and beverage, personal care products, and occupational materials, Dr. Belsito said.

“Eczematous dermatitis of the lips is also common in patients with ingested food sources of sulfites,” he said.

Systemic contact dermatitis to sulfites has been documented following oral, rectal, and parental exposure, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “Systemic dermatitis may present as a scattered/generalized dermatitis, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (also referred to as baboon syndrome), or erythroderma,” he said.
 

How to Spot Sulfite Allergies

The exclusion of sulfites from most patch test series means that sulfite allergy diagnoses are often missed, despite the wide range of potential exposures, Dr. Belsito said.

“Most cases of allergic contact dermatitis occur at the site of application of the allergen,” he noted. Depending on the location of the dermatitis, a detailed history of exposures that includes cosmetics and topical medications, work-related materials, and foods and beverages might suggest a sulfite allergy, he said.

Given the range of potential clinical presentations and the many and varied exposures to sulfites, Dr. Belsito’s best tip for clinicians is to routinely screen for them and evaluate the many avenues of exposure if a patch test is positive, he said.

For now, he said he does not think additional research is needed on sulfites as allergens; instead, sulfites, such as sodium metabisulfite/sodium disulfite, should be included in all clinicians’ baseline screening series, he said.

The Allergen of the Year was also recently announced in the journal Dermatitis. Authors Samuel F. Ekstein, MS, and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, noted that the ACDS hoped to raise awareness of sulfites as a “significant allergen” and called for their increased inclusion in screening patch test series.

Patients identified with sulfite allergies can find alternative products on the ACDS CAMP (Contact Allergen Management Program) website, Dr. Warshaw said in an interview.

She also highlighted some examples of sulfites as allergens in healthcare settings in particular. She described one patient who presented with dermatitis at the site of three previous hand orthopedic procedures.

“Although surgical cleansers were suspected, the patient reacted to sodium metabisulfite. Review of the operating room contactants confirmed sulfites as preservatives in an injectable anesthetic and antibiotic used for wound irrigation,” she said. Another patient who had been treated for recurrent otitis externa and seborrheic dermatitis was found to be allergic to sulfites in an otic antibiotic suspension as well as in a ketoconazole cream product, she added.

In the paper, Dr. Warshaw and Mr. Ekstein called for the addition of sulfites to the test series. Although the NACDG added sodium metabisulfite to the series in 2017, sulfites are not part of the American Contact Dermatitis Core Series, they wrote. Sodium metabisulfite, they said, was added to the European baseline standard series after review of the 2019-2020 patch test reactivity and clinical relevance data.

The ACDS meeting is held every year the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Belsito and Dr. Warshaw had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sulfites, present in foods, drinks, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products, have been named the “Allergen of the Year” for 2024 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS).

Sulfites are currently not found in most screening patch test series, so may be missed as a relevant contact allergen, Donald V. Belsito, MD, emeritus professor in the Department of Dermatology at Columbia University, New York City, said in his presentation on the Allergen of the Year on March 7 at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society in San Diego. Sulfites, he noted, are distinct from sulfates, and the groups do not cross-react with each other.

FabrikaCr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sodium disulfite, an inorganic compound, belongs to a group of sulfiting agents, which contain the sulfite ion SO₃²⁻ and include ammonium sulfite, potassium sulfite, and sodium sulfite, Dr. Belsito said. Sulfites function as antioxidants and preservatives in a range of products including food and beverages, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals.

The type of sulfite allergy diagnosed by patch testing is type IV hypersensitivity or delayed-type hypersensitivity, where patients present with pruritic, red, scaling macules, papulovesicles, and patches, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “It is not the type I, immediate hypersensitivity that causes hives and, in some cases, anaphylaxis,” he said. Sulfites also can cause these side effects, so correct labeling of food and beverages is important, he noted.

Some common nonoccupational sulfite sources include hair coloring and bleach products, hairspray, tanning lotions, makeup, sunscreens, and deodorants, Dr. Belsito said in his presentation. Medications including topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and nasal solutions can be culprits, as can water in swimming pools, he noted.

In occupational settings, sulfites may be present not only in food and drink products but also can be used in production of products, such as those used for sterilization during beer and wine fermentation, Dr. Belsito said. Other potential occupational sources of sulfite exposure include healthcare settings and textile, chemical, rubber, and pharmaceutical manufacturing.

High-sulfite food products (> 100 ppm) to be aware of include dried fruit (raisins and prunes are exceptions), bottled lemon or lime juice (but not frozen products), wine, molasses, grape juice (white, or white, pink, and red sparkling), and pickled cocktail onions, Dr. Belsito said.

“Like other contact allergens, the clinical presentation correlates with exposure,” he added. A study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found that 28.8% of patients positive for sulfite allergy on patch testing presented with facial dermatitis, which was not only related to cosmetics and medications used on the face but also from products, such as shampoo, used on the scalp that dripped onto the face. “The scalp is relatively resistant to the expression of contact allergy and may not be involved at all,” he said.

According to the NACDG study, the hands were the second most common site of dermatitis associated with sulfites (20.5%) followed by generalized distribution (13.6%). These sites are to be expected, given the sources of food and beverage, personal care products, and occupational materials, Dr. Belsito said.

“Eczematous dermatitis of the lips is also common in patients with ingested food sources of sulfites,” he said.

Systemic contact dermatitis to sulfites has been documented following oral, rectal, and parental exposure, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “Systemic dermatitis may present as a scattered/generalized dermatitis, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (also referred to as baboon syndrome), or erythroderma,” he said.
 

How to Spot Sulfite Allergies

The exclusion of sulfites from most patch test series means that sulfite allergy diagnoses are often missed, despite the wide range of potential exposures, Dr. Belsito said.

“Most cases of allergic contact dermatitis occur at the site of application of the allergen,” he noted. Depending on the location of the dermatitis, a detailed history of exposures that includes cosmetics and topical medications, work-related materials, and foods and beverages might suggest a sulfite allergy, he said.

Given the range of potential clinical presentations and the many and varied exposures to sulfites, Dr. Belsito’s best tip for clinicians is to routinely screen for them and evaluate the many avenues of exposure if a patch test is positive, he said.

For now, he said he does not think additional research is needed on sulfites as allergens; instead, sulfites, such as sodium metabisulfite/sodium disulfite, should be included in all clinicians’ baseline screening series, he said.

The Allergen of the Year was also recently announced in the journal Dermatitis. Authors Samuel F. Ekstein, MS, and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, noted that the ACDS hoped to raise awareness of sulfites as a “significant allergen” and called for their increased inclusion in screening patch test series.

Patients identified with sulfite allergies can find alternative products on the ACDS CAMP (Contact Allergen Management Program) website, Dr. Warshaw said in an interview.

She also highlighted some examples of sulfites as allergens in healthcare settings in particular. She described one patient who presented with dermatitis at the site of three previous hand orthopedic procedures.

“Although surgical cleansers were suspected, the patient reacted to sodium metabisulfite. Review of the operating room contactants confirmed sulfites as preservatives in an injectable anesthetic and antibiotic used for wound irrigation,” she said. Another patient who had been treated for recurrent otitis externa and seborrheic dermatitis was found to be allergic to sulfites in an otic antibiotic suspension as well as in a ketoconazole cream product, she added.

In the paper, Dr. Warshaw and Mr. Ekstein called for the addition of sulfites to the test series. Although the NACDG added sodium metabisulfite to the series in 2017, sulfites are not part of the American Contact Dermatitis Core Series, they wrote. Sodium metabisulfite, they said, was added to the European baseline standard series after review of the 2019-2020 patch test reactivity and clinical relevance data.

The ACDS meeting is held every year the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Belsito and Dr. Warshaw had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), Fresenius Kabi, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on March 7.

This is the second tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first to be approved in both intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous formulations that are available with the reference product, Actemra, the company said in a press release. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Tocilizumab-aazg is an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist indicated for:

• Adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
• Adults with giant cell arteritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis

“Fresenius Kabi is leading the way as the first company to receive FDA approval for both IV and subcutaneous formulations of its tocilizumab biosimilar and is available in prefilled syringe, pen injector, and vial presentations,” Fabrice Romanet, senior vice president of innovation and development at Fresenius Kabi Biopharma, said in a statement.

The FDA approved the first tocilizumab biosimilar, manufactured by Biogen, in late September 2023. It is administered by IV infusion.

Tocilizumab-aazg’s approval was based on outcome and safety data from a dozen clinical studies. The drug can be administered via intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) or subcutaneously via a single-dose 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe or single-dose prefilled autoinjector. 

The most common side effects for tocilizumab-aazg include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection site reactions. The most serious side effects include serious infections, perforation of the stomach or intestines, hepatotoxicity, and changes in certain lab results.

Tocilizumab-aazg has already launched in 10 countries, Fresenius Kabi shared in the press release, and plans to launch in additional countries in 2024 and 2025. It is not clear when tocilizumab-aazg will be made available in the United States.

“In accordance with its patent settlement agreement with Genentech, Fresenius Kabi has a license to market its tocilizumab products in the United States commencing on the license dates, which are confidential,” the company noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), Fresenius Kabi, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on March 7.

This is the second tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first to be approved in both intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous formulations that are available with the reference product, Actemra, the company said in a press release. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Tocilizumab-aazg is an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist indicated for:

• Adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
• Adults with giant cell arteritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis

“Fresenius Kabi is leading the way as the first company to receive FDA approval for both IV and subcutaneous formulations of its tocilizumab biosimilar and is available in prefilled syringe, pen injector, and vial presentations,” Fabrice Romanet, senior vice president of innovation and development at Fresenius Kabi Biopharma, said in a statement.

The FDA approved the first tocilizumab biosimilar, manufactured by Biogen, in late September 2023. It is administered by IV infusion.

Tocilizumab-aazg’s approval was based on outcome and safety data from a dozen clinical studies. The drug can be administered via intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) or subcutaneously via a single-dose 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe or single-dose prefilled autoinjector. 

The most common side effects for tocilizumab-aazg include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection site reactions. The most serious side effects include serious infections, perforation of the stomach or intestines, hepatotoxicity, and changes in certain lab results.

Tocilizumab-aazg has already launched in 10 countries, Fresenius Kabi shared in the press release, and plans to launch in additional countries in 2024 and 2025. It is not clear when tocilizumab-aazg will be made available in the United States.

“In accordance with its patent settlement agreement with Genentech, Fresenius Kabi has a license to market its tocilizumab products in the United States commencing on the license dates, which are confidential,” the company noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), Fresenius Kabi, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on March 7.

This is the second tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first to be approved in both intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous formulations that are available with the reference product, Actemra, the company said in a press release. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Tocilizumab-aazg is an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist indicated for:

• Adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
• Adults with giant cell arteritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis

“Fresenius Kabi is leading the way as the first company to receive FDA approval for both IV and subcutaneous formulations of its tocilizumab biosimilar and is available in prefilled syringe, pen injector, and vial presentations,” Fabrice Romanet, senior vice president of innovation and development at Fresenius Kabi Biopharma, said in a statement.

The FDA approved the first tocilizumab biosimilar, manufactured by Biogen, in late September 2023. It is administered by IV infusion.

Tocilizumab-aazg’s approval was based on outcome and safety data from a dozen clinical studies. The drug can be administered via intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) or subcutaneously via a single-dose 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe or single-dose prefilled autoinjector. 

The most common side effects for tocilizumab-aazg include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection site reactions. The most serious side effects include serious infections, perforation of the stomach or intestines, hepatotoxicity, and changes in certain lab results.

Tocilizumab-aazg has already launched in 10 countries, Fresenius Kabi shared in the press release, and plans to launch in additional countries in 2024 and 2025. It is not clear when tocilizumab-aazg will be made available in the United States.

“In accordance with its patent settlement agreement with Genentech, Fresenius Kabi has a license to market its tocilizumab products in the United States commencing on the license dates, which are confidential,” the company noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.