A new study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium found that patients in economically and racially/ethnically marginalized neighborhoods are more likely to present with breast cancer at later stages of the disease.

“Neighborhood economic status and residential segregation can shape cancer outcomes such as later-stage diagnosis through several mechanisms, such as access to health care, particularly through limited breast cancer mammographic screening,” said the study’s author, Neha Goel, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Miami.

The findings are based on an analysis of data from the neighborhood indicator called the Index of Concentration at the Extremes, a database that focuses on the distribution of concentrations of privilege and deprivation, rather than comparing individual or household levels. This is important because growing concentrations of extreme wealth and extreme poverty are becoming increasingly common, and these are not properties discernible by measures by individuals or households. The indicator considers concentration of privilege and deprivation independently, unlike typical models that combine these factors. Doing so reduces bias that can occur in statistical models where these two factors can influence one another. “It brings subtle social inequalities and polarization to the forefront and maps a critical dimension of social inequality,” Dr. Goel said.

Researchers defined structural racism based on its effects, such as separation of marginalized economic and racial/ethnic groups, as well as classism that occurs as a result of discriminatory housing policies over decades. The American Medical Association defines structural racism as the “totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care and criminal justice.” It considers racism, structural racism, and unconscious biases within medical research and health care delivery to be public health threats. The AMA calls for educational and continuing medical education programs to promote an understanding of all forms of racism, and methods for preventing or reducing the health effects of racism.

The final analysis included 6,145 patients (52.6% Hispanic, 26.3 White, and 17.2% Black) who were treated for breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. At 45.2%, nearly half of participants were privately insured.

Five models were created comparing the likelihood of being diagnosed with a more advance stage tumor (stage 3-4 vs. stage 1-2) between the most disadvantage quartile and the most advantaged group quartile. They found significant relationships for low versus high economic segregation for both the most disadvantaged quartile (odds ratio, 1.36; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05); low-income Black versus high-income White patients in both the most disadvantage quartile (OR, 1.55; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.44; P < .05); Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity in the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.32; P < .05), and low-income Hispanics versus high-income Whites in both the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.56; P < .05).

Black patients were more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer than White patients (25.1% vs. 12.5%; P < .001).

The findings suggest that both economically disadvantaged patients and those in racially or ethnically marginalized neighborhoods had a greater probability of having later-stage disease at diagnosis. The researchers controlled for age, insurance status, tumor subtype, and comorbidities like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hyperlipidemia.

“This study adds insight to a growing body of literature that demonstrate how the ecological effects of structural racism – expressed through poverty and residential segregation – shape cancer outcomes across patients of all races [and] ethnicities,” Dr. Goel said.

Dr. Goel has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium found that patients in economically and racially/ethnically marginalized neighborhoods are more likely to present with breast cancer at later stages of the disease.

“Neighborhood economic status and residential segregation can shape cancer outcomes such as later-stage diagnosis through several mechanisms, such as access to health care, particularly through limited breast cancer mammographic screening,” said the study’s author, Neha Goel, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Miami.

The findings are based on an analysis of data from the neighborhood indicator called the Index of Concentration at the Extremes, a database that focuses on the distribution of concentrations of privilege and deprivation, rather than comparing individual or household levels. This is important because growing concentrations of extreme wealth and extreme poverty are becoming increasingly common, and these are not properties discernible by measures by individuals or households. The indicator considers concentration of privilege and deprivation independently, unlike typical models that combine these factors. Doing so reduces bias that can occur in statistical models where these two factors can influence one another. “It brings subtle social inequalities and polarization to the forefront and maps a critical dimension of social inequality,” Dr. Goel said.

Researchers defined structural racism based on its effects, such as separation of marginalized economic and racial/ethnic groups, as well as classism that occurs as a result of discriminatory housing policies over decades. The American Medical Association defines structural racism as the “totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care and criminal justice.” It considers racism, structural racism, and unconscious biases within medical research and health care delivery to be public health threats. The AMA calls for educational and continuing medical education programs to promote an understanding of all forms of racism, and methods for preventing or reducing the health effects of racism.

The final analysis included 6,145 patients (52.6% Hispanic, 26.3 White, and 17.2% Black) who were treated for breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. At 45.2%, nearly half of participants were privately insured.

Five models were created comparing the likelihood of being diagnosed with a more advance stage tumor (stage 3-4 vs. stage 1-2) between the most disadvantage quartile and the most advantaged group quartile. They found significant relationships for low versus high economic segregation for both the most disadvantaged quartile (odds ratio, 1.36; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05); low-income Black versus high-income White patients in both the most disadvantage quartile (OR, 1.55; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.44; P < .05); Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity in the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.32; P < .05), and low-income Hispanics versus high-income Whites in both the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.56; P < .05).

Black patients were more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer than White patients (25.1% vs. 12.5%; P < .001).

The findings suggest that both economically disadvantaged patients and those in racially or ethnically marginalized neighborhoods had a greater probability of having later-stage disease at diagnosis. The researchers controlled for age, insurance status, tumor subtype, and comorbidities like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hyperlipidemia.

“This study adds insight to a growing body of literature that demonstrate how the ecological effects of structural racism – expressed through poverty and residential segregation – shape cancer outcomes across patients of all races [and] ethnicities,” Dr. Goel said.

Dr. Goel has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study recently presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium found that patients in economically and racially/ethnically marginalized neighborhoods are more likely to present with breast cancer at later stages of the disease.

“Neighborhood economic status and residential segregation can shape cancer outcomes such as later-stage diagnosis through several mechanisms, such as access to health care, particularly through limited breast cancer mammographic screening,” said the study’s author, Neha Goel, MD, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Miami.

The findings are based on an analysis of data from the neighborhood indicator called the Index of Concentration at the Extremes, a database that focuses on the distribution of concentrations of privilege and deprivation, rather than comparing individual or household levels. This is important because growing concentrations of extreme wealth and extreme poverty are becoming increasingly common, and these are not properties discernible by measures by individuals or households. The indicator considers concentration of privilege and deprivation independently, unlike typical models that combine these factors. Doing so reduces bias that can occur in statistical models where these two factors can influence one another. “It brings subtle social inequalities and polarization to the forefront and maps a critical dimension of social inequality,” Dr. Goel said.

Researchers defined structural racism based on its effects, such as separation of marginalized economic and racial/ethnic groups, as well as classism that occurs as a result of discriminatory housing policies over decades. The American Medical Association defines structural racism as the “totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care and criminal justice.” It considers racism, structural racism, and unconscious biases within medical research and health care delivery to be public health threats. The AMA calls for educational and continuing medical education programs to promote an understanding of all forms of racism, and methods for preventing or reducing the health effects of racism.

The final analysis included 6,145 patients (52.6% Hispanic, 26.3 White, and 17.2% Black) who were treated for breast cancer between 2005 and 2017. At 45.2%, nearly half of participants were privately insured.

Five models were created comparing the likelihood of being diagnosed with a more advance stage tumor (stage 3-4 vs. stage 1-2) between the most disadvantage quartile and the most advantaged group quartile. They found significant relationships for low versus high economic segregation for both the most disadvantaged quartile (odds ratio, 1.36; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05); low-income Black versus high-income White patients in both the most disadvantage quartile (OR, 1.55; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.44; P < .05); Hispanic versus non-Hispanic ethnicity in the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.32; P < .05), and low-income Hispanics versus high-income Whites in both the most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.43; P < .05) and the second-most disadvantaged quartile (OR, 1.56; P < .05).

Black patients were more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer than White patients (25.1% vs. 12.5%; P < .001).

The findings suggest that both economically disadvantaged patients and those in racially or ethnically marginalized neighborhoods had a greater probability of having later-stage disease at diagnosis. The researchers controlled for age, insurance status, tumor subtype, and comorbidities like diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hyperlipidemia.

“This study adds insight to a growing body of literature that demonstrate how the ecological effects of structural racism – expressed through poverty and residential segregation – shape cancer outcomes across patients of all races [and] ethnicities,” Dr. Goel said.

Dr. Goel has no relevant financial disclosures.

A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database suggests an overall survival benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy among breast cancer patients with an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less. The findings reinforce the positive results from the RxPONDER study, which showed benefits to invasive disease–free and distant relapse–free survival.

OncotypeDX is a prognostic assay for hormone-receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative and axillary lymph-node–negative breast cancer. It measures expression of 21 different genes and assigns each patient a score between 0 and 100, with higher scores representing a greater risk of recurrence and a worse prognosis. The 2018 TAILORx study validated Oncotype DX and found no benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy added to endocrine therapy in women over 50 with an OncotypeDX score of 11-25, but it did find a benefit in women under 50 years old with a score of 16 or higher.

RxPONDER was a prospective study that randomized women with Oncotype DX scores of 25 or lower and 1-3 positive lymph nodes to adjuvant endocrine therapy with or without chemotherapy. Among premenopausal women, 5-year invasive disease–free survival was 93.9% with chemotherapy and 89.0% with endocrine therapy only (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .002), while distant relapse–free survival was 96.1% and 92.8%, respectively (HR, 0.58; P = .009).

Overall survival data from RxPONDER has yet to be reported. In the meantime, “We decided to use the National Cancer database to see if this group of patients have an overall survival benefit,” said Prashanth Ashok Kumar, MBBS, who presented the results of the new study at a poster session this month during the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Our research further supports the findings of the RxPONDER trial showing that this subgroup of patients may also have an overall survival benefit with adjuvant chemotherapy. We can give physicians a little bit more confidence to recommend the findings of the RxPONDER study to their patients and could recommend chemotherapy in this group,” said Dr. Kumar, who is a second-year oncology fellow at Upstate University Hospital. Syracuse, N.Y.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, but Dr. Kumar said that the researchers used propensity score matching to reduce confounding. “This would need to be confirmed with further prospective clinical trials and also the mature data from the RxPONDER trial is something that we have to look forward to,” he said.

Adjuvant therapy might be particularly beneficial to patients with more high-risk features, such as T4 or N2 or N3 disease. “We have to go with each individual patient’s features, and also the patient’s personal preference and what they want from their quality of life,” Dr. Kumar said.

The study included 8,628 patients from the 2004-2018 National Cancer Database participant user file. They were 18-50 years old with N1-N3 lymph node status, no metastasis, and any T stage. All had an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less and were hormone receptor–positive and HER2-negative while 40.8% underwent adjuvant chemotherapy.

Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier scores showed a slightly higher 10-year survival with adjuvant chemotherapy (93% versus 91%; HR, 0.602; 95% confidence interval, 0.482-0.751). Multivariate subanalyses showed that adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better survival among White patients (HR, 0.512; 95% CI, 0.348-0.752) between 18 and 40 years old (HR, 0.429; 95% CI, 0.217-0.847), and for patients between 40 and 50 years old (HR, 0.585; 95% CI, 0.394-0.869); among patients with poorly differentiated tumors (HR, 0.404; 95% CI, 0.186-0.874); among patients with well-differentiated tumors (HR, 0.386; 95% CI, 0.165-0.903); and for those with Oncotype DX scores between 12 and 25 (HR, 0.549; 95% CI, 0.379-0.795).

Dr. Kumar has no relevant financial disclosures.

A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database suggests an overall survival benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy among breast cancer patients with an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less. The findings reinforce the positive results from the RxPONDER study, which showed benefits to invasive disease–free and distant relapse–free survival.

OncotypeDX is a prognostic assay for hormone-receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative and axillary lymph-node–negative breast cancer. It measures expression of 21 different genes and assigns each patient a score between 0 and 100, with higher scores representing a greater risk of recurrence and a worse prognosis. The 2018 TAILORx study validated Oncotype DX and found no benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy added to endocrine therapy in women over 50 with an OncotypeDX score of 11-25, but it did find a benefit in women under 50 years old with a score of 16 or higher.

RxPONDER was a prospective study that randomized women with Oncotype DX scores of 25 or lower and 1-3 positive lymph nodes to adjuvant endocrine therapy with or without chemotherapy. Among premenopausal women, 5-year invasive disease–free survival was 93.9% with chemotherapy and 89.0% with endocrine therapy only (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .002), while distant relapse–free survival was 96.1% and 92.8%, respectively (HR, 0.58; P = .009).

Overall survival data from RxPONDER has yet to be reported. In the meantime, “We decided to use the National Cancer database to see if this group of patients have an overall survival benefit,” said Prashanth Ashok Kumar, MBBS, who presented the results of the new study at a poster session this month during the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Our research further supports the findings of the RxPONDER trial showing that this subgroup of patients may also have an overall survival benefit with adjuvant chemotherapy. We can give physicians a little bit more confidence to recommend the findings of the RxPONDER study to their patients and could recommend chemotherapy in this group,” said Dr. Kumar, who is a second-year oncology fellow at Upstate University Hospital. Syracuse, N.Y.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, but Dr. Kumar said that the researchers used propensity score matching to reduce confounding. “This would need to be confirmed with further prospective clinical trials and also the mature data from the RxPONDER trial is something that we have to look forward to,” he said.

Adjuvant therapy might be particularly beneficial to patients with more high-risk features, such as T4 or N2 or N3 disease. “We have to go with each individual patient’s features, and also the patient’s personal preference and what they want from their quality of life,” Dr. Kumar said.

The study included 8,628 patients from the 2004-2018 National Cancer Database participant user file. They were 18-50 years old with N1-N3 lymph node status, no metastasis, and any T stage. All had an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less and were hormone receptor–positive and HER2-negative while 40.8% underwent adjuvant chemotherapy.

Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier scores showed a slightly higher 10-year survival with adjuvant chemotherapy (93% versus 91%; HR, 0.602; 95% confidence interval, 0.482-0.751). Multivariate subanalyses showed that adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better survival among White patients (HR, 0.512; 95% CI, 0.348-0.752) between 18 and 40 years old (HR, 0.429; 95% CI, 0.217-0.847), and for patients between 40 and 50 years old (HR, 0.585; 95% CI, 0.394-0.869); among patients with poorly differentiated tumors (HR, 0.404; 95% CI, 0.186-0.874); among patients with well-differentiated tumors (HR, 0.386; 95% CI, 0.165-0.903); and for those with Oncotype DX scores between 12 and 25 (HR, 0.549; 95% CI, 0.379-0.795).

Dr. Kumar has no relevant financial disclosures.

A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database suggests an overall survival benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy among breast cancer patients with an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less. The findings reinforce the positive results from the RxPONDER study, which showed benefits to invasive disease–free and distant relapse–free survival.

OncotypeDX is a prognostic assay for hormone-receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative and axillary lymph-node–negative breast cancer. It measures expression of 21 different genes and assigns each patient a score between 0 and 100, with higher scores representing a greater risk of recurrence and a worse prognosis. The 2018 TAILORx study validated Oncotype DX and found no benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy added to endocrine therapy in women over 50 with an OncotypeDX score of 11-25, but it did find a benefit in women under 50 years old with a score of 16 or higher.

RxPONDER was a prospective study that randomized women with Oncotype DX scores of 25 or lower and 1-3 positive lymph nodes to adjuvant endocrine therapy with or without chemotherapy. Among premenopausal women, 5-year invasive disease–free survival was 93.9% with chemotherapy and 89.0% with endocrine therapy only (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .002), while distant relapse–free survival was 96.1% and 92.8%, respectively (HR, 0.58; P = .009).

Overall survival data from RxPONDER has yet to be reported. In the meantime, “We decided to use the National Cancer database to see if this group of patients have an overall survival benefit,” said Prashanth Ashok Kumar, MBBS, who presented the results of the new study at a poster session this month during the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Our research further supports the findings of the RxPONDER trial showing that this subgroup of patients may also have an overall survival benefit with adjuvant chemotherapy. We can give physicians a little bit more confidence to recommend the findings of the RxPONDER study to their patients and could recommend chemotherapy in this group,” said Dr. Kumar, who is a second-year oncology fellow at Upstate University Hospital. Syracuse, N.Y.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, but Dr. Kumar said that the researchers used propensity score matching to reduce confounding. “This would need to be confirmed with further prospective clinical trials and also the mature data from the RxPONDER trial is something that we have to look forward to,” he said.

Adjuvant therapy might be particularly beneficial to patients with more high-risk features, such as T4 or N2 or N3 disease. “We have to go with each individual patient’s features, and also the patient’s personal preference and what they want from their quality of life,” Dr. Kumar said.

The study included 8,628 patients from the 2004-2018 National Cancer Database participant user file. They were 18-50 years old with N1-N3 lymph node status, no metastasis, and any T stage. All had an OncotypeDX score of 25 or less and were hormone receptor–positive and HER2-negative while 40.8% underwent adjuvant chemotherapy.

Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier scores showed a slightly higher 10-year survival with adjuvant chemotherapy (93% versus 91%; HR, 0.602; 95% confidence interval, 0.482-0.751). Multivariate subanalyses showed that adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better survival among White patients (HR, 0.512; 95% CI, 0.348-0.752) between 18 and 40 years old (HR, 0.429; 95% CI, 0.217-0.847), and for patients between 40 and 50 years old (HR, 0.585; 95% CI, 0.394-0.869); among patients with poorly differentiated tumors (HR, 0.404; 95% CI, 0.186-0.874); among patients with well-differentiated tumors (HR, 0.386; 95% CI, 0.165-0.903); and for those with Oncotype DX scores between 12 and 25 (HR, 0.549; 95% CI, 0.379-0.795).

Dr. Kumar has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – In the fall of 2014, Sandra Lee, MD, posted a blackhead extraction video on her Instagram account, a decision that changed her professional life forever.

“I got these crazy comments,” Dr. Lee, a dermatologist who practices in Upland, Calif., recalled at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “Either people loved it – they were obsessed – or they thought it was the most disgusting thing they’d ever seen. It created a strong reaction. Either way, they shared it with their friends.”

Soon after she started posting videos, she discovered Reddit, which has a subreddit for “popping addicts” and the “pop-curious.” “I thought, ‘These videos are so amateur. They’re culling them from the Internet. Or, they’re pinning down their son at the beach and trying to squeeze out a blackhead,’ ” Dr. Lee said. “I thought, ‘I could give them pristine videos,’ ” and that is exactly what she did.

Turning to YouTube as a platform, she began to post videos showing everything from Mohs surgery and Botox injections to keloid removals and ear lobe repair surgeries. With this, Dr. Lee formed her alter ego, “Dr. Pimple Popper,” and became a YouTube sensation, building 7.53 million subscribers over the course of a few years. She also grew 16.2 million subscribers on TikTok, 4.5 million followers on Instagram, 2.9 million on Facebook, and 136,700 on Twitter.

About 80% of her followers are women who range between 18 and 40 years of age. “I have over 5 billion views on YouTube, which is mind-blowing,” she said. “That tells you something about the content. It’s not something people watch once. They watch it over and over again.” These include videos compiled as a “bedtime story.”

Dr. Lee offered the following pearls of advice for dermatologists looking to build and maintain a presence on social media:

Use it to showcase what makes you unique. Post what you do on social media, and people will find you. “It’s an opportunity to freely advertise,” Dr. Lee said. “I’m super nitpicky about posting good before-and-after photos. You can also show off how nice and warm and inviting your office is. People come to see me because they know my voice. They know how I interact with patients. That is reason for them enough to travel from far away to see me. It doesn’t mean that I’m the person who is best at treating whatever condition they have.”

Make it interesting. “I say that the special sauce is entertainment and education,” said Dr. Lee, who is in the fifth season of “Dr. Pimple Popper,” her TV show that airs internationally. “The only way you can draw people in is by entertaining them, catching their interest. But I try to trick them into educating them. Five-year-old kids come up to me now and know what a lipoma is. I’m proud of that.”

Be authentic. You may be using social media to promote your dermatology practice, but it’s important for followers to get a glimpse of your nonwork personality as well. Maybe that means posting a photo of yourself at a concert, baseball game, or dinner with family and friends. “Show that you have a sense of humor, because you want them to like you,” Dr. Lee added. “That’s why someone follows you, because they want to be your friend. They enjoy spending time with you on the Internet. It’s like gambling. In order to win, you have to play. So, you have to post.”

Avoid hot-button topics. “I don’t post about my kids, and I try to choose sponsorships wisely,” she said. “I do very few branding deals. Be careful about your brand and how you present yourself. Present yourself in an authentic way, but not in a way that hurts yourself or the dermatology profession.”

Be mindful of the time investment. “It’s like running a whole other business,” Dr. Lee said. “There are also trolls out there, so you have to have thick skin.”

Don’t sweat it if you don’t want to engage. “Not everybody wants to do it, and not everybody will be good at it, but that’s okay,” she said.

Dr. Lee reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – In the fall of 2014, Sandra Lee, MD, posted a blackhead extraction video on her Instagram account, a decision that changed her professional life forever.

“I got these crazy comments,” Dr. Lee, a dermatologist who practices in Upland, Calif., recalled at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “Either people loved it – they were obsessed – or they thought it was the most disgusting thing they’d ever seen. It created a strong reaction. Either way, they shared it with their friends.”

Soon after she started posting videos, she discovered Reddit, which has a subreddit for “popping addicts” and the “pop-curious.” “I thought, ‘These videos are so amateur. They’re culling them from the Internet. Or, they’re pinning down their son at the beach and trying to squeeze out a blackhead,’ ” Dr. Lee said. “I thought, ‘I could give them pristine videos,’ ” and that is exactly what she did.

Turning to YouTube as a platform, she began to post videos showing everything from Mohs surgery and Botox injections to keloid removals and ear lobe repair surgeries. With this, Dr. Lee formed her alter ego, “Dr. Pimple Popper,” and became a YouTube sensation, building 7.53 million subscribers over the course of a few years. She also grew 16.2 million subscribers on TikTok, 4.5 million followers on Instagram, 2.9 million on Facebook, and 136,700 on Twitter.

About 80% of her followers are women who range between 18 and 40 years of age. “I have over 5 billion views on YouTube, which is mind-blowing,” she said. “That tells you something about the content. It’s not something people watch once. They watch it over and over again.” These include videos compiled as a “bedtime story.”

Dr. Lee offered the following pearls of advice for dermatologists looking to build and maintain a presence on social media:

Use it to showcase what makes you unique. Post what you do on social media, and people will find you. “It’s an opportunity to freely advertise,” Dr. Lee said. “I’m super nitpicky about posting good before-and-after photos. You can also show off how nice and warm and inviting your office is. People come to see me because they know my voice. They know how I interact with patients. That is reason for them enough to travel from far away to see me. It doesn’t mean that I’m the person who is best at treating whatever condition they have.”

Make it interesting. “I say that the special sauce is entertainment and education,” said Dr. Lee, who is in the fifth season of “Dr. Pimple Popper,” her TV show that airs internationally. “The only way you can draw people in is by entertaining them, catching their interest. But I try to trick them into educating them. Five-year-old kids come up to me now and know what a lipoma is. I’m proud of that.”

Be authentic. You may be using social media to promote your dermatology practice, but it’s important for followers to get a glimpse of your nonwork personality as well. Maybe that means posting a photo of yourself at a concert, baseball game, or dinner with family and friends. “Show that you have a sense of humor, because you want them to like you,” Dr. Lee added. “That’s why someone follows you, because they want to be your friend. They enjoy spending time with you on the Internet. It’s like gambling. In order to win, you have to play. So, you have to post.”

Avoid hot-button topics. “I don’t post about my kids, and I try to choose sponsorships wisely,” she said. “I do very few branding deals. Be careful about your brand and how you present yourself. Present yourself in an authentic way, but not in a way that hurts yourself or the dermatology profession.”

Be mindful of the time investment. “It’s like running a whole other business,” Dr. Lee said. “There are also trolls out there, so you have to have thick skin.”

Don’t sweat it if you don’t want to engage. “Not everybody wants to do it, and not everybody will be good at it, but that’s okay,” she said.

Dr. Lee reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – In the fall of 2014, Sandra Lee, MD, posted a blackhead extraction video on her Instagram account, a decision that changed her professional life forever.

“I got these crazy comments,” Dr. Lee, a dermatologist who practices in Upland, Calif., recalled at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “Either people loved it – they were obsessed – or they thought it was the most disgusting thing they’d ever seen. It created a strong reaction. Either way, they shared it with their friends.”

Soon after she started posting videos, she discovered Reddit, which has a subreddit for “popping addicts” and the “pop-curious.” “I thought, ‘These videos are so amateur. They’re culling them from the Internet. Or, they’re pinning down their son at the beach and trying to squeeze out a blackhead,’ ” Dr. Lee said. “I thought, ‘I could give them pristine videos,’ ” and that is exactly what she did.

Turning to YouTube as a platform, she began to post videos showing everything from Mohs surgery and Botox injections to keloid removals and ear lobe repair surgeries. With this, Dr. Lee formed her alter ego, “Dr. Pimple Popper,” and became a YouTube sensation, building 7.53 million subscribers over the course of a few years. She also grew 16.2 million subscribers on TikTok, 4.5 million followers on Instagram, 2.9 million on Facebook, and 136,700 on Twitter.

About 80% of her followers are women who range between 18 and 40 years of age. “I have over 5 billion views on YouTube, which is mind-blowing,” she said. “That tells you something about the content. It’s not something people watch once. They watch it over and over again.” These include videos compiled as a “bedtime story.”

Dr. Lee offered the following pearls of advice for dermatologists looking to build and maintain a presence on social media:

Use it to showcase what makes you unique. Post what you do on social media, and people will find you. “It’s an opportunity to freely advertise,” Dr. Lee said. “I’m super nitpicky about posting good before-and-after photos. You can also show off how nice and warm and inviting your office is. People come to see me because they know my voice. They know how I interact with patients. That is reason for them enough to travel from far away to see me. It doesn’t mean that I’m the person who is best at treating whatever condition they have.”

Make it interesting. “I say that the special sauce is entertainment and education,” said Dr. Lee, who is in the fifth season of “Dr. Pimple Popper,” her TV show that airs internationally. “The only way you can draw people in is by entertaining them, catching their interest. But I try to trick them into educating them. Five-year-old kids come up to me now and know what a lipoma is. I’m proud of that.”

Be authentic. You may be using social media to promote your dermatology practice, but it’s important for followers to get a glimpse of your nonwork personality as well. Maybe that means posting a photo of yourself at a concert, baseball game, or dinner with family and friends. “Show that you have a sense of humor, because you want them to like you,” Dr. Lee added. “That’s why someone follows you, because they want to be your friend. They enjoy spending time with you on the Internet. It’s like gambling. In order to win, you have to play. So, you have to post.”

Avoid hot-button topics. “I don’t post about my kids, and I try to choose sponsorships wisely,” she said. “I do very few branding deals. Be careful about your brand and how you present yourself. Present yourself in an authentic way, but not in a way that hurts yourself or the dermatology profession.”

Be mindful of the time investment. “It’s like running a whole other business,” Dr. Lee said. “There are also trolls out there, so you have to have thick skin.”

Don’t sweat it if you don’t want to engage. “Not everybody wants to do it, and not everybody will be good at it, but that’s okay,” she said.

Dr. Lee reported having no relevant disclosures.

It’s not unusual for physicians to see other doctors as patients – often they’re colleagues or even friends. That relationship can influence their behavior and how they treat the physician-patient, which may have unintended consequences for both of them.

“When doctors don’t get the proper care, that’s when things go south. Any time physicians lower their standard of care, there is a risk of missing something that could affect their differential diagnosis, ultimate working diagnosis, and treatment plan,” said Michael Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn, who saw only medical students, physicians, and their family members in his private practice for over 3 decades.

Of the more than 200 physicians who responded to a recent Medscape poll, more than half said they treated physician-patients differently from other patients.

They granted their peers special privileges: They spent more time with them than other patients, gave out their personal contact information, and granted them professional courtesy by waiving or discounting their fees.

Published studies have reported that special treatment of physician-patients, such as giving personal contact information or avoiding uncomfortable testing, can create challenges for the treating physicians who may feel pressure to deviate from the standard of care.

The American Medical Association has recognized the challenges that physicians have when they treat other physicians they know personally or professionally, including a potential loss of objectivity, privacy, or confidentiality.

The AMA recommends that physicians treat physician-patients the same way they would other patients. The guidance states that the treating physician should exercise objective professional judgment and make unbiased treatment recommendations; be sensitive to the potential psychological discomfort of the physician-patient, and respect the physical and informational privacy of physician-patients.

Dr. Myers recalled that one doctor-patient said his primary care physician was his business partner in the practice. They ordered tests for each other and occasionally examined each other, but the patient never felt comfortable asking his partner for a full physical, said Dr. Myers, the author of “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir.”

“I recommended that he choose a primary care doctor whom he didn’t know so that he could truly be a patient and the doctor could truly be a treating doctor,” said Dr. Myers.

Physician-patients may also be concerned about running into their physicians and being judged, or that they will break confidentiality and tell their spouse or another colleague, said Dr. Myers.

“When your doctor is a complete and total stranger, and especially if you live in a sizable community and your paths never cross, you don’t have that added worry,” he said.
 

Do docs expect special treatment as patients?

Some doctors expect special treatment from other doctors when they’re patients – 14% of physician poll respondents said that was their experience.

Dr. Myers recommends setting boundaries with doctor-patients early on in the relationship. “Some doctors expected me to go over my regular appointment time and when they realized that I started and stopped on time, they got upset. Once, one doctor insisted to my answering service that he had to talk to me although I was at home. When he started talking, I interrupted him and asked if the matter was urgent. He said no, so I offered to fit him in before his next appointment if he felt it couldn’t wait,” said Dr. Myers.

Some doctors also give physician-patients “professional courtesy” when it comes to payment. One in four poll respondents said they waived or discounted their professional fees for a doctor-patient. As most doctors have health insurance, doctors may waive copayments or other out-of-pocket fees, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

However, waiving or discounting health insurance fees, especially for government funded insurance, may be illegal under federal anti-fraud and abuse laws and payer contracts as well as state laws, the AAP says. It’s best to check with an attorney.
 

Treating other physicians can be rewarding

“Physicians can be the most rewarding patients because they are allies and partners in the effort to overcome whatever is ailing them,” said one doctor who responded to the Medscape poll.

Over two-thirds of respondents said that doctor-patients participated much more in their care than did other patients – typically, they discussed their care in more depth than did other patients.

Most doctors also felt that it was easier to communicate with their physician-patients than other patients because they understood medicine and were knowledgeable about their conditions.
 

Being judged by your peers can be stressful

How physicians feel about treating physician-patients is complicated. Nearly half of respondents said that it was more stressful than treating other patients.

One respondent said, “If we are honest, treating other physicians as patients is more stressful because we know that our skills are being assessed by someone who is at our level. There is no training for treating physicians, as there is for the Pope’s confessor. And we can be challenging in more ways than one!”

About one-third of poll respondents said they were afraid of disappointing their physician-patients.

“I’m not surprised,” said Dr. Myers, when told of that poll response. “This is why some doctors are reluctant to treat other physicians; they may wonder whether they’re up to speed. I have always thrived on having a high bar set for me – it spurs me on to really stay current with the literature and be humble,” he said.

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

It’s not unusual for physicians to see other doctors as patients – often they’re colleagues or even friends. That relationship can influence their behavior and how they treat the physician-patient, which may have unintended consequences for both of them.

“When doctors don’t get the proper care, that’s when things go south. Any time physicians lower their standard of care, there is a risk of missing something that could affect their differential diagnosis, ultimate working diagnosis, and treatment plan,” said Michael Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn, who saw only medical students, physicians, and their family members in his private practice for over 3 decades.

Of the more than 200 physicians who responded to a recent Medscape poll, more than half said they treated physician-patients differently from other patients.

They granted their peers special privileges: They spent more time with them than other patients, gave out their personal contact information, and granted them professional courtesy by waiving or discounting their fees.

Published studies have reported that special treatment of physician-patients, such as giving personal contact information or avoiding uncomfortable testing, can create challenges for the treating physicians who may feel pressure to deviate from the standard of care.

The American Medical Association has recognized the challenges that physicians have when they treat other physicians they know personally or professionally, including a potential loss of objectivity, privacy, or confidentiality.

The AMA recommends that physicians treat physician-patients the same way they would other patients. The guidance states that the treating physician should exercise objective professional judgment and make unbiased treatment recommendations; be sensitive to the potential psychological discomfort of the physician-patient, and respect the physical and informational privacy of physician-patients.

Dr. Myers recalled that one doctor-patient said his primary care physician was his business partner in the practice. They ordered tests for each other and occasionally examined each other, but the patient never felt comfortable asking his partner for a full physical, said Dr. Myers, the author of “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir.”

“I recommended that he choose a primary care doctor whom he didn’t know so that he could truly be a patient and the doctor could truly be a treating doctor,” said Dr. Myers.

Physician-patients may also be concerned about running into their physicians and being judged, or that they will break confidentiality and tell their spouse or another colleague, said Dr. Myers.

“When your doctor is a complete and total stranger, and especially if you live in a sizable community and your paths never cross, you don’t have that added worry,” he said.
 

Do docs expect special treatment as patients?

Some doctors expect special treatment from other doctors when they’re patients – 14% of physician poll respondents said that was their experience.

Dr. Myers recommends setting boundaries with doctor-patients early on in the relationship. “Some doctors expected me to go over my regular appointment time and when they realized that I started and stopped on time, they got upset. Once, one doctor insisted to my answering service that he had to talk to me although I was at home. When he started talking, I interrupted him and asked if the matter was urgent. He said no, so I offered to fit him in before his next appointment if he felt it couldn’t wait,” said Dr. Myers.

Some doctors also give physician-patients “professional courtesy” when it comes to payment. One in four poll respondents said they waived or discounted their professional fees for a doctor-patient. As most doctors have health insurance, doctors may waive copayments or other out-of-pocket fees, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

However, waiving or discounting health insurance fees, especially for government funded insurance, may be illegal under federal anti-fraud and abuse laws and payer contracts as well as state laws, the AAP says. It’s best to check with an attorney.
 

Treating other physicians can be rewarding

“Physicians can be the most rewarding patients because they are allies and partners in the effort to overcome whatever is ailing them,” said one doctor who responded to the Medscape poll.

Over two-thirds of respondents said that doctor-patients participated much more in their care than did other patients – typically, they discussed their care in more depth than did other patients.

Most doctors also felt that it was easier to communicate with their physician-patients than other patients because they understood medicine and were knowledgeable about their conditions.
 

Being judged by your peers can be stressful

How physicians feel about treating physician-patients is complicated. Nearly half of respondents said that it was more stressful than treating other patients.

One respondent said, “If we are honest, treating other physicians as patients is more stressful because we know that our skills are being assessed by someone who is at our level. There is no training for treating physicians, as there is for the Pope’s confessor. And we can be challenging in more ways than one!”

About one-third of poll respondents said they were afraid of disappointing their physician-patients.

“I’m not surprised,” said Dr. Myers, when told of that poll response. “This is why some doctors are reluctant to treat other physicians; they may wonder whether they’re up to speed. I have always thrived on having a high bar set for me – it spurs me on to really stay current with the literature and be humble,” he said.

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

It’s not unusual for physicians to see other doctors as patients – often they’re colleagues or even friends. That relationship can influence their behavior and how they treat the physician-patient, which may have unintended consequences for both of them.

“When doctors don’t get the proper care, that’s when things go south. Any time physicians lower their standard of care, there is a risk of missing something that could affect their differential diagnosis, ultimate working diagnosis, and treatment plan,” said Michael Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn, who saw only medical students, physicians, and their family members in his private practice for over 3 decades.

Of the more than 200 physicians who responded to a recent Medscape poll, more than half said they treated physician-patients differently from other patients.

They granted their peers special privileges: They spent more time with them than other patients, gave out their personal contact information, and granted them professional courtesy by waiving or discounting their fees.

Published studies have reported that special treatment of physician-patients, such as giving personal contact information or avoiding uncomfortable testing, can create challenges for the treating physicians who may feel pressure to deviate from the standard of care.

The American Medical Association has recognized the challenges that physicians have when they treat other physicians they know personally or professionally, including a potential loss of objectivity, privacy, or confidentiality.

The AMA recommends that physicians treat physician-patients the same way they would other patients. The guidance states that the treating physician should exercise objective professional judgment and make unbiased treatment recommendations; be sensitive to the potential psychological discomfort of the physician-patient, and respect the physical and informational privacy of physician-patients.

Dr. Myers recalled that one doctor-patient said his primary care physician was his business partner in the practice. They ordered tests for each other and occasionally examined each other, but the patient never felt comfortable asking his partner for a full physical, said Dr. Myers, the author of “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir.”

“I recommended that he choose a primary care doctor whom he didn’t know so that he could truly be a patient and the doctor could truly be a treating doctor,” said Dr. Myers.

Physician-patients may also be concerned about running into their physicians and being judged, or that they will break confidentiality and tell their spouse or another colleague, said Dr. Myers.

“When your doctor is a complete and total stranger, and especially if you live in a sizable community and your paths never cross, you don’t have that added worry,” he said.
 

Do docs expect special treatment as patients?

Some doctors expect special treatment from other doctors when they’re patients – 14% of physician poll respondents said that was their experience.

Dr. Myers recommends setting boundaries with doctor-patients early on in the relationship. “Some doctors expected me to go over my regular appointment time and when they realized that I started and stopped on time, they got upset. Once, one doctor insisted to my answering service that he had to talk to me although I was at home. When he started talking, I interrupted him and asked if the matter was urgent. He said no, so I offered to fit him in before his next appointment if he felt it couldn’t wait,” said Dr. Myers.

Some doctors also give physician-patients “professional courtesy” when it comes to payment. One in four poll respondents said they waived or discounted their professional fees for a doctor-patient. As most doctors have health insurance, doctors may waive copayments or other out-of-pocket fees, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

However, waiving or discounting health insurance fees, especially for government funded insurance, may be illegal under federal anti-fraud and abuse laws and payer contracts as well as state laws, the AAP says. It’s best to check with an attorney.
 

Treating other physicians can be rewarding

“Physicians can be the most rewarding patients because they are allies and partners in the effort to overcome whatever is ailing them,” said one doctor who responded to the Medscape poll.

Over two-thirds of respondents said that doctor-patients participated much more in their care than did other patients – typically, they discussed their care in more depth than did other patients.

Most doctors also felt that it was easier to communicate with their physician-patients than other patients because they understood medicine and were knowledgeable about their conditions.
 

Being judged by your peers can be stressful

How physicians feel about treating physician-patients is complicated. Nearly half of respondents said that it was more stressful than treating other patients.

One respondent said, “If we are honest, treating other physicians as patients is more stressful because we know that our skills are being assessed by someone who is at our level. There is no training for treating physicians, as there is for the Pope’s confessor. And we can be challenging in more ways than one!”

About one-third of poll respondents said they were afraid of disappointing their physician-patients.

“I’m not surprised,” said Dr. Myers, when told of that poll response. “This is why some doctors are reluctant to treat other physicians; they may wonder whether they’re up to speed. I have always thrived on having a high bar set for me – it spurs me on to really stay current with the literature and be humble,” he said.

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

At a routine doctor’s visit, a member of the clinic staff takes digital pictures of a patient’s retinas.

Within seconds, an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm determines if the patient has diabetic retinopathy, a complication of diabetes that can lead to blindness.

If they do, the physician refers the patient to an eye care specialist for further evaluation and treatment.

This scene already is playing out in primary care clinics around the United States and in other countries, and it may become more common.

Health care systems intend to expand their use of AI to screen for diabetic retinopathy in 2023, and companies are developing more algorithms for this purpose.

In May, OSF HealthCare, a network of medical facilities headquartered in Peoria, Ill., piloted an AI system to diagnose diabetic retinopathy, a condition that affects an estimated 4 million Americans. In 2023, the health care system plans to expand the technology to 34 locations.

Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration in November approved a new AI system to diagnose diabetic retinopathy, making AEYE-DS from AEYE Health the third such product on the market.

Roomasa Channa, MD, a clinician-scientist with the McPherson Eye Research Institute at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, has studied the use of AI in teenage patients with diabetes. She said she soon plans to use AI screening in federally qualified health centers to screen adults with diabetes.

Dr. Channa welcomed the latest regulatory clearance and said she hopes another Food and Drug Administration–cleared algorithm product will improve accessibility to the technology.

“It is good to see more players in the field: We need this technology to be readily available and affordable,” she said in an interview.
 

A mixed reception

Responses from physicians to this type of AI have been mixed. Some worry, for instance, that the algorithms might be programmed with unrecognized biases that could lead them to less accurately interpret images from certain patient groups. Researchers should be on the lookout out for this possibility, Dr. Channa said.

“We need more real-world studies in different settings,” she said. “We also need to keep collecting data on AI performance post approval,” like investigators do for newly approved drugs.

The first AI system to diagnose diabetic retinopathy, IDx-DR, was approved by the FDA in 2018 and rolled out in retail clinics soon after. A second system, EyeArt, gained clearance by the agency in 2020.

Adding AI algorithms into primary care practice has changed how patients with diabetes can receive a screening. It also has introduced a new way for certain medical conditions to be diagnosed in primary care.

The American Medical Association in 2021 released a new CPT code to allow clinicians to bill government and private insurers for use of these services. CPT code 92229 refers to imaging of the retina to detect disease with an automated analysis and report at the point of care.
 

Meeting a need

Health care clinics in underserved areas often do not have eye care providers onsite to conduct recommended screening exams, so AI could help patients receive screening who otherwise would not get it, Dr. Channa said.

Dr. Channa and colleagues successfully used one AI system, IDx-DR, to screen children at a pediatric diabetes clinic. Over a year, screening rates jumped from 49% to 95%.

This technology “can potentially help us in decreasing disparities in care and focusing our efforts on patients with the most severe diseases,” she said.

OSF HealthCare recently obtained an approximately $1 million grant from drug company Regeneron to expand the use of AI-based screening for diabetic retinopathy, following a successful pilot. Regeneron markets a treatment for diabetic retinopathy.

Without an AI option, recommended eye screening for patients with diabetes often falls through the cracks, according to Mark Meeker, DO, vice president of community medicine at OSF. Primary care physicians may refer patients elsewhere for their annual retinopathy screening exam.

“That often doesn’t get completed because it’s another trip, another appointment, another time away from work,” Dr. Meeker said.

All patients with diabetes should have their eyes screened each year, but between one- to two-thirds of patients nationwide do not, he said.

A member of the clinic staff takes digital pictures of the retina, almost always through undilated pupils.

If the result is normal, the patient is scheduled for another follow-up screening in a year. If early signs of diabetic retinopathy are spotted, patients are referred to an eye care specialist.

After 7 months of the pilot program, OSF had screened about 350 patients. Approximately 20% had diabetic retinopathy, according to OSF.
 

‘A huge impact’

OSF has about 66,000 patients with diabetes. About two-thirds do not receive annual screening, Dr. Meeker estimated. “This can have a huge impact on the quality of life in the coming years for our diabetic patients. It’s pretty profound.”

Eye care specialists typically treat diabetic retinopathy with lasers, surgery, or medication. For primary care clinicians, however, AI screening for retinopathy is an opportunity to emphasize how important it is to manage the disease and what its consequences can be.

AI screening is “another tool for us to use to get patients more engaged in their own care,” Dr. Meeker said. “This is probably the biggest advance in AI affecting our day-to-day interaction with patients that we’ve seen in primary care.”
 

A business opportunity, too?

The IDx-DR platform OSF is using in its clinics is owned by the company Digital Diagnostics. OSF Ventures, an investment arm of OSF HealthCare, has invested in the company, the health care system announced in August.

Other companies have had their products used in practice. In 2019, for example, Eyenuk described how its EyeArt system had been used to screen thousands of patients in Germany and in Italy.

And in 2021, Eyenuk reported that its customer base in the United States had expanded to more than 25 locations. The company credited a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services plan to cover CPT code 92229 with supporting this growth.

Zack Dvey-Aharon, PhD, the CEO of AEYE Health, said the company was motivated to enter this space when regulators decided that AI could be used to diagnose a condition — not just as a tool to help doctors arrive at a diagnosis.

With proper training, a person can diagnose diabetic retinopathy relatively easily if the image of the retina is of excellent quality. If image is dark or blurry, however, it’s a different story.

AI has its advantages in this scenario, according to Dr. Dvey-Aharon. “For AI, those darker, more blurry images are actually highly readable with fantastic accuracy.”
 

More to come?

The possibilities of AI in analyzing retinal images are vast.

New research shows that AI may be able to detect Alzheimer’s disease or predict a person’s risk for heart attack and stroke based on snapshots of the retina.

The retina may also shed light on kidney disease, control of blood glucose and blood pressure, hepatobiliary disease, and coronary artery calcium, according to Eric J. Topol, MD, director of Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

Beyond retinas, interpretation of electrocardiograms (ECGs) may be another frontier for AI in primary care. In one trial, an AI-enhanced ECG reading facilitated early diagnosis of low ejection fraction, and some doctors now receive these reports routinely, Dr. Topol wrote.

The potential value of AI in medicine “extends to virtually all forms of medical images that have been assessed to date,” Dr. Topol wrote on his “Ground Truths” Substack.

Although much of the focus has been on what AI can see, researchers also are exploring what AI can do with what it hears. Early research suggests that algorithms may be able to diagnose disease by analyzing patients’ voices.

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

At a routine doctor’s visit, a member of the clinic staff takes digital pictures of a patient’s retinas.

Within seconds, an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm determines if the patient has diabetic retinopathy, a complication of diabetes that can lead to blindness.

If they do, the physician refers the patient to an eye care specialist for further evaluation and treatment.

This scene already is playing out in primary care clinics around the United States and in other countries, and it may become more common.

Health care systems intend to expand their use of AI to screen for diabetic retinopathy in 2023, and companies are developing more algorithms for this purpose.

In May, OSF HealthCare, a network of medical facilities headquartered in Peoria, Ill., piloted an AI system to diagnose diabetic retinopathy, a condition that affects an estimated 4 million Americans. In 2023, the health care system plans to expand the technology to 34 locations.

Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration in November approved a new AI system to diagnose diabetic retinopathy, making AEYE-DS from AEYE Health the third such product on the market.

Roomasa Channa, MD, a clinician-scientist with the McPherson Eye Research Institute at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, has studied the use of AI in teenage patients with diabetes. She said she soon plans to use AI screening in federally qualified health centers to screen adults with diabetes.

Dr. Channa welcomed the latest regulatory clearance and said she hopes another Food and Drug Administration–cleared algorithm product will improve accessibility to the technology.

“It is good to see more players in the field: We need this technology to be readily available and affordable,” she said in an interview.
 

A mixed reception

Responses from physicians to this type of AI have been mixed. Some worry, for instance, that the algorithms might be programmed with unrecognized biases that could lead them to less accurately interpret images from certain patient groups. Researchers should be on the lookout out for this possibility, Dr. Channa said.

“We need more real-world studies in different settings,” she said. “We also need to keep collecting data on AI performance post approval,” like investigators do for newly approved drugs.

The first AI system to diagnose diabetic retinopathy, IDx-DR, was approved by the FDA in 2018 and rolled out in retail clinics soon after. A second system, EyeArt, gained clearance by the agency in 2020.

Adding AI algorithms into primary care practice has changed how patients with diabetes can receive a screening. It also has introduced a new way for certain medical conditions to be diagnosed in primary care.

The American Medical Association in 2021 released a new CPT code to allow clinicians to bill government and private insurers for use of these services. CPT code 92229 refers to imaging of the retina to detect disease with an automated analysis and report at the point of care.
 

Meeting a need

Health care clinics in underserved areas often do not have eye care providers onsite to conduct recommended screening exams, so AI could help patients receive screening who otherwise would not get it, Dr. Channa said.

Dr. Channa and colleagues successfully used one AI system, IDx-DR, to screen children at a pediatric diabetes clinic. Over a year, screening rates jumped from 49% to 95%.

This technology “can potentially help us in decreasing disparities in care and focusing our efforts on patients with the most severe diseases,” she said.

OSF HealthCare recently obtained an approximately $1 million grant from drug company Regeneron to expand the use of AI-based screening for diabetic retinopathy, following a successful pilot. Regeneron markets a treatment for diabetic retinopathy.

Without an AI option, recommended eye screening for patients with diabetes often falls through the cracks, according to Mark Meeker, DO, vice president of community medicine at OSF. Primary care physicians may refer patients elsewhere for their annual retinopathy screening exam.

“That often doesn’t get completed because it’s another trip, another appointment, another time away from work,” Dr. Meeker said.

All patients with diabetes should have their eyes screened each year, but between one- to two-thirds of patients nationwide do not, he said.

A member of the clinic staff takes digital pictures of the retina, almost always through undilated pupils.

If the result is normal, the patient is scheduled for another follow-up screening in a year. If early signs of diabetic retinopathy are spotted, patients are referred to an eye care specialist.

After 7 months of the pilot program, OSF had screened about 350 patients. Approximately 20% had diabetic retinopathy, according to OSF.
 

‘A huge impact’

OSF has about 66,000 patients with diabetes. About two-thirds do not receive annual screening, Dr. Meeker estimated. “This can have a huge impact on the quality of life in the coming years for our diabetic patients. It’s pretty profound.”

Eye care specialists typically treat diabetic retinopathy with lasers, surgery, or medication. For primary care clinicians, however, AI screening for retinopathy is an opportunity to emphasize how important it is to manage the disease and what its consequences can be.

AI screening is “another tool for us to use to get patients more engaged in their own care,” Dr. Meeker said. “This is probably the biggest advance in AI affecting our day-to-day interaction with patients that we’ve seen in primary care.”
 

A business opportunity, too?

The IDx-DR platform OSF is using in its clinics is owned by the company Digital Diagnostics. OSF Ventures, an investment arm of OSF HealthCare, has invested in the company, the health care system announced in August.

Other companies have had their products used in practice. In 2019, for example, Eyenuk described how its EyeArt system had been used to screen thousands of patients in Germany and in Italy.

And in 2021, Eyenuk reported that its customer base in the United States had expanded to more than 25 locations. The company credited a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services plan to cover CPT code 92229 with supporting this growth.

Zack Dvey-Aharon, PhD, the CEO of AEYE Health, said the company was motivated to enter this space when regulators decided that AI could be used to diagnose a condition — not just as a tool to help doctors arrive at a diagnosis.

With proper training, a person can diagnose diabetic retinopathy relatively easily if the image of the retina is of excellent quality. If image is dark or blurry, however, it’s a different story.

AI has its advantages in this scenario, according to Dr. Dvey-Aharon. “For AI, those darker, more blurry images are actually highly readable with fantastic accuracy.”
 

More to come?

The possibilities of AI in analyzing retinal images are vast.

New research shows that AI may be able to detect Alzheimer’s disease or predict a person’s risk for heart attack and stroke based on snapshots of the retina.

The retina may also shed light on kidney disease, control of blood glucose and blood pressure, hepatobiliary disease, and coronary artery calcium, according to Eric J. Topol, MD, director of Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

Beyond retinas, interpretation of electrocardiograms (ECGs) may be another frontier for AI in primary care. In one trial, an AI-enhanced ECG reading facilitated early diagnosis of low ejection fraction, and some doctors now receive these reports routinely, Dr. Topol wrote.

The potential value of AI in medicine “extends to virtually all forms of medical images that have been assessed to date,” Dr. Topol wrote on his “Ground Truths” Substack.

Although much of the focus has been on what AI can see, researchers also are exploring what AI can do with what it hears. Early research suggests that algorithms may be able to diagnose disease by analyzing patients’ voices.

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

At a routine doctor’s visit, a member of the clinic staff takes digital pictures of a patient’s retinas.

Within seconds, an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm determines if the patient has diabetic retinopathy, a complication of diabetes that can lead to blindness.

If they do, the physician refers the patient to an eye care specialist for further evaluation and treatment.

This scene already is playing out in primary care clinics around the United States and in other countries, and it may become more common.

Health care systems intend to expand their use of AI to screen for diabetic retinopathy in 2023, and companies are developing more algorithms for this purpose.

In May, OSF HealthCare, a network of medical facilities headquartered in Peoria, Ill., piloted an AI system to diagnose diabetic retinopathy, a condition that affects an estimated 4 million Americans. In 2023, the health care system plans to expand the technology to 34 locations.

Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration in November approved a new AI system to diagnose diabetic retinopathy, making AEYE-DS from AEYE Health the third such product on the market.

Roomasa Channa, MD, a clinician-scientist with the McPherson Eye Research Institute at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, has studied the use of AI in teenage patients with diabetes. She said she soon plans to use AI screening in federally qualified health centers to screen adults with diabetes.

Dr. Channa welcomed the latest regulatory clearance and said she hopes another Food and Drug Administration–cleared algorithm product will improve accessibility to the technology.

“It is good to see more players in the field: We need this technology to be readily available and affordable,” she said in an interview.
 

A mixed reception

Responses from physicians to this type of AI have been mixed. Some worry, for instance, that the algorithms might be programmed with unrecognized biases that could lead them to less accurately interpret images from certain patient groups. Researchers should be on the lookout out for this possibility, Dr. Channa said.

“We need more real-world studies in different settings,” she said. “We also need to keep collecting data on AI performance post approval,” like investigators do for newly approved drugs.

The first AI system to diagnose diabetic retinopathy, IDx-DR, was approved by the FDA in 2018 and rolled out in retail clinics soon after. A second system, EyeArt, gained clearance by the agency in 2020.

Adding AI algorithms into primary care practice has changed how patients with diabetes can receive a screening. It also has introduced a new way for certain medical conditions to be diagnosed in primary care.

The American Medical Association in 2021 released a new CPT code to allow clinicians to bill government and private insurers for use of these services. CPT code 92229 refers to imaging of the retina to detect disease with an automated analysis and report at the point of care.
 

Meeting a need

Health care clinics in underserved areas often do not have eye care providers onsite to conduct recommended screening exams, so AI could help patients receive screening who otherwise would not get it, Dr. Channa said.

Dr. Channa and colleagues successfully used one AI system, IDx-DR, to screen children at a pediatric diabetes clinic. Over a year, screening rates jumped from 49% to 95%.

This technology “can potentially help us in decreasing disparities in care and focusing our efforts on patients with the most severe diseases,” she said.

OSF HealthCare recently obtained an approximately $1 million grant from drug company Regeneron to expand the use of AI-based screening for diabetic retinopathy, following a successful pilot. Regeneron markets a treatment for diabetic retinopathy.

Without an AI option, recommended eye screening for patients with diabetes often falls through the cracks, according to Mark Meeker, DO, vice president of community medicine at OSF. Primary care physicians may refer patients elsewhere for their annual retinopathy screening exam.

“That often doesn’t get completed because it’s another trip, another appointment, another time away from work,” Dr. Meeker said.

All patients with diabetes should have their eyes screened each year, but between one- to two-thirds of patients nationwide do not, he said.

A member of the clinic staff takes digital pictures of the retina, almost always through undilated pupils.

If the result is normal, the patient is scheduled for another follow-up screening in a year. If early signs of diabetic retinopathy are spotted, patients are referred to an eye care specialist.

After 7 months of the pilot program, OSF had screened about 350 patients. Approximately 20% had diabetic retinopathy, according to OSF.
 

‘A huge impact’

OSF has about 66,000 patients with diabetes. About two-thirds do not receive annual screening, Dr. Meeker estimated. “This can have a huge impact on the quality of life in the coming years for our diabetic patients. It’s pretty profound.”

Eye care specialists typically treat diabetic retinopathy with lasers, surgery, or medication. For primary care clinicians, however, AI screening for retinopathy is an opportunity to emphasize how important it is to manage the disease and what its consequences can be.

AI screening is “another tool for us to use to get patients more engaged in their own care,” Dr. Meeker said. “This is probably the biggest advance in AI affecting our day-to-day interaction with patients that we’ve seen in primary care.”
 

A business opportunity, too?

The IDx-DR platform OSF is using in its clinics is owned by the company Digital Diagnostics. OSF Ventures, an investment arm of OSF HealthCare, has invested in the company, the health care system announced in August.

Other companies have had their products used in practice. In 2019, for example, Eyenuk described how its EyeArt system had been used to screen thousands of patients in Germany and in Italy.

And in 2021, Eyenuk reported that its customer base in the United States had expanded to more than 25 locations. The company credited a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services plan to cover CPT code 92229 with supporting this growth.

Zack Dvey-Aharon, PhD, the CEO of AEYE Health, said the company was motivated to enter this space when regulators decided that AI could be used to diagnose a condition — not just as a tool to help doctors arrive at a diagnosis.

With proper training, a person can diagnose diabetic retinopathy relatively easily if the image of the retina is of excellent quality. If image is dark or blurry, however, it’s a different story.

AI has its advantages in this scenario, according to Dr. Dvey-Aharon. “For AI, those darker, more blurry images are actually highly readable with fantastic accuracy.”
 

More to come?

The possibilities of AI in analyzing retinal images are vast.

New research shows that AI may be able to detect Alzheimer’s disease or predict a person’s risk for heart attack and stroke based on snapshots of the retina.

The retina may also shed light on kidney disease, control of blood glucose and blood pressure, hepatobiliary disease, and coronary artery calcium, according to Eric J. Topol, MD, director of Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

Beyond retinas, interpretation of electrocardiograms (ECGs) may be another frontier for AI in primary care. In one trial, an AI-enhanced ECG reading facilitated early diagnosis of low ejection fraction, and some doctors now receive these reports routinely, Dr. Topol wrote.

The potential value of AI in medicine “extends to virtually all forms of medical images that have been assessed to date,” Dr. Topol wrote on his “Ground Truths” Substack.

Although much of the focus has been on what AI can see, researchers also are exploring what AI can do with what it hears. Early research suggests that algorithms may be able to diagnose disease by analyzing patients’ voices.

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

Much attention has been given recently to the idea of detecting many different types of cancer from a single blood test, and a new test claiming to do that has just been reported.

The leader in this field is the Galleri test (from GRAIL) which is already in clinical use in some health care networks across the United States. That test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA (cfDNA) in a blood sample.

The new test, under development by Swedish biotechnology company Elypta AB, has a different premise. It can detect 14 cancer types based on the analysis of glycosaminoglycans, which are a diverse group of polysaccharides that are altered by the presence of tumors. Using plasma and urine samples, the method had a 41.6%-62.3% sensitivity for detecting stage I cancer at 95% specificity.

In comparison, say the authors, other assays have reported 39%-73% sensitivity to stage I cancers, but these estimates are usually limited to 12 cancer types that are considered “high-signal,” and the assays perform poorly in cancers that emit little cfDNA, such as genitourinary and brain malignancies.

“The main advantage of glycosaminoglycans appears to be that they change in the blood and urine at the earliest stages of cancer,” said study author Francesco Gatto, PhD, founder and chief scientific officer at Elypta. “Consequently, this method showed an impressive detection rate in stage I compared to other emerging methods.”

The study was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Combine tests?

Dr. Gatto commented that he “could envision that one day we may be able to combine these methods.”

“The same blood specimen could be used to test both glycosaminoglycans and genomic biomarkers,” said Dr. Gatto. “This strategy could hopefully detect even more cancers than with either method alone, and the resulting performance may well be sufficient as a one-stop-shop screening program.”

So how does the new test from Elypta compare with the Galleri test?

“Galleri and similar methods mostly focused on information coming from molecules of DNA naturally floating in the blood,” explained Dr. Gatto. “It makes sense to conduct research there because cancers typically start with events in the DNA.”

He noted that the current study explored a new layer of information, molecules called glycosaminoglycans, that participate in the metabolism of cancer.

“This method detected many cancers that the previous methods missed, and a substantial proportion of these were at stage I,” said Dr. Gatto. “Cancer is a complex disease, so the most layers of information we can probe noninvasively, say with a blood test, the more likely we can catch more cancers at its earliest stage.”

Other platforms typically rely on sequencing and detecting cancer-derived fractions of cfDNA, but these methods have challenges that can interfere with their usage. For example, some cancer types do not shed sufficient cfDNA and it cannot be accurately measured.

“An advantage on focusing on glycosaminoglycans is that the method does not require next-generation sequencing or similarly complex assays because glycosaminoglycans are informative with less than 10 simultaneous measurements as opposed to Galleri that looks at over 1 million DNA methylation sites,” he said.

“This makes the assay behind the test much cheaper and robust – we estimated a 5-10 times lower cost difference,” Dr. Gatto said.
 

Prospective and comparative data needed

In a comment, Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute at the Cleveland Clinic explained that the “only accurate way to know how a test will perform in an intended-use population is to actually test it in that population. It’s not possible to extrapolate results directly from a case-control study.”

Cancers shed many different biologic markers into body fluids, but which of these signals will be best to serve as the basis of an MCED (multi-cancer detection test) that has clinical utility in a screening population has yet to be determined, he noted. “And it’s possible that no single test will be optimum for every clinical situation.”

“The results of this study appear promising, but it is not possible to claim superiority of one test over another based on individual case-control studies because of uncontrolled differences in the selected populations,” Dr. Klein continued. “The only scientifically accurate way to do this is to perform different tests on the same patient samples in a head-to-head comparison.”

There is only one study that he is aware of that has done this recently, in which multiple different assays looking at various signals in cell-free DNA were directly compared on the same samples (Cancer cell. 2022;40:1537-49.e12). “A targeted methylation assay that is the basis for Galleri was best for the lowest limit of detection and for predicting cancer site of origin,” said Dr. Klein.

Another expert agreed that a direct head-to-head study is needed to compare assays. “Based on this data, you cannot say that this method is better than the other one because that requires a comparative study,” said Fred Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Thoracic Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai, New York.

Metabolomics is interesting, and the data are encouraging, he continued. “But this is a multicancer early detection test and metabolism changes may vary from cancer type to cancer type. I’m not sure that the metabolism of lung cancer is the same as that of a gynecologic cancer.”

Dr. Hirsch also pointed out that there could also be confounding factors. “They have excluded inflammatory disease, but there can be other variables such as smoking,” he said. “Overall it gives some interesting perspectives but I would like to see more prospective validation and studies in specific disease groups, and eventually comparative studies with other methodologies.”
 

Study details

The authors evaluated if plasma and urine free GAGomes (free glycosaminoglycan profiles) deviated from baseline physiological levels in 14 cancer types and could serve as metabolic cancer biomarkers. They also then validated using free GAGomes for MCED in an external population with 2,064 samples obtained from 1,260 patients with cancer and healthy individuals.

In an in vivo cancer progression model, they observed widespread cancer-specific changes in biofluidic free GAGomes and then developed three machine-learning models based on urine (n_urine = 220 cancer vs. 360 healthy) and plasma (n_plasma = 517 cancer vs. 425 healthy) free GAGomes that were able to detect any cancer with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83-0.93 (with up to 62% sensitivity to stage I disease at 95% specificity).

To assess if altered GAGome features associated with cancer suggested more aggressive tumor biology, they correlated each score with overall survival. The median follow-up time was 17 months in the plasma cohort (n = 370 across 13 cancer types), 15 months in the urine cohort (n = 162 across 4 cancer types), and 15 months in the combined cohort (n = 152 across 4 cancer types).

They found that all three scores independently predicted overall survival in a multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.29; P = .0009 for plasma; HR, 1.79; P = .0009 for urine; HR, 1.91; P = .0004 for combined) after adjusting for cancer type, age, sex, and stage IV or high-grade disease.

These findings showed an association of free GAGome alterations with aggressive cancer phenotypes and suggested that scores below the 95% specificity cutoff might have a better prognosis, the authors comment.

In addition, other analyses showed that free GAGomes predicted the putative cancer location with 89% accuracy. And finally, to confirm whether the free GAGome MCED scores could be used for screening, a validation analysis was conducted using a typical “screening population,” which requires at least 99% specificity. The combined free GAGomes were able to predict a poor prognosis of any cancer type within 18 months and with 43% sensitivity (21% in stage I; n = 121 and 49 cases).

Dr. Gatto believes that these results, as well as those from other studies looking at glycosaminoglycans as cancer biomarkers, will lead to the next steps of development. “But I speculate that this test could be most useful to assess in a cheap, practical, and noninvasive manner if a person at increased risk of cancer should be selected for cancer screening as part of established or emerging screening programs.”

The study was sponsored by Elypta. Dr. Gatto is listed as an inventor in patent applications related to the biomarkers described in this study and later assigned to Elypta, and is a shareholder and employed at Elypta. Dr. Hirsch reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein is a consultant for GRAIL and an investigator for CCGA and Pathfinder.

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

Much attention has been given recently to the idea of detecting many different types of cancer from a single blood test, and a new test claiming to do that has just been reported.

The leader in this field is the Galleri test (from GRAIL) which is already in clinical use in some health care networks across the United States. That test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA (cfDNA) in a blood sample.

The new test, under development by Swedish biotechnology company Elypta AB, has a different premise. It can detect 14 cancer types based on the analysis of glycosaminoglycans, which are a diverse group of polysaccharides that are altered by the presence of tumors. Using plasma and urine samples, the method had a 41.6%-62.3% sensitivity for detecting stage I cancer at 95% specificity.

In comparison, say the authors, other assays have reported 39%-73% sensitivity to stage I cancers, but these estimates are usually limited to 12 cancer types that are considered “high-signal,” and the assays perform poorly in cancers that emit little cfDNA, such as genitourinary and brain malignancies.

“The main advantage of glycosaminoglycans appears to be that they change in the blood and urine at the earliest stages of cancer,” said study author Francesco Gatto, PhD, founder and chief scientific officer at Elypta. “Consequently, this method showed an impressive detection rate in stage I compared to other emerging methods.”

The study was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Combine tests?

Dr. Gatto commented that he “could envision that one day we may be able to combine these methods.”

“The same blood specimen could be used to test both glycosaminoglycans and genomic biomarkers,” said Dr. Gatto. “This strategy could hopefully detect even more cancers than with either method alone, and the resulting performance may well be sufficient as a one-stop-shop screening program.”

So how does the new test from Elypta compare with the Galleri test?

“Galleri and similar methods mostly focused on information coming from molecules of DNA naturally floating in the blood,” explained Dr. Gatto. “It makes sense to conduct research there because cancers typically start with events in the DNA.”

He noted that the current study explored a new layer of information, molecules called glycosaminoglycans, that participate in the metabolism of cancer.

“This method detected many cancers that the previous methods missed, and a substantial proportion of these were at stage I,” said Dr. Gatto. “Cancer is a complex disease, so the most layers of information we can probe noninvasively, say with a blood test, the more likely we can catch more cancers at its earliest stage.”

Other platforms typically rely on sequencing and detecting cancer-derived fractions of cfDNA, but these methods have challenges that can interfere with their usage. For example, some cancer types do not shed sufficient cfDNA and it cannot be accurately measured.

“An advantage on focusing on glycosaminoglycans is that the method does not require next-generation sequencing or similarly complex assays because glycosaminoglycans are informative with less than 10 simultaneous measurements as opposed to Galleri that looks at over 1 million DNA methylation sites,” he said.

“This makes the assay behind the test much cheaper and robust – we estimated a 5-10 times lower cost difference,” Dr. Gatto said.
 

Prospective and comparative data needed

In a comment, Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute at the Cleveland Clinic explained that the “only accurate way to know how a test will perform in an intended-use population is to actually test it in that population. It’s not possible to extrapolate results directly from a case-control study.”

Cancers shed many different biologic markers into body fluids, but which of these signals will be best to serve as the basis of an MCED (multi-cancer detection test) that has clinical utility in a screening population has yet to be determined, he noted. “And it’s possible that no single test will be optimum for every clinical situation.”

“The results of this study appear promising, but it is not possible to claim superiority of one test over another based on individual case-control studies because of uncontrolled differences in the selected populations,” Dr. Klein continued. “The only scientifically accurate way to do this is to perform different tests on the same patient samples in a head-to-head comparison.”

There is only one study that he is aware of that has done this recently, in which multiple different assays looking at various signals in cell-free DNA were directly compared on the same samples (Cancer cell. 2022;40:1537-49.e12). “A targeted methylation assay that is the basis for Galleri was best for the lowest limit of detection and for predicting cancer site of origin,” said Dr. Klein.

Another expert agreed that a direct head-to-head study is needed to compare assays. “Based on this data, you cannot say that this method is better than the other one because that requires a comparative study,” said Fred Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Thoracic Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai, New York.

Metabolomics is interesting, and the data are encouraging, he continued. “But this is a multicancer early detection test and metabolism changes may vary from cancer type to cancer type. I’m not sure that the metabolism of lung cancer is the same as that of a gynecologic cancer.”

Dr. Hirsch also pointed out that there could also be confounding factors. “They have excluded inflammatory disease, but there can be other variables such as smoking,” he said. “Overall it gives some interesting perspectives but I would like to see more prospective validation and studies in specific disease groups, and eventually comparative studies with other methodologies.”
 

Study details

The authors evaluated if plasma and urine free GAGomes (free glycosaminoglycan profiles) deviated from baseline physiological levels in 14 cancer types and could serve as metabolic cancer biomarkers. They also then validated using free GAGomes for MCED in an external population with 2,064 samples obtained from 1,260 patients with cancer and healthy individuals.

In an in vivo cancer progression model, they observed widespread cancer-specific changes in biofluidic free GAGomes and then developed three machine-learning models based on urine (n_urine = 220 cancer vs. 360 healthy) and plasma (n_plasma = 517 cancer vs. 425 healthy) free GAGomes that were able to detect any cancer with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83-0.93 (with up to 62% sensitivity to stage I disease at 95% specificity).

To assess if altered GAGome features associated with cancer suggested more aggressive tumor biology, they correlated each score with overall survival. The median follow-up time was 17 months in the plasma cohort (n = 370 across 13 cancer types), 15 months in the urine cohort (n = 162 across 4 cancer types), and 15 months in the combined cohort (n = 152 across 4 cancer types).

They found that all three scores independently predicted overall survival in a multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.29; P = .0009 for plasma; HR, 1.79; P = .0009 for urine; HR, 1.91; P = .0004 for combined) after adjusting for cancer type, age, sex, and stage IV or high-grade disease.

These findings showed an association of free GAGome alterations with aggressive cancer phenotypes and suggested that scores below the 95% specificity cutoff might have a better prognosis, the authors comment.

In addition, other analyses showed that free GAGomes predicted the putative cancer location with 89% accuracy. And finally, to confirm whether the free GAGome MCED scores could be used for screening, a validation analysis was conducted using a typical “screening population,” which requires at least 99% specificity. The combined free GAGomes were able to predict a poor prognosis of any cancer type within 18 months and with 43% sensitivity (21% in stage I; n = 121 and 49 cases).

Dr. Gatto believes that these results, as well as those from other studies looking at glycosaminoglycans as cancer biomarkers, will lead to the next steps of development. “But I speculate that this test could be most useful to assess in a cheap, practical, and noninvasive manner if a person at increased risk of cancer should be selected for cancer screening as part of established or emerging screening programs.”

The study was sponsored by Elypta. Dr. Gatto is listed as an inventor in patent applications related to the biomarkers described in this study and later assigned to Elypta, and is a shareholder and employed at Elypta. Dr. Hirsch reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein is a consultant for GRAIL and an investigator for CCGA and Pathfinder.

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

Much attention has been given recently to the idea of detecting many different types of cancer from a single blood test, and a new test claiming to do that has just been reported.

The leader in this field is the Galleri test (from GRAIL) which is already in clinical use in some health care networks across the United States. That test uses next-generation sequencing to analyze the arrangement of methyl groups on circulating tumor (or cell-free) DNA (cfDNA) in a blood sample.

The new test, under development by Swedish biotechnology company Elypta AB, has a different premise. It can detect 14 cancer types based on the analysis of glycosaminoglycans, which are a diverse group of polysaccharides that are altered by the presence of tumors. Using plasma and urine samples, the method had a 41.6%-62.3% sensitivity for detecting stage I cancer at 95% specificity.

In comparison, say the authors, other assays have reported 39%-73% sensitivity to stage I cancers, but these estimates are usually limited to 12 cancer types that are considered “high-signal,” and the assays perform poorly in cancers that emit little cfDNA, such as genitourinary and brain malignancies.

“The main advantage of glycosaminoglycans appears to be that they change in the blood and urine at the earliest stages of cancer,” said study author Francesco Gatto, PhD, founder and chief scientific officer at Elypta. “Consequently, this method showed an impressive detection rate in stage I compared to other emerging methods.”

The study was published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


 

Combine tests?

Dr. Gatto commented that he “could envision that one day we may be able to combine these methods.”

“The same blood specimen could be used to test both glycosaminoglycans and genomic biomarkers,” said Dr. Gatto. “This strategy could hopefully detect even more cancers than with either method alone, and the resulting performance may well be sufficient as a one-stop-shop screening program.”

So how does the new test from Elypta compare with the Galleri test?

“Galleri and similar methods mostly focused on information coming from molecules of DNA naturally floating in the blood,” explained Dr. Gatto. “It makes sense to conduct research there because cancers typically start with events in the DNA.”

He noted that the current study explored a new layer of information, molecules called glycosaminoglycans, that participate in the metabolism of cancer.

“This method detected many cancers that the previous methods missed, and a substantial proportion of these were at stage I,” said Dr. Gatto. “Cancer is a complex disease, so the most layers of information we can probe noninvasively, say with a blood test, the more likely we can catch more cancers at its earliest stage.”

Other platforms typically rely on sequencing and detecting cancer-derived fractions of cfDNA, but these methods have challenges that can interfere with their usage. For example, some cancer types do not shed sufficient cfDNA and it cannot be accurately measured.

“An advantage on focusing on glycosaminoglycans is that the method does not require next-generation sequencing or similarly complex assays because glycosaminoglycans are informative with less than 10 simultaneous measurements as opposed to Galleri that looks at over 1 million DNA methylation sites,” he said.

“This makes the assay behind the test much cheaper and robust – we estimated a 5-10 times lower cost difference,” Dr. Gatto said.
 

Prospective and comparative data needed

In a comment, Eric Klein, MD, emeritus chair of the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute at the Cleveland Clinic explained that the “only accurate way to know how a test will perform in an intended-use population is to actually test it in that population. It’s not possible to extrapolate results directly from a case-control study.”

Cancers shed many different biologic markers into body fluids, but which of these signals will be best to serve as the basis of an MCED (multi-cancer detection test) that has clinical utility in a screening population has yet to be determined, he noted. “And it’s possible that no single test will be optimum for every clinical situation.”

“The results of this study appear promising, but it is not possible to claim superiority of one test over another based on individual case-control studies because of uncontrolled differences in the selected populations,” Dr. Klein continued. “The only scientifically accurate way to do this is to perform different tests on the same patient samples in a head-to-head comparison.”

There is only one study that he is aware of that has done this recently, in which multiple different assays looking at various signals in cell-free DNA were directly compared on the same samples (Cancer cell. 2022;40:1537-49.e12). “A targeted methylation assay that is the basis for Galleri was best for the lowest limit of detection and for predicting cancer site of origin,” said Dr. Klein.

Another expert agreed that a direct head-to-head study is needed to compare assays. “Based on this data, you cannot say that this method is better than the other one because that requires a comparative study,” said Fred Hirsch, MD, PhD, executive director of the Center for Thoracic Oncology, Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai, New York.

Metabolomics is interesting, and the data are encouraging, he continued. “But this is a multicancer early detection test and metabolism changes may vary from cancer type to cancer type. I’m not sure that the metabolism of lung cancer is the same as that of a gynecologic cancer.”

Dr. Hirsch also pointed out that there could also be confounding factors. “They have excluded inflammatory disease, but there can be other variables such as smoking,” he said. “Overall it gives some interesting perspectives but I would like to see more prospective validation and studies in specific disease groups, and eventually comparative studies with other methodologies.”
 

Study details

The authors evaluated if plasma and urine free GAGomes (free glycosaminoglycan profiles) deviated from baseline physiological levels in 14 cancer types and could serve as metabolic cancer biomarkers. They also then validated using free GAGomes for MCED in an external population with 2,064 samples obtained from 1,260 patients with cancer and healthy individuals.

In an in vivo cancer progression model, they observed widespread cancer-specific changes in biofluidic free GAGomes and then developed three machine-learning models based on urine (n_urine = 220 cancer vs. 360 healthy) and plasma (n_plasma = 517 cancer vs. 425 healthy) free GAGomes that were able to detect any cancer with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83-0.93 (with up to 62% sensitivity to stage I disease at 95% specificity).

To assess if altered GAGome features associated with cancer suggested more aggressive tumor biology, they correlated each score with overall survival. The median follow-up time was 17 months in the plasma cohort (n = 370 across 13 cancer types), 15 months in the urine cohort (n = 162 across 4 cancer types), and 15 months in the combined cohort (n = 152 across 4 cancer types).

They found that all three scores independently predicted overall survival in a multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.29; P = .0009 for plasma; HR, 1.79; P = .0009 for urine; HR, 1.91; P = .0004 for combined) after adjusting for cancer type, age, sex, and stage IV or high-grade disease.

These findings showed an association of free GAGome alterations with aggressive cancer phenotypes and suggested that scores below the 95% specificity cutoff might have a better prognosis, the authors comment.

In addition, other analyses showed that free GAGomes predicted the putative cancer location with 89% accuracy. And finally, to confirm whether the free GAGome MCED scores could be used for screening, a validation analysis was conducted using a typical “screening population,” which requires at least 99% specificity. The combined free GAGomes were able to predict a poor prognosis of any cancer type within 18 months and with 43% sensitivity (21% in stage I; n = 121 and 49 cases).

Dr. Gatto believes that these results, as well as those from other studies looking at glycosaminoglycans as cancer biomarkers, will lead to the next steps of development. “But I speculate that this test could be most useful to assess in a cheap, practical, and noninvasive manner if a person at increased risk of cancer should be selected for cancer screening as part of established or emerging screening programs.”

The study was sponsored by Elypta. Dr. Gatto is listed as an inventor in patent applications related to the biomarkers described in this study and later assigned to Elypta, and is a shareholder and employed at Elypta. Dr. Hirsch reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein is a consultant for GRAIL and an investigator for CCGA and Pathfinder.

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

SAN ANTONIO – A wide range of research on hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

This news organization spoke with SABCS program director Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at UT Health, San Antonio, and Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, about their top five picks on HR-positive disease – the research they were most excited about and what the findings could mean for clinical practice and patient outcomes.
 

1. Addressing an unmet need

Data from the phase 3 CAPItello-291 clinical trial showed that the addition of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib to fulvestrant resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among 708 patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, compared with those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (GS3-04).

For patients treated with capivasertib plus fulvestrant, median PFS was 7.2 months, compared with 3.6 months for those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio, 0.60). Among patients assigned to the capivasertib group, 41% had tumors with AKT pathway mutations. In this group, the median PFS was 7.3 months vs. 3.1 months in the placebo cohort. The objective response rate among patients with measurable disease was 23% overall in the capivasertib group, compared with 12.2% in the placebo arm; it was 28.8% vs. 9.7% among the patients with AKT alterations.

Dr. Mouabbi noted that the study “met its primary endpoint” and that, importantly, it “addresses an area of unmet need.”

“The study’s treatment targets the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which is a very active pathway in hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer,” Dr. Mouabbi explained. He noted, “We’ve always wanted to tackle that pathway effectively, and it looks like this drug can do that.”
 

2. Next-generation SERD

Data from the phase 2 SERENA-2 trial offers evidence that camizestrant, a next-generation selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), improved PFS compared with fulvestrant for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (GS3-02).

Overall, 240 patients were randomly assigned to receive camizestrant monotherapy at various doses or fulvestrant at 500 mg. Among patients who received camizestrant 75 mg, median PFS was 7.2 months; among those who received camizestrant 150 mg, PFS was slightly longer, at 7.7 months vs. 3.7 months for patients treated with fulvestrant. Compared with fulvestrant, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% at 75 mg (HR, 0.58) and by 33% at 150 mg (HR, 0.67). In a subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 67% in the group that received 75 mg and by 45% in the group that received 150 mg, compared with fulvestrant (median PFS, 6.3, 9.2, and 2.2 months, respectively).

“In this trial, camizestrant looks like a more beneficial treatment in the target group,” said Dr. Kaklamani. “This is significant because it means that camizestrant could be used in the future in HR-positive metastatic breast cancer instead of fulvestrant.” In addition, “camizestrant is taken orally and is much more convenient for patients, unlike fulvestrant, which is taken intramuscularly.”
 

3. Pregnancy risks

Can endocrine therapy be safely interrupted for women with breast cancer who wish to become pregnant? That’s what researchers tried to glean in a recent prospective trial presented at the meeting (GS4-09).

The study enrolled over 500 women for whom endocrine therapy had been stopped in the hopes of their becoming pregnant. Almost all (93.4%) had stage I/II HR-positive breast cancer. The primary objective was to determine the risk of breast cancer relapse associated with interrupting therapy for about 2 years. The authors defined no more than 46 breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) events as the safety threshold. A BCFI event was defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence or a new invasive contralateral breast cancer.

Among 497 women, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth, for a total of 365 babies born. At a median follow-up of 41 months, 44 participants experienced a BCFI event, in line with the safety threshold. The 3-year BCFI failure rate was 8.9%, similar to the 9.2% rate in an external control cohort from the SOFT/TEXT trials. In addition, 76.3% of patients resumed endocrine therapy; 15.4% had not yet resumed therapy.

“This trial is more confirmatory but an extremely important step for young women who want to get pregnant after diagnosis and recovery from HR-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “It seems that stopping endocrine therapy to become pregnant did not cause any adverse outcomes or increase the risk of reoccurrence of cancer in the women in the study.”

Dr. Mouabbi agreed, noting, “Many of our patients are afraid that they will miss the window to get pregnant because they have to be on treatment for so long. This is the first study that let us know pregnancy and safety outcomes in patients who took a break from endocrine therapy to get pregnant. The results are promising and will be exciting for many of our patients.”
 

4. Assay identifies OFS benefit

A genomic assay was able to distinguish premenopausal patients with early-stage HR-positive breast cancer who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression (OFS) to adjuvant endocrine therapy, according to new data presented at the meeting (GS1-06).

In the study, investigators analyzed 1,717 patient tumor samples from the landmark Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) trial. The Breast Cancer Index identified 58% of women who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen or exemestane therapy. They experienced an absolute benefit of 11.6% (42% did not benefit), compared with those with received tamoxifen alone. The predictive benefit was observed regardless of age, lymph node involvement, and receipt of chemotherapy.

Dr. Kaklamani highlighted this study’s importance, saying, “Ovarian suppression is associated with severe adverse events for patients. Obviously, the women who will get a benefit should continue, but this research is important because it will hopefully show us who to recommend ovarian suppression to while not exposing patients who are likely to get little benefit to unneeded toxicity.”
 

5. Optimizing elacestrant PFS

Last year, data from the Emerald trial showed that elacestrant is superior to standard-of-care therapy for HR-positive metastatic breast cancer. An update that Dr. Kaklamani presented at SABCS (GS3-01) explored whether the duration of a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor affects PFS.

The study was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which 478 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer received either elacestrant or standard of care. These patients had previously received one or two lines of endocrine therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and ≤ 1 line of chemotherapy.

Overall, the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor in the metastatic setting was positively associated with PFS – the longer the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, the longer the PFS with elacestrant. PFS outcomes were even stronger among patients with ESR1 mutations.

“What we found was that the women who benefit most from elacestrant had previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor for at least 6 months,” Dr. Kaklamani said. These data can help us determine who may do best on the drug, she added.

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

SAN ANTONIO – A wide range of research on hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

This news organization spoke with SABCS program director Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at UT Health, San Antonio, and Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, about their top five picks on HR-positive disease – the research they were most excited about and what the findings could mean for clinical practice and patient outcomes.
 

1. Addressing an unmet need

Data from the phase 3 CAPItello-291 clinical trial showed that the addition of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib to fulvestrant resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among 708 patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, compared with those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (GS3-04).

For patients treated with capivasertib plus fulvestrant, median PFS was 7.2 months, compared with 3.6 months for those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio, 0.60). Among patients assigned to the capivasertib group, 41% had tumors with AKT pathway mutations. In this group, the median PFS was 7.3 months vs. 3.1 months in the placebo cohort. The objective response rate among patients with measurable disease was 23% overall in the capivasertib group, compared with 12.2% in the placebo arm; it was 28.8% vs. 9.7% among the patients with AKT alterations.

Dr. Mouabbi noted that the study “met its primary endpoint” and that, importantly, it “addresses an area of unmet need.”

“The study’s treatment targets the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which is a very active pathway in hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer,” Dr. Mouabbi explained. He noted, “We’ve always wanted to tackle that pathway effectively, and it looks like this drug can do that.”
 

2. Next-generation SERD

Data from the phase 2 SERENA-2 trial offers evidence that camizestrant, a next-generation selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), improved PFS compared with fulvestrant for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (GS3-02).

Overall, 240 patients were randomly assigned to receive camizestrant monotherapy at various doses or fulvestrant at 500 mg. Among patients who received camizestrant 75 mg, median PFS was 7.2 months; among those who received camizestrant 150 mg, PFS was slightly longer, at 7.7 months vs. 3.7 months for patients treated with fulvestrant. Compared with fulvestrant, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% at 75 mg (HR, 0.58) and by 33% at 150 mg (HR, 0.67). In a subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 67% in the group that received 75 mg and by 45% in the group that received 150 mg, compared with fulvestrant (median PFS, 6.3, 9.2, and 2.2 months, respectively).

“In this trial, camizestrant looks like a more beneficial treatment in the target group,” said Dr. Kaklamani. “This is significant because it means that camizestrant could be used in the future in HR-positive metastatic breast cancer instead of fulvestrant.” In addition, “camizestrant is taken orally and is much more convenient for patients, unlike fulvestrant, which is taken intramuscularly.”
 

3. Pregnancy risks

Can endocrine therapy be safely interrupted for women with breast cancer who wish to become pregnant? That’s what researchers tried to glean in a recent prospective trial presented at the meeting (GS4-09).

The study enrolled over 500 women for whom endocrine therapy had been stopped in the hopes of their becoming pregnant. Almost all (93.4%) had stage I/II HR-positive breast cancer. The primary objective was to determine the risk of breast cancer relapse associated with interrupting therapy for about 2 years. The authors defined no more than 46 breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) events as the safety threshold. A BCFI event was defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence or a new invasive contralateral breast cancer.

Among 497 women, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth, for a total of 365 babies born. At a median follow-up of 41 months, 44 participants experienced a BCFI event, in line with the safety threshold. The 3-year BCFI failure rate was 8.9%, similar to the 9.2% rate in an external control cohort from the SOFT/TEXT trials. In addition, 76.3% of patients resumed endocrine therapy; 15.4% had not yet resumed therapy.

“This trial is more confirmatory but an extremely important step for young women who want to get pregnant after diagnosis and recovery from HR-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “It seems that stopping endocrine therapy to become pregnant did not cause any adverse outcomes or increase the risk of reoccurrence of cancer in the women in the study.”

Dr. Mouabbi agreed, noting, “Many of our patients are afraid that they will miss the window to get pregnant because they have to be on treatment for so long. This is the first study that let us know pregnancy and safety outcomes in patients who took a break from endocrine therapy to get pregnant. The results are promising and will be exciting for many of our patients.”
 

4. Assay identifies OFS benefit

A genomic assay was able to distinguish premenopausal patients with early-stage HR-positive breast cancer who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression (OFS) to adjuvant endocrine therapy, according to new data presented at the meeting (GS1-06).

In the study, investigators analyzed 1,717 patient tumor samples from the landmark Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) trial. The Breast Cancer Index identified 58% of women who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen or exemestane therapy. They experienced an absolute benefit of 11.6% (42% did not benefit), compared with those with received tamoxifen alone. The predictive benefit was observed regardless of age, lymph node involvement, and receipt of chemotherapy.

Dr. Kaklamani highlighted this study’s importance, saying, “Ovarian suppression is associated with severe adverse events for patients. Obviously, the women who will get a benefit should continue, but this research is important because it will hopefully show us who to recommend ovarian suppression to while not exposing patients who are likely to get little benefit to unneeded toxicity.”
 

5. Optimizing elacestrant PFS

Last year, data from the Emerald trial showed that elacestrant is superior to standard-of-care therapy for HR-positive metastatic breast cancer. An update that Dr. Kaklamani presented at SABCS (GS3-01) explored whether the duration of a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor affects PFS.

The study was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which 478 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer received either elacestrant or standard of care. These patients had previously received one or two lines of endocrine therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and ≤ 1 line of chemotherapy.

Overall, the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor in the metastatic setting was positively associated with PFS – the longer the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, the longer the PFS with elacestrant. PFS outcomes were even stronger among patients with ESR1 mutations.

“What we found was that the women who benefit most from elacestrant had previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor for at least 6 months,” Dr. Kaklamani said. These data can help us determine who may do best on the drug, she added.

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

SAN ANTONIO – A wide range of research on hormone receptor (HR)–positive breast cancer was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

This news organization spoke with SABCS program director Virginia Kaklamani, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at UT Health, San Antonio, and Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, about their top five picks on HR-positive disease – the research they were most excited about and what the findings could mean for clinical practice and patient outcomes.
 

1. Addressing an unmet need

Data from the phase 3 CAPItello-291 clinical trial showed that the addition of the investigational AKT inhibitor capivasertib to fulvestrant resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among 708 patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, compared with those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (GS3-04).

For patients treated with capivasertib plus fulvestrant, median PFS was 7.2 months, compared with 3.6 months for those who received placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio, 0.60). Among patients assigned to the capivasertib group, 41% had tumors with AKT pathway mutations. In this group, the median PFS was 7.3 months vs. 3.1 months in the placebo cohort. The objective response rate among patients with measurable disease was 23% overall in the capivasertib group, compared with 12.2% in the placebo arm; it was 28.8% vs. 9.7% among the patients with AKT alterations.

Dr. Mouabbi noted that the study “met its primary endpoint” and that, importantly, it “addresses an area of unmet need.”

“The study’s treatment targets the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, which is a very active pathway in hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer,” Dr. Mouabbi explained. He noted, “We’ve always wanted to tackle that pathway effectively, and it looks like this drug can do that.”
 

2. Next-generation SERD

Data from the phase 2 SERENA-2 trial offers evidence that camizestrant, a next-generation selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), improved PFS compared with fulvestrant for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (GS3-02).

Overall, 240 patients were randomly assigned to receive camizestrant monotherapy at various doses or fulvestrant at 500 mg. Among patients who received camizestrant 75 mg, median PFS was 7.2 months; among those who received camizestrant 150 mg, PFS was slightly longer, at 7.7 months vs. 3.7 months for patients treated with fulvestrant. Compared with fulvestrant, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 42% at 75 mg (HR, 0.58) and by 33% at 150 mg (HR, 0.67). In a subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations, camizestrant reduced the risk of disease progression by 67% in the group that received 75 mg and by 45% in the group that received 150 mg, compared with fulvestrant (median PFS, 6.3, 9.2, and 2.2 months, respectively).

“In this trial, camizestrant looks like a more beneficial treatment in the target group,” said Dr. Kaklamani. “This is significant because it means that camizestrant could be used in the future in HR-positive metastatic breast cancer instead of fulvestrant.” In addition, “camizestrant is taken orally and is much more convenient for patients, unlike fulvestrant, which is taken intramuscularly.”
 

3. Pregnancy risks

Can endocrine therapy be safely interrupted for women with breast cancer who wish to become pregnant? That’s what researchers tried to glean in a recent prospective trial presented at the meeting (GS4-09).

The study enrolled over 500 women for whom endocrine therapy had been stopped in the hopes of their becoming pregnant. Almost all (93.4%) had stage I/II HR-positive breast cancer. The primary objective was to determine the risk of breast cancer relapse associated with interrupting therapy for about 2 years. The authors defined no more than 46 breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) events as the safety threshold. A BCFI event was defined as local, regional, or distant recurrence or a new invasive contralateral breast cancer.

Among 497 women, 368 (74%) had at least one pregnancy and 317 (64%) had at least one live birth, for a total of 365 babies born. At a median follow-up of 41 months, 44 participants experienced a BCFI event, in line with the safety threshold. The 3-year BCFI failure rate was 8.9%, similar to the 9.2% rate in an external control cohort from the SOFT/TEXT trials. In addition, 76.3% of patients resumed endocrine therapy; 15.4% had not yet resumed therapy.

“This trial is more confirmatory but an extremely important step for young women who want to get pregnant after diagnosis and recovery from HR-positive breast cancer,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “It seems that stopping endocrine therapy to become pregnant did not cause any adverse outcomes or increase the risk of reoccurrence of cancer in the women in the study.”

Dr. Mouabbi agreed, noting, “Many of our patients are afraid that they will miss the window to get pregnant because they have to be on treatment for so long. This is the first study that let us know pregnancy and safety outcomes in patients who took a break from endocrine therapy to get pregnant. The results are promising and will be exciting for many of our patients.”
 

4. Assay identifies OFS benefit

A genomic assay was able to distinguish premenopausal patients with early-stage HR-positive breast cancer who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression (OFS) to adjuvant endocrine therapy, according to new data presented at the meeting (GS1-06).

In the study, investigators analyzed 1,717 patient tumor samples from the landmark Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) trial. The Breast Cancer Index identified 58% of women who benefited from the addition of ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen or exemestane therapy. They experienced an absolute benefit of 11.6% (42% did not benefit), compared with those with received tamoxifen alone. The predictive benefit was observed regardless of age, lymph node involvement, and receipt of chemotherapy.

Dr. Kaklamani highlighted this study’s importance, saying, “Ovarian suppression is associated with severe adverse events for patients. Obviously, the women who will get a benefit should continue, but this research is important because it will hopefully show us who to recommend ovarian suppression to while not exposing patients who are likely to get little benefit to unneeded toxicity.”
 

5. Optimizing elacestrant PFS

Last year, data from the Emerald trial showed that elacestrant is superior to standard-of-care therapy for HR-positive metastatic breast cancer. An update that Dr. Kaklamani presented at SABCS (GS3-01) explored whether the duration of a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor affects PFS.

The study was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which 478 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer received either elacestrant or standard of care. These patients had previously received one or two lines of endocrine therapy, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and ≤ 1 line of chemotherapy.

Overall, the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor in the metastatic setting was positively associated with PFS – the longer the duration of prior CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy, the longer the PFS with elacestrant. PFS outcomes were even stronger among patients with ESR1 mutations.

“What we found was that the women who benefit most from elacestrant had previously received a CDK4/6 inhibitor for at least 6 months,” Dr. Kaklamani said. These data can help us determine who may do best on the drug, she added.

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

Meharry Medical College, one of the oldest and largest historically Black academic health institutions in the United States, disclosed recently that its MD program had been placed on probationary status after a national accrediting agency’s onsite survey uncovered “infrastructure” problems earlier this year. Those include faculty shortages and inadequate student access to financial aid as well as to career and wellness counseling.

The inspection was conducted by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), an accrediting body sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association.

While participation is voluntary, institutions must comply with 12 standards to maintain their standing. These include hiring qualified faculty and providing students with financial aid and debt management counseling.

Jeannette South-Paul, MD, Meharry’s senior vice president and chief academic officer, said in an interview that the degree program remains fully accredited despite the fact that LCME representatives found “notable areas of concern,” including the “need for some infrastructure updates and additional educational and financial resources for students.”

Specifically, students did not have sufficient access to advising services, broadband internet, and study spaces. In addition, faculty shortages caused delays in student evaluations, she said.

The new status does not affect the ability of students to complete their medical degrees or residency programs, she said. Dr. South-Paul added that school officials have begun addressing several of the issues and anticipate a swift resolution “guided by an aggressive action plan over the next 18-24 months.”

The university, located in Nashville, Tenn., has had accreditation problems before. In January, following a site visit and low scores on annual resident surveys, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) placed several of the schools’ residency and fellowship programs on probationary status.

At the time, school officials said that all programs would remain accredited, and they committed to expanding available resources, such as hiring additional staff and an independent expert to make program recommendations. A follow-up site visit was scheduled for August.

Regarding the most recent accreditation challenges, Veronica M. Catanese, MD, MBA, co-secretary of LCME, said the organization could only disclose the accreditation status of a medical school.

“LCME is not able to discuss any details concerning the accreditation of individual medical education programs, including the review process, resulting decisions, or survey results,” she said.

Established medical education programs typically undergo a self-study process and a full survey visit every 8 years. According to LCME’s website, a full survey visit may be conducted sooner if concerns arise about the program’s quality or sustainability.

The LCME program directory lists Meharry Medical College’s accreditation status as “full, on probation.” The next survey visit is scheduled for the 2023-2024 school year.

LCME accreditation is a prerequisite for having access to federal grants and programs, such as Title VII funding, which helps increase minority participation in health care careers. In addition, most state licensure boards and ACGME-affiliated residency programs require applicants to graduate from an LCME-accredited school.

Last year, when Meharry Medical College received pandemic aid money as part of the CARES Act, the school distributed nearly $10 million in scholarships to students – many of whom come from modest-income families and struggle to afford college tuition.

But in general, endowments to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are often at least 70% smaller than those made to non-HBCUs, which raises the question: Does the lack of funding make it more difficult for schools such as Meharry to maintain accreditation standards?

“Many different factors played into this finding by LCME,” said Dr. South-Paul. “It is a well-known fact that HBCUs have historically not been as well funded or possess the same size endowments as their mainstream academic peers. That is true of Meharry, but it would not be accurate to say this probation is because we are an HBCU.”

Similarly, Dr. Catanese said there is no evidence that HBCUs and non-HBCUs differ in their ability to meet LCME accreditation standards.

About half of the school’s residency and fellowship programs continue to have accreditation problems. According to ACGME’s database, the internal medicine program is currently on “continued accreditation with warning” status. The psychiatry and ob.gyn. programs are on “probationary accreditation” after receiving warnings in previous years.

Meharry was chartered in 1915 but was founded in 1876 as one of the first medical schools in the South for Black Americans.

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

Meharry Medical College, one of the oldest and largest historically Black academic health institutions in the United States, disclosed recently that its MD program had been placed on probationary status after a national accrediting agency’s onsite survey uncovered “infrastructure” problems earlier this year. Those include faculty shortages and inadequate student access to financial aid as well as to career and wellness counseling.

The inspection was conducted by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), an accrediting body sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association.

While participation is voluntary, institutions must comply with 12 standards to maintain their standing. These include hiring qualified faculty and providing students with financial aid and debt management counseling.

Jeannette South-Paul, MD, Meharry’s senior vice president and chief academic officer, said in an interview that the degree program remains fully accredited despite the fact that LCME representatives found “notable areas of concern,” including the “need for some infrastructure updates and additional educational and financial resources for students.”

Specifically, students did not have sufficient access to advising services, broadband internet, and study spaces. In addition, faculty shortages caused delays in student evaluations, she said.

The new status does not affect the ability of students to complete their medical degrees or residency programs, she said. Dr. South-Paul added that school officials have begun addressing several of the issues and anticipate a swift resolution “guided by an aggressive action plan over the next 18-24 months.”

The university, located in Nashville, Tenn., has had accreditation problems before. In January, following a site visit and low scores on annual resident surveys, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) placed several of the schools’ residency and fellowship programs on probationary status.

At the time, school officials said that all programs would remain accredited, and they committed to expanding available resources, such as hiring additional staff and an independent expert to make program recommendations. A follow-up site visit was scheduled for August.

Regarding the most recent accreditation challenges, Veronica M. Catanese, MD, MBA, co-secretary of LCME, said the organization could only disclose the accreditation status of a medical school.

“LCME is not able to discuss any details concerning the accreditation of individual medical education programs, including the review process, resulting decisions, or survey results,” she said.

Established medical education programs typically undergo a self-study process and a full survey visit every 8 years. According to LCME’s website, a full survey visit may be conducted sooner if concerns arise about the program’s quality or sustainability.

The LCME program directory lists Meharry Medical College’s accreditation status as “full, on probation.” The next survey visit is scheduled for the 2023-2024 school year.

LCME accreditation is a prerequisite for having access to federal grants and programs, such as Title VII funding, which helps increase minority participation in health care careers. In addition, most state licensure boards and ACGME-affiliated residency programs require applicants to graduate from an LCME-accredited school.

Last year, when Meharry Medical College received pandemic aid money as part of the CARES Act, the school distributed nearly $10 million in scholarships to students – many of whom come from modest-income families and struggle to afford college tuition.

But in general, endowments to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are often at least 70% smaller than those made to non-HBCUs, which raises the question: Does the lack of funding make it more difficult for schools such as Meharry to maintain accreditation standards?

“Many different factors played into this finding by LCME,” said Dr. South-Paul. “It is a well-known fact that HBCUs have historically not been as well funded or possess the same size endowments as their mainstream academic peers. That is true of Meharry, but it would not be accurate to say this probation is because we are an HBCU.”

Similarly, Dr. Catanese said there is no evidence that HBCUs and non-HBCUs differ in their ability to meet LCME accreditation standards.

About half of the school’s residency and fellowship programs continue to have accreditation problems. According to ACGME’s database, the internal medicine program is currently on “continued accreditation with warning” status. The psychiatry and ob.gyn. programs are on “probationary accreditation” after receiving warnings in previous years.

Meharry was chartered in 1915 but was founded in 1876 as one of the first medical schools in the South for Black Americans.

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

Meharry Medical College, one of the oldest and largest historically Black academic health institutions in the United States, disclosed recently that its MD program had been placed on probationary status after a national accrediting agency’s onsite survey uncovered “infrastructure” problems earlier this year. Those include faculty shortages and inadequate student access to financial aid as well as to career and wellness counseling.

The inspection was conducted by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), an accrediting body sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association.

While participation is voluntary, institutions must comply with 12 standards to maintain their standing. These include hiring qualified faculty and providing students with financial aid and debt management counseling.

Jeannette South-Paul, MD, Meharry’s senior vice president and chief academic officer, said in an interview that the degree program remains fully accredited despite the fact that LCME representatives found “notable areas of concern,” including the “need for some infrastructure updates and additional educational and financial resources for students.”

Specifically, students did not have sufficient access to advising services, broadband internet, and study spaces. In addition, faculty shortages caused delays in student evaluations, she said.

The new status does not affect the ability of students to complete their medical degrees or residency programs, she said. Dr. South-Paul added that school officials have begun addressing several of the issues and anticipate a swift resolution “guided by an aggressive action plan over the next 18-24 months.”

The university, located in Nashville, Tenn., has had accreditation problems before. In January, following a site visit and low scores on annual resident surveys, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) placed several of the schools’ residency and fellowship programs on probationary status.

At the time, school officials said that all programs would remain accredited, and they committed to expanding available resources, such as hiring additional staff and an independent expert to make program recommendations. A follow-up site visit was scheduled for August.

Regarding the most recent accreditation challenges, Veronica M. Catanese, MD, MBA, co-secretary of LCME, said the organization could only disclose the accreditation status of a medical school.

“LCME is not able to discuss any details concerning the accreditation of individual medical education programs, including the review process, resulting decisions, or survey results,” she said.

Established medical education programs typically undergo a self-study process and a full survey visit every 8 years. According to LCME’s website, a full survey visit may be conducted sooner if concerns arise about the program’s quality or sustainability.

The LCME program directory lists Meharry Medical College’s accreditation status as “full, on probation.” The next survey visit is scheduled for the 2023-2024 school year.

LCME accreditation is a prerequisite for having access to federal grants and programs, such as Title VII funding, which helps increase minority participation in health care careers. In addition, most state licensure boards and ACGME-affiliated residency programs require applicants to graduate from an LCME-accredited school.

Last year, when Meharry Medical College received pandemic aid money as part of the CARES Act, the school distributed nearly $10 million in scholarships to students – many of whom come from modest-income families and struggle to afford college tuition.

But in general, endowments to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are often at least 70% smaller than those made to non-HBCUs, which raises the question: Does the lack of funding make it more difficult for schools such as Meharry to maintain accreditation standards?

“Many different factors played into this finding by LCME,” said Dr. South-Paul. “It is a well-known fact that HBCUs have historically not been as well funded or possess the same size endowments as their mainstream academic peers. That is true of Meharry, but it would not be accurate to say this probation is because we are an HBCU.”

Similarly, Dr. Catanese said there is no evidence that HBCUs and non-HBCUs differ in their ability to meet LCME accreditation standards.

About half of the school’s residency and fellowship programs continue to have accreditation problems. According to ACGME’s database, the internal medicine program is currently on “continued accreditation with warning” status. The psychiatry and ob.gyn. programs are on “probationary accreditation” after receiving warnings in previous years.

Meharry was chartered in 1915 but was founded in 1876 as one of the first medical schools in the South for Black Americans.

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

Obesity is not a universal phenotype in children with type 2 diabetes (T2D), a global systematic review and meta-analysis reported. In fact, the study found, as many as one in four children with T2D do not have obesity and some have normal reference-range body mass measurements. Further studies should consider other mechanisms beyond obesity in the genesis of pediatric diabetes, the authors of the international analysis concluded, writing for JAMA Network Open.

“We were aware that some children and adolescents with T2D did not have obesity, but we didn’t know the scale of obesity in T2D, or what variables may impact the occurrence of diabetes in this group,” endocrinologist M. Constantine Samaan, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization. “So, the analysis did help us understand the body mass distribution of this group in more detail.”

Obesity is not a universal phenotype in children with type 2 diabetes (T2D), a global systematic review and meta-analysis reported. In fact, the study found, as many as one in four children with T2D do not have obesity and some have normal reference-range body mass measurements. Further studies should consider other mechanisms beyond obesity in the genesis of pediatric diabetes, the authors of the international analysis concluded, writing for JAMA Network Open.

“We were aware that some children and adolescents with T2D did not have obesity, but we didn’t know the scale of obesity in T2D, or what variables may impact the occurrence of diabetes in this group,” endocrinologist M. Constantine Samaan, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization. “So, the analysis did help us understand the body mass distribution of this group in more detail.”

Obesity is not a universal phenotype in children with type 2 diabetes (T2D), a global systematic review and meta-analysis reported. In fact, the study found, as many as one in four children with T2D do not have obesity and some have normal reference-range body mass measurements. Further studies should consider other mechanisms beyond obesity in the genesis of pediatric diabetes, the authors of the international analysis concluded, writing for JAMA Network Open.

“We were aware that some children and adolescents with T2D did not have obesity, but we didn’t know the scale of obesity in T2D, or what variables may impact the occurrence of diabetes in this group,” endocrinologist M. Constantine Samaan, MD, MSc, associate professor of pediatrics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization. “So, the analysis did help us understand the body mass distribution of this group in more detail.”

The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) trial, showing no difference in reduction of clinical events between the thiazide diuretics chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide when used for the treatment of hypertension, has now been published. 

The trial was first presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. 

Courtesy April Eilers

In the current paper, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, the authors, led by Areef Ishani, MD, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, explained that early studies suggested that chlorthalidone was superior to hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension, but more recent observational studies have shown that the two drugs reduced cardiovascular events at a similar rate. Chlorthalidone may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events, including hypokalemia.

They noted that, in 2020, Part D Medicare expenditures showed that approximately 1.5 million persons received prescriptions for chlorthalidone, compared with 11.5 million who received prescriptions for hydrochlorothiazide, despite guidelines that recommended chlorthalidone as the preferred agent. The discrepancy between guideline recommendation and real-world use is possibly related to the belief that chlorthalidone has a greater risk for adverse effects without clear evidence for differences in cardiovascular outcomes, the authors suggested.

They conducted the current study to directly compare the effect of the two agents on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension.

The pragmatic DCP trial was carried out within the VA Healthcare System, and randomly assigned 13,523 patients (mean age, 72.5 years) with hypertension who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide at baseline (25 or 50 mg per day) to continue hydrochlorothiazide at their baseline dose or to switch to chlorthalidone (12.5 or 25 mg per day).

The mean baseline systolic blood pressure was 139 mm Hg in both trial groups and did not change substantially during the trial.

Over a median follow-up of 2.4 years, there was no difference in the primary outcome – a composite of MI, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization for unstable angina, and non–cancer-related death – between the chlorthalidone group (10.4%) and the hydrochlorothiazide group (10.0%), giving a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.94-1.16; P = .45).

In addition, there were no treatment differences between the two groups in any primary outcome component. Hypokalemia and potassium supplement use were more common in the chlorthalidone group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group.

‘Importance lies in the design’

In an accompanying editorial, Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said the results are not surprising and may not change clinical practice. But she suggested that the importance of the trial lies in its design, which shows that a high-quality pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial can be accomplished in a cost-effective manner within a health care system with little disruption in patient care.

Dr. Ingelfinger pointed out several limitations of the trial. These include a lower-than-expected occurrence of primary outcome events, and the stipulation that patients were eligible to participate only if they continued to have hypertension while receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

In addition, 95% of the participants were receiving 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide and only 5% were receiving 50 mg, which limited comparisons of the dose generally used in practice. Also, only approximately 13% of the patients were receiving hydrochlorothiazide alone for the treatment of hypertension at baseline.

She noted that the DCP is the first head-to-head comparison of hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone in a randomized, prospective outcome trial.

“Without an apparent difference in the hazard ratios for the primary outcome in the two groups over the median follow-up of 2.4 years, results suggest that chlorthalidone therapy remains a good choice for hypertension despite the secondary observation that hypokalemia was more common with chlorthalidone than with hydrochlorothiazide,” Dr. Ingelfinger said.

“Although a subgroup analysis suggested that chlorthalidone was better than hydrochlorothiazide for participants with a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, that result may have been by chance,” she added.

As clinicians generally prefer using hydrochlorothiazide, she suggested that these DCP results will not provide any impetus for change.

“Furthermore, combined therapy and polypills may alter therapy beyond the results of this well-done, highly anticipated trial. Thus, its major effect may be as a model for other pragmatic study programs, which are greatly needed,” she concluded.

This study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program through a grant to the Diuretic Comparison Project. Dr. Ishani reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ingelfinger reported book royalties from Springer and from St. Martin’s Press, outside the submitted work, and that she is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as deputy editor.

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

The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) trial, showing no difference in reduction of clinical events between the thiazide diuretics chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide when used for the treatment of hypertension, has now been published. 

The trial was first presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. 

Courtesy April Eilers

In the current paper, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, the authors, led by Areef Ishani, MD, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, explained that early studies suggested that chlorthalidone was superior to hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension, but more recent observational studies have shown that the two drugs reduced cardiovascular events at a similar rate. Chlorthalidone may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events, including hypokalemia.

They noted that, in 2020, Part D Medicare expenditures showed that approximately 1.5 million persons received prescriptions for chlorthalidone, compared with 11.5 million who received prescriptions for hydrochlorothiazide, despite guidelines that recommended chlorthalidone as the preferred agent. The discrepancy between guideline recommendation and real-world use is possibly related to the belief that chlorthalidone has a greater risk for adverse effects without clear evidence for differences in cardiovascular outcomes, the authors suggested.

They conducted the current study to directly compare the effect of the two agents on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension.

The pragmatic DCP trial was carried out within the VA Healthcare System, and randomly assigned 13,523 patients (mean age, 72.5 years) with hypertension who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide at baseline (25 or 50 mg per day) to continue hydrochlorothiazide at their baseline dose or to switch to chlorthalidone (12.5 or 25 mg per day).

The mean baseline systolic blood pressure was 139 mm Hg in both trial groups and did not change substantially during the trial.

Over a median follow-up of 2.4 years, there was no difference in the primary outcome – a composite of MI, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization for unstable angina, and non–cancer-related death – between the chlorthalidone group (10.4%) and the hydrochlorothiazide group (10.0%), giving a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.94-1.16; P = .45).

In addition, there were no treatment differences between the two groups in any primary outcome component. Hypokalemia and potassium supplement use were more common in the chlorthalidone group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group.

‘Importance lies in the design’

In an accompanying editorial, Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said the results are not surprising and may not change clinical practice. But she suggested that the importance of the trial lies in its design, which shows that a high-quality pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial can be accomplished in a cost-effective manner within a health care system with little disruption in patient care.

Dr. Ingelfinger pointed out several limitations of the trial. These include a lower-than-expected occurrence of primary outcome events, and the stipulation that patients were eligible to participate only if they continued to have hypertension while receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

In addition, 95% of the participants were receiving 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide and only 5% were receiving 50 mg, which limited comparisons of the dose generally used in practice. Also, only approximately 13% of the patients were receiving hydrochlorothiazide alone for the treatment of hypertension at baseline.

She noted that the DCP is the first head-to-head comparison of hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone in a randomized, prospective outcome trial.

“Without an apparent difference in the hazard ratios for the primary outcome in the two groups over the median follow-up of 2.4 years, results suggest that chlorthalidone therapy remains a good choice for hypertension despite the secondary observation that hypokalemia was more common with chlorthalidone than with hydrochlorothiazide,” Dr. Ingelfinger said.

“Although a subgroup analysis suggested that chlorthalidone was better than hydrochlorothiazide for participants with a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, that result may have been by chance,” she added.

As clinicians generally prefer using hydrochlorothiazide, she suggested that these DCP results will not provide any impetus for change.

“Furthermore, combined therapy and polypills may alter therapy beyond the results of this well-done, highly anticipated trial. Thus, its major effect may be as a model for other pragmatic study programs, which are greatly needed,” she concluded.

This study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program through a grant to the Diuretic Comparison Project. Dr. Ishani reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ingelfinger reported book royalties from Springer and from St. Martin’s Press, outside the submitted work, and that she is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as deputy editor.

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

The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) trial, showing no difference in reduction of clinical events between the thiazide diuretics chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide when used for the treatment of hypertension, has now been published. 

The trial was first presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. 

Courtesy April Eilers

In the current paper, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, the authors, led by Areef Ishani, MD, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, explained that early studies suggested that chlorthalidone was superior to hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension, but more recent observational studies have shown that the two drugs reduced cardiovascular events at a similar rate. Chlorthalidone may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events, including hypokalemia.

They noted that, in 2020, Part D Medicare expenditures showed that approximately 1.5 million persons received prescriptions for chlorthalidone, compared with 11.5 million who received prescriptions for hydrochlorothiazide, despite guidelines that recommended chlorthalidone as the preferred agent. The discrepancy between guideline recommendation and real-world use is possibly related to the belief that chlorthalidone has a greater risk for adverse effects without clear evidence for differences in cardiovascular outcomes, the authors suggested.

They conducted the current study to directly compare the effect of the two agents on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension.

The pragmatic DCP trial was carried out within the VA Healthcare System, and randomly assigned 13,523 patients (mean age, 72.5 years) with hypertension who were receiving hydrochlorothiazide at baseline (25 or 50 mg per day) to continue hydrochlorothiazide at their baseline dose or to switch to chlorthalidone (12.5 or 25 mg per day).

The mean baseline systolic blood pressure was 139 mm Hg in both trial groups and did not change substantially during the trial.

Over a median follow-up of 2.4 years, there was no difference in the primary outcome – a composite of MI, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization for unstable angina, and non–cancer-related death – between the chlorthalidone group (10.4%) and the hydrochlorothiazide group (10.0%), giving a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.94-1.16; P = .45).

In addition, there were no treatment differences between the two groups in any primary outcome component. Hypokalemia and potassium supplement use were more common in the chlorthalidone group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group.

‘Importance lies in the design’

In an accompanying editorial, Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said the results are not surprising and may not change clinical practice. But she suggested that the importance of the trial lies in its design, which shows that a high-quality pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial can be accomplished in a cost-effective manner within a health care system with little disruption in patient care.

Dr. Ingelfinger pointed out several limitations of the trial. These include a lower-than-expected occurrence of primary outcome events, and the stipulation that patients were eligible to participate only if they continued to have hypertension while receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

In addition, 95% of the participants were receiving 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide and only 5% were receiving 50 mg, which limited comparisons of the dose generally used in practice. Also, only approximately 13% of the patients were receiving hydrochlorothiazide alone for the treatment of hypertension at baseline.

She noted that the DCP is the first head-to-head comparison of hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone in a randomized, prospective outcome trial.

“Without an apparent difference in the hazard ratios for the primary outcome in the two groups over the median follow-up of 2.4 years, results suggest that chlorthalidone therapy remains a good choice for hypertension despite the secondary observation that hypokalemia was more common with chlorthalidone than with hydrochlorothiazide,” Dr. Ingelfinger said.

“Although a subgroup analysis suggested that chlorthalidone was better than hydrochlorothiazide for participants with a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, that result may have been by chance,” she added.

As clinicians generally prefer using hydrochlorothiazide, she suggested that these DCP results will not provide any impetus for change.

“Furthermore, combined therapy and polypills may alter therapy beyond the results of this well-done, highly anticipated trial. Thus, its major effect may be as a model for other pragmatic study programs, which are greatly needed,” she concluded.

This study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program through a grant to the Diuretic Comparison Project. Dr. Ishani reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ingelfinger reported book royalties from Springer and from St. Martin’s Press, outside the submitted work, and that she is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as deputy editor.

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