Hospitalized COVID-19 survivors showed greater cognitive impairment 6 months later, compared with patients hospitalized for other causes, but the overall disease burden was similar, based on data from 85 adults with COVID-19.

Previous studies have shown that cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms can occur from 2-6 months after COVID-19 recovery, and such symptoms are known to be associated with hospitalization for other severe medical conditions, Vardan Nersesjan, MD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues wrote.

However, it remains unknown if COVID-19 is associated with a unique pattern of cognitive and mental impairment compared with other similarly severe medical conditions, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Psychiatry (2022 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0284), the researchers identified 85 adult COVID-19 survivors and 61 controls with non-COVID medical conditions who were treated and released between July 2020 and July 2021. The COVID-19 patients and controls were matched for age, sex, and ICU status. Cognitive impairment was assessed using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), neurologic examination, and a semistructured interview to determine subjective symptoms.

The primary outcomes were the total scores on the MoCA and any new-onset psychiatric diagnoses. Secondary outcomes included specific psychiatric diagnoses such as depression, neurologic examination findings, and self-reported neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms. The mean age of the COVID-19 patients was 56.8 years, and 42% were women.

At 6 months’ follow-up, cognitive status was significantly lower in COVID-19 survivors, compared with controls, based on total geometric mean MoCA scores (26.7 vs. 27.5, P = .01). However, cognitive status improved significantly from 19.2 at hospital discharge to 26.1 at 6 months in 15 of the COVID-19 patients (P = .004), the researchers noted.

New-onset psychiatric diagnoses occurred in 16 COVID-19 patients and 12 of the controls (19% vs. 20%); this difference was not significant.

Secondary outcomes were not significantly different at 6 months between the groups, with the exception of anosmia, which was significantly more common in the COVID-19 patients; however, the significance disappeared in adjusted analysis, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causality because of the case-control feature and by the inability to detect small differences in neuropsychiatric outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a prospectively matched control group with similar disease severity admitted to the same hospital in the same time frame. Although the overall burden of neuropsychiatric and neurologic symptoms and diagnoses appeared similar in COVID-19 patients and those with other medical conditions, more research in larger populations is needed to determine smaller differences in neuropsychiatric profiles, the researchers noted.

Study fills research gap

The study is important at this time because, although prolonged neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms have been reported after COVID-19, the field lacked prospective case-control studies with well-matched controls to investigate whether these outcomes differed from those seen in other critical illnesses that had also required hospitalization, corresponding author Michael E. Benros, MD, of the Mental Health Center, Copenhagen, said in an interview.

“I was surprised that there was a significant worse cognitive functioning among COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset also when compared to this well-matched control group that had been hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although the absolute difference between the groups in cognition score were small,” said Dr. Benros. “Another notable finding is the large improvement in cognitive functioning from discharge to follow-up,” he added on behalf of himself and fellow corresponding author Daniel Kondziella, MD.

The study results show that cognitive function affected by COVID-19 and critical illness as observed at discharge showed a substantial improvement at 6 months after symptom onset, said Dr. Benros. “However, the cognitive function was significantly worse among severely ill COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset when compared to a matched control group of individuals hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although this difference in cognitive function was rather small in absolute numbers, and smaller than what had been suggested by other studies that lacked control groups. Strikingly, neuropsychiatric disorders were similar across the two groups, which was also the case when looking at neuropsychiatric symptoms.

“Larger prospective case-control studies of neuropsychiatric and cognitive functioning after COVID-19, compared with matched controls are still needed to detect smaller differences, and more detailed cognitive domains, and with longer follow-up time, which we are currently conducting,” Dr. Benros said.  
 

Controlled studies will help planning

“Lingering neuropsychiatric complications are common after COVID-19, but only controlled studies can tell us whether these complications are specific to COVID-19, rather than a general effect of having been medically ill,” Alasdair G. Rooney, MRCPsych MD PhD, of the University of Edinburgh, said in an interview. “The answer matters ultimately because COVID-19 is a new disease; societies and health care services need to be able to plan for its specific consequences.”

The health status of the control group is important as well. “Most previous studies had compared COVID-19 survivors against healthy controls or patients from a historical database. This new study compared COVID-19 survivors against those hospitalized for other medical causes over the same period,” Dr. Rooney said. “This is a more stringent test of whether COVID-19 has specific neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric consequences.

“The study found that new-onset neuropsychiatric diagnoses and symptoms were no more likely to occur after COVID-19 than after similarly severe medical illnesses,” Dr. Rooney said. “This negative finding runs counter to some earlier studies and may surprise some.” The findings need to be replicated in larger samples, but the current study shows the importance of prospectively recruiting active controls.

“In a subgroup analysis, some patients showed good improvement in cognitive scores between discharge and follow-up. While unsurprising, this is encouraging and suggests that the early postdischarge months are an important time for neurocognitive recovery,” Dr. Rooney noted.

“The findings suggest that COVID-19 may impair attention more selectively than other medical causes of hospitalization. COVID-19 survivors may also be at higher risk of significant overall cognitive impairment than survivors of similarly severe medical illnesses, after a similar duration,” said Dr. Rooney. “If the results are replicated by other prospective studies, they would suggest that there is something about COVID-19 that causes clinically significant neurocognitive difficulties in a minority of survivors.

“Larger well-controlled studies are required, with longer follow-up and more detailed neurocognitive testing,” as the duration of impairment and scope for further recovery are not known, Dr. Rooney added. Also unknown is whether COVID-19 affects attention permanently, or whether recovery is simply slower after COVID-19 compared to other medical illnesses.

“Knowing who is at the greatest risk of severe cognitive impairment after COVID-19 is important and likely to allow tailoring of more effective shielding strategies,” said Dr. Rooney. “This study was conducted before the widespread availability of vaccines for COVID-19. Long-term neuropsychiatric outcomes in vaccinated patients remain largely unknown. Arguably, these are now more important to understand, as future COVID-19 waves will occur mainly among vaccinated individuals.”

The study was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Lead author Dr. Nersesjan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Benros reported grants from Lundbeck Foundation and Novo Nordisk Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. Rooney had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 3/25/22.

Hospitalized COVID-19 survivors showed greater cognitive impairment 6 months later, compared with patients hospitalized for other causes, but the overall disease burden was similar, based on data from 85 adults with COVID-19.

Previous studies have shown that cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms can occur from 2-6 months after COVID-19 recovery, and such symptoms are known to be associated with hospitalization for other severe medical conditions, Vardan Nersesjan, MD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues wrote.

However, it remains unknown if COVID-19 is associated with a unique pattern of cognitive and mental impairment compared with other similarly severe medical conditions, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Psychiatry (2022 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0284), the researchers identified 85 adult COVID-19 survivors and 61 controls with non-COVID medical conditions who were treated and released between July 2020 and July 2021. The COVID-19 patients and controls were matched for age, sex, and ICU status. Cognitive impairment was assessed using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), neurologic examination, and a semistructured interview to determine subjective symptoms.

The primary outcomes were the total scores on the MoCA and any new-onset psychiatric diagnoses. Secondary outcomes included specific psychiatric diagnoses such as depression, neurologic examination findings, and self-reported neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms. The mean age of the COVID-19 patients was 56.8 years, and 42% were women.

At 6 months’ follow-up, cognitive status was significantly lower in COVID-19 survivors, compared with controls, based on total geometric mean MoCA scores (26.7 vs. 27.5, P = .01). However, cognitive status improved significantly from 19.2 at hospital discharge to 26.1 at 6 months in 15 of the COVID-19 patients (P = .004), the researchers noted.

New-onset psychiatric diagnoses occurred in 16 COVID-19 patients and 12 of the controls (19% vs. 20%); this difference was not significant.

Secondary outcomes were not significantly different at 6 months between the groups, with the exception of anosmia, which was significantly more common in the COVID-19 patients; however, the significance disappeared in adjusted analysis, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causality because of the case-control feature and by the inability to detect small differences in neuropsychiatric outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a prospectively matched control group with similar disease severity admitted to the same hospital in the same time frame. Although the overall burden of neuropsychiatric and neurologic symptoms and diagnoses appeared similar in COVID-19 patients and those with other medical conditions, more research in larger populations is needed to determine smaller differences in neuropsychiatric profiles, the researchers noted.

Study fills research gap

The study is important at this time because, although prolonged neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms have been reported after COVID-19, the field lacked prospective case-control studies with well-matched controls to investigate whether these outcomes differed from those seen in other critical illnesses that had also required hospitalization, corresponding author Michael E. Benros, MD, of the Mental Health Center, Copenhagen, said in an interview.

“I was surprised that there was a significant worse cognitive functioning among COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset also when compared to this well-matched control group that had been hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although the absolute difference between the groups in cognition score were small,” said Dr. Benros. “Another notable finding is the large improvement in cognitive functioning from discharge to follow-up,” he added on behalf of himself and fellow corresponding author Daniel Kondziella, MD.

The study results show that cognitive function affected by COVID-19 and critical illness as observed at discharge showed a substantial improvement at 6 months after symptom onset, said Dr. Benros. “However, the cognitive function was significantly worse among severely ill COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset when compared to a matched control group of individuals hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although this difference in cognitive function was rather small in absolute numbers, and smaller than what had been suggested by other studies that lacked control groups. Strikingly, neuropsychiatric disorders were similar across the two groups, which was also the case when looking at neuropsychiatric symptoms.

“Larger prospective case-control studies of neuropsychiatric and cognitive functioning after COVID-19, compared with matched controls are still needed to detect smaller differences, and more detailed cognitive domains, and with longer follow-up time, which we are currently conducting,” Dr. Benros said.  
 

Controlled studies will help planning

“Lingering neuropsychiatric complications are common after COVID-19, but only controlled studies can tell us whether these complications are specific to COVID-19, rather than a general effect of having been medically ill,” Alasdair G. Rooney, MRCPsych MD PhD, of the University of Edinburgh, said in an interview. “The answer matters ultimately because COVID-19 is a new disease; societies and health care services need to be able to plan for its specific consequences.”

The health status of the control group is important as well. “Most previous studies had compared COVID-19 survivors against healthy controls or patients from a historical database. This new study compared COVID-19 survivors against those hospitalized for other medical causes over the same period,” Dr. Rooney said. “This is a more stringent test of whether COVID-19 has specific neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric consequences.

“The study found that new-onset neuropsychiatric diagnoses and symptoms were no more likely to occur after COVID-19 than after similarly severe medical illnesses,” Dr. Rooney said. “This negative finding runs counter to some earlier studies and may surprise some.” The findings need to be replicated in larger samples, but the current study shows the importance of prospectively recruiting active controls.

“In a subgroup analysis, some patients showed good improvement in cognitive scores between discharge and follow-up. While unsurprising, this is encouraging and suggests that the early postdischarge months are an important time for neurocognitive recovery,” Dr. Rooney noted.

“The findings suggest that COVID-19 may impair attention more selectively than other medical causes of hospitalization. COVID-19 survivors may also be at higher risk of significant overall cognitive impairment than survivors of similarly severe medical illnesses, after a similar duration,” said Dr. Rooney. “If the results are replicated by other prospective studies, they would suggest that there is something about COVID-19 that causes clinically significant neurocognitive difficulties in a minority of survivors.

“Larger well-controlled studies are required, with longer follow-up and more detailed neurocognitive testing,” as the duration of impairment and scope for further recovery are not known, Dr. Rooney added. Also unknown is whether COVID-19 affects attention permanently, or whether recovery is simply slower after COVID-19 compared to other medical illnesses.

“Knowing who is at the greatest risk of severe cognitive impairment after COVID-19 is important and likely to allow tailoring of more effective shielding strategies,” said Dr. Rooney. “This study was conducted before the widespread availability of vaccines for COVID-19. Long-term neuropsychiatric outcomes in vaccinated patients remain largely unknown. Arguably, these are now more important to understand, as future COVID-19 waves will occur mainly among vaccinated individuals.”

The study was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Lead author Dr. Nersesjan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Benros reported grants from Lundbeck Foundation and Novo Nordisk Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. Rooney had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 3/25/22.

Hospitalized COVID-19 survivors showed greater cognitive impairment 6 months later, compared with patients hospitalized for other causes, but the overall disease burden was similar, based on data from 85 adults with COVID-19.

Previous studies have shown that cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms can occur from 2-6 months after COVID-19 recovery, and such symptoms are known to be associated with hospitalization for other severe medical conditions, Vardan Nersesjan, MD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues wrote.

However, it remains unknown if COVID-19 is associated with a unique pattern of cognitive and mental impairment compared with other similarly severe medical conditions, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Psychiatry (2022 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0284), the researchers identified 85 adult COVID-19 survivors and 61 controls with non-COVID medical conditions who were treated and released between July 2020 and July 2021. The COVID-19 patients and controls were matched for age, sex, and ICU status. Cognitive impairment was assessed using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), neurologic examination, and a semistructured interview to determine subjective symptoms.

The primary outcomes were the total scores on the MoCA and any new-onset psychiatric diagnoses. Secondary outcomes included specific psychiatric diagnoses such as depression, neurologic examination findings, and self-reported neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms. The mean age of the COVID-19 patients was 56.8 years, and 42% were women.

At 6 months’ follow-up, cognitive status was significantly lower in COVID-19 survivors, compared with controls, based on total geometric mean MoCA scores (26.7 vs. 27.5, P = .01). However, cognitive status improved significantly from 19.2 at hospital discharge to 26.1 at 6 months in 15 of the COVID-19 patients (P = .004), the researchers noted.

New-onset psychiatric diagnoses occurred in 16 COVID-19 patients and 12 of the controls (19% vs. 20%); this difference was not significant.

Secondary outcomes were not significantly different at 6 months between the groups, with the exception of anosmia, which was significantly more common in the COVID-19 patients; however, the significance disappeared in adjusted analysis, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causality because of the case-control feature and by the inability to detect small differences in neuropsychiatric outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a prospectively matched control group with similar disease severity admitted to the same hospital in the same time frame. Although the overall burden of neuropsychiatric and neurologic symptoms and diagnoses appeared similar in COVID-19 patients and those with other medical conditions, more research in larger populations is needed to determine smaller differences in neuropsychiatric profiles, the researchers noted.

Study fills research gap

The study is important at this time because, although prolonged neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms have been reported after COVID-19, the field lacked prospective case-control studies with well-matched controls to investigate whether these outcomes differed from those seen in other critical illnesses that had also required hospitalization, corresponding author Michael E. Benros, MD, of the Mental Health Center, Copenhagen, said in an interview.

“I was surprised that there was a significant worse cognitive functioning among COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset also when compared to this well-matched control group that had been hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although the absolute difference between the groups in cognition score were small,” said Dr. Benros. “Another notable finding is the large improvement in cognitive functioning from discharge to follow-up,” he added on behalf of himself and fellow corresponding author Daniel Kondziella, MD.

The study results show that cognitive function affected by COVID-19 and critical illness as observed at discharge showed a substantial improvement at 6 months after symptom onset, said Dr. Benros. “However, the cognitive function was significantly worse among severely ill COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset when compared to a matched control group of individuals hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although this difference in cognitive function was rather small in absolute numbers, and smaller than what had been suggested by other studies that lacked control groups. Strikingly, neuropsychiatric disorders were similar across the two groups, which was also the case when looking at neuropsychiatric symptoms.

“Larger prospective case-control studies of neuropsychiatric and cognitive functioning after COVID-19, compared with matched controls are still needed to detect smaller differences, and more detailed cognitive domains, and with longer follow-up time, which we are currently conducting,” Dr. Benros said.  
 

Controlled studies will help planning

“Lingering neuropsychiatric complications are common after COVID-19, but only controlled studies can tell us whether these complications are specific to COVID-19, rather than a general effect of having been medically ill,” Alasdair G. Rooney, MRCPsych MD PhD, of the University of Edinburgh, said in an interview. “The answer matters ultimately because COVID-19 is a new disease; societies and health care services need to be able to plan for its specific consequences.”

The health status of the control group is important as well. “Most previous studies had compared COVID-19 survivors against healthy controls or patients from a historical database. This new study compared COVID-19 survivors against those hospitalized for other medical causes over the same period,” Dr. Rooney said. “This is a more stringent test of whether COVID-19 has specific neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric consequences.

“The study found that new-onset neuropsychiatric diagnoses and symptoms were no more likely to occur after COVID-19 than after similarly severe medical illnesses,” Dr. Rooney said. “This negative finding runs counter to some earlier studies and may surprise some.” The findings need to be replicated in larger samples, but the current study shows the importance of prospectively recruiting active controls.

“In a subgroup analysis, some patients showed good improvement in cognitive scores between discharge and follow-up. While unsurprising, this is encouraging and suggests that the early postdischarge months are an important time for neurocognitive recovery,” Dr. Rooney noted.

“The findings suggest that COVID-19 may impair attention more selectively than other medical causes of hospitalization. COVID-19 survivors may also be at higher risk of significant overall cognitive impairment than survivors of similarly severe medical illnesses, after a similar duration,” said Dr. Rooney. “If the results are replicated by other prospective studies, they would suggest that there is something about COVID-19 that causes clinically significant neurocognitive difficulties in a minority of survivors.

“Larger well-controlled studies are required, with longer follow-up and more detailed neurocognitive testing,” as the duration of impairment and scope for further recovery are not known, Dr. Rooney added. Also unknown is whether COVID-19 affects attention permanently, or whether recovery is simply slower after COVID-19 compared to other medical illnesses.

“Knowing who is at the greatest risk of severe cognitive impairment after COVID-19 is important and likely to allow tailoring of more effective shielding strategies,” said Dr. Rooney. “This study was conducted before the widespread availability of vaccines for COVID-19. Long-term neuropsychiatric outcomes in vaccinated patients remain largely unknown. Arguably, these are now more important to understand, as future COVID-19 waves will occur mainly among vaccinated individuals.”

The study was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Lead author Dr. Nersesjan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Benros reported grants from Lundbeck Foundation and Novo Nordisk Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. Rooney had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 3/25/22.

An experimental brain-computer interface has allowed a man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) who was unable to speak or move to communicate.

Using a commercially available implant and newly designed software, the patient, who was in the advanced stages of Lou Gehrig’s disease and unable to move his eyes, was able to interact with researchers and caregivers, requesting goulash, beer, and music from the band Tool, thanking the researchers who developed the technology and inviting his 4-year-old son to watch a Disney film.

The investigators note the study shows for the first time that communication is possible in patients in a completely locked-in state (CLIS) and offers hope for a better quality of life in this population.

“It should encourage them to live after artificial respiration and to ask for brain-computer interfaces before they become CLIS,” study investigator Niels Birbaumer, PhD, a professor emeritus of the University of Tübingen, Germany, said in an interview. The study was published online March 22 in Nature Communications.

Although the findings appear promising, they build on previous research that was the subject of a 2019 investigation by the largest grant-funding agency in Germany. This controversy prompted the institute that led the current research to appoint an independent expert to audit and monitor the new study.
 

Mechanism a ‘mystery’

Use of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology to allow ALS patients to communicate has increased in recent years. BCIs capture brain signals, transmit them to a computer, and convert them into a command that the computer carries out.

Previous research shows patients with ALS who retain eye movement and control have been able to use BCIs to communicate. However, until now, the technology has not worked as well in CLIS patients, who have full-body paralysis.

In 2019, German and Swiss researchers implanted two 64-microde arrays in the brain of a 34-year-old patient who was diagnosed with ALS in 2015.

The electrodes measure neuronal activity while an amplifier located on the outside of the patient’s skull amplifies the signals to a computer. Software created by the research team decodes the signals and translates them into commands.

Using an auditory feedback system, the patient was able to use his mind to modulate the pitch of a tone to either high (meaning “yes”) or low (meaning “no.”) Just how the brain does this is a mystery, Dr. Birbaumer said.

A speller program reads letters aloud, first in groups and then individually. When a group contained letters the patient needed to spell a word, he used auditory feedback to select the high-pitch tone.

Initially, the patient was able to correctly spell his name. Ultimately, he was able to form complete sentences. The patient correctly spelled words on 44 of the 107 days in that phase of the experiment, spelling an average of just one character per minute.

Still, the researchers note he was able to interact with his caretakers, family, and researchers, even offering input on changes to make the device more effective.
 

Controversial history

In 2017, Dr. Birbaumer and Ujwal Chaudhary, PhD, who is the lead author on this current study, published a study in PLOS Biology. That research analyzed a brain-monitoring technique that the scientists claimed enabled patients with ALS who were completely locked in to answer yes or no questions correctly.

Allegations from a whistleblower at the University of Tübingen, where Dr. Birbaumer was a senior professor and Dr. Chaudhary was a postdoctoral researcher, prompted an investigation by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, or German Research Foundation (DFG).

The whistleblower claimed that the 2017 paper and a second study published in 2019 contained incomplete data and misrepresented the findings. The DFG investigation found evidence of scientific misconduct and required that Dr. Birbaumer return the grant he had received for the research. The agency also banned Dr. Birbaumer from applying for grants or serving as a grant reviewer for 5 years. Dr. Chaudhary was banned for 3 years. PLOS Biology later retracted the papers.

Both researchers have refuted the allegations and have reportedly sued the German Research Foundation.

“We have no information about the status of our lawsuit against the DFG; it’s still pending,” Dr. Birbaumer told this news organization. “I hope they investigate our present study because the study of 2017 they did not investigate carefully enough.”
 

Results ‘not stunningly good’

The controversial history prompted the Wyss Center, Geneva, which led this new study, to seek out at an independent BCI expert to audit and monitor the study.

Nick Ramsey, PhD, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at the Brain Center of the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, agreed to take on the assignment in March 2020.

Dr. Ramsey has also conducted research on BCI in patients with ALS, but his work has not included patients in CLIS.

“I judged the study to be compliant with universal standards of scientific integrity,” Dr. Ramsey told this news organization. “I am confident that the data and results presented in the paper are valid and will withstand academic and medical scrutiny.”

Commenting on the new findings, Dr. Ramsey noted that the results of the study are “not stunningly good, as the user could only communicate during a limited number of days, and even then with considerable slowness,” Dr. Ramsey said. However, he added that the study does provide proof of principle that communication is possible in CLIS patients.

“The question remains whether a BCI implant continues to work well in these patients, as there are some indications that people in such a state may lose their mental capabilities within months or a few years as a result of the disease and can thus no longer generate a wish to communicate,” Dr. Ramsey said.

Responding to a query from this news organization, a spokesperson for Nature Communications declined to comment on the new study but said that journal editors are “are alert to controversies within each field and take care when considering submissions during the peer-review process.”

“We have rigorous policies to safeguard the integrity of the research we publish,” the spokesperson continued, “including to ensure that research has been conducted to a high ethical standard and is reported transparently.”

The research was funded by Wyss Center for Bio and Neuroengineering, Geneva and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ramsey received payment from the Wyss Center for his advisory role in this project.

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

An experimental brain-computer interface has allowed a man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) who was unable to speak or move to communicate.

Using a commercially available implant and newly designed software, the patient, who was in the advanced stages of Lou Gehrig’s disease and unable to move his eyes, was able to interact with researchers and caregivers, requesting goulash, beer, and music from the band Tool, thanking the researchers who developed the technology and inviting his 4-year-old son to watch a Disney film.

The investigators note the study shows for the first time that communication is possible in patients in a completely locked-in state (CLIS) and offers hope for a better quality of life in this population.

“It should encourage them to live after artificial respiration and to ask for brain-computer interfaces before they become CLIS,” study investigator Niels Birbaumer, PhD, a professor emeritus of the University of Tübingen, Germany, said in an interview. The study was published online March 22 in Nature Communications.

Although the findings appear promising, they build on previous research that was the subject of a 2019 investigation by the largest grant-funding agency in Germany. This controversy prompted the institute that led the current research to appoint an independent expert to audit and monitor the new study.
 

Mechanism a ‘mystery’

Use of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology to allow ALS patients to communicate has increased in recent years. BCIs capture brain signals, transmit them to a computer, and convert them into a command that the computer carries out.

Previous research shows patients with ALS who retain eye movement and control have been able to use BCIs to communicate. However, until now, the technology has not worked as well in CLIS patients, who have full-body paralysis.

In 2019, German and Swiss researchers implanted two 64-microde arrays in the brain of a 34-year-old patient who was diagnosed with ALS in 2015.

The electrodes measure neuronal activity while an amplifier located on the outside of the patient’s skull amplifies the signals to a computer. Software created by the research team decodes the signals and translates them into commands.

Using an auditory feedback system, the patient was able to use his mind to modulate the pitch of a tone to either high (meaning “yes”) or low (meaning “no.”) Just how the brain does this is a mystery, Dr. Birbaumer said.

A speller program reads letters aloud, first in groups and then individually. When a group contained letters the patient needed to spell a word, he used auditory feedback to select the high-pitch tone.

Initially, the patient was able to correctly spell his name. Ultimately, he was able to form complete sentences. The patient correctly spelled words on 44 of the 107 days in that phase of the experiment, spelling an average of just one character per minute.

Still, the researchers note he was able to interact with his caretakers, family, and researchers, even offering input on changes to make the device more effective.
 

Controversial history

In 2017, Dr. Birbaumer and Ujwal Chaudhary, PhD, who is the lead author on this current study, published a study in PLOS Biology. That research analyzed a brain-monitoring technique that the scientists claimed enabled patients with ALS who were completely locked in to answer yes or no questions correctly.

Allegations from a whistleblower at the University of Tübingen, where Dr. Birbaumer was a senior professor and Dr. Chaudhary was a postdoctoral researcher, prompted an investigation by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, or German Research Foundation (DFG).

The whistleblower claimed that the 2017 paper and a second study published in 2019 contained incomplete data and misrepresented the findings. The DFG investigation found evidence of scientific misconduct and required that Dr. Birbaumer return the grant he had received for the research. The agency also banned Dr. Birbaumer from applying for grants or serving as a grant reviewer for 5 years. Dr. Chaudhary was banned for 3 years. PLOS Biology later retracted the papers.

Both researchers have refuted the allegations and have reportedly sued the German Research Foundation.

“We have no information about the status of our lawsuit against the DFG; it’s still pending,” Dr. Birbaumer told this news organization. “I hope they investigate our present study because the study of 2017 they did not investigate carefully enough.”
 

Results ‘not stunningly good’

The controversial history prompted the Wyss Center, Geneva, which led this new study, to seek out at an independent BCI expert to audit and monitor the study.

Nick Ramsey, PhD, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at the Brain Center of the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, agreed to take on the assignment in March 2020.

Dr. Ramsey has also conducted research on BCI in patients with ALS, but his work has not included patients in CLIS.

“I judged the study to be compliant with universal standards of scientific integrity,” Dr. Ramsey told this news organization. “I am confident that the data and results presented in the paper are valid and will withstand academic and medical scrutiny.”

Commenting on the new findings, Dr. Ramsey noted that the results of the study are “not stunningly good, as the user could only communicate during a limited number of days, and even then with considerable slowness,” Dr. Ramsey said. However, he added that the study does provide proof of principle that communication is possible in CLIS patients.

“The question remains whether a BCI implant continues to work well in these patients, as there are some indications that people in such a state may lose their mental capabilities within months or a few years as a result of the disease and can thus no longer generate a wish to communicate,” Dr. Ramsey said.

Responding to a query from this news organization, a spokesperson for Nature Communications declined to comment on the new study but said that journal editors are “are alert to controversies within each field and take care when considering submissions during the peer-review process.”

“We have rigorous policies to safeguard the integrity of the research we publish,” the spokesperson continued, “including to ensure that research has been conducted to a high ethical standard and is reported transparently.”

The research was funded by Wyss Center for Bio and Neuroengineering, Geneva and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ramsey received payment from the Wyss Center for his advisory role in this project.

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

An experimental brain-computer interface has allowed a man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) who was unable to speak or move to communicate.

Using a commercially available implant and newly designed software, the patient, who was in the advanced stages of Lou Gehrig’s disease and unable to move his eyes, was able to interact with researchers and caregivers, requesting goulash, beer, and music from the band Tool, thanking the researchers who developed the technology and inviting his 4-year-old son to watch a Disney film.

The investigators note the study shows for the first time that communication is possible in patients in a completely locked-in state (CLIS) and offers hope for a better quality of life in this population.

“It should encourage them to live after artificial respiration and to ask for brain-computer interfaces before they become CLIS,” study investigator Niels Birbaumer, PhD, a professor emeritus of the University of Tübingen, Germany, said in an interview. The study was published online March 22 in Nature Communications.

Although the findings appear promising, they build on previous research that was the subject of a 2019 investigation by the largest grant-funding agency in Germany. This controversy prompted the institute that led the current research to appoint an independent expert to audit and monitor the new study.
 

Mechanism a ‘mystery’

Use of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology to allow ALS patients to communicate has increased in recent years. BCIs capture brain signals, transmit them to a computer, and convert them into a command that the computer carries out.

Previous research shows patients with ALS who retain eye movement and control have been able to use BCIs to communicate. However, until now, the technology has not worked as well in CLIS patients, who have full-body paralysis.

In 2019, German and Swiss researchers implanted two 64-microde arrays in the brain of a 34-year-old patient who was diagnosed with ALS in 2015.

The electrodes measure neuronal activity while an amplifier located on the outside of the patient’s skull amplifies the signals to a computer. Software created by the research team decodes the signals and translates them into commands.

Using an auditory feedback system, the patient was able to use his mind to modulate the pitch of a tone to either high (meaning “yes”) or low (meaning “no.”) Just how the brain does this is a mystery, Dr. Birbaumer said.

A speller program reads letters aloud, first in groups and then individually. When a group contained letters the patient needed to spell a word, he used auditory feedback to select the high-pitch tone.

Initially, the patient was able to correctly spell his name. Ultimately, he was able to form complete sentences. The patient correctly spelled words on 44 of the 107 days in that phase of the experiment, spelling an average of just one character per minute.

Still, the researchers note he was able to interact with his caretakers, family, and researchers, even offering input on changes to make the device more effective.
 

Controversial history

In 2017, Dr. Birbaumer and Ujwal Chaudhary, PhD, who is the lead author on this current study, published a study in PLOS Biology. That research analyzed a brain-monitoring technique that the scientists claimed enabled patients with ALS who were completely locked in to answer yes or no questions correctly.

Allegations from a whistleblower at the University of Tübingen, where Dr. Birbaumer was a senior professor and Dr. Chaudhary was a postdoctoral researcher, prompted an investigation by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, or German Research Foundation (DFG).

The whistleblower claimed that the 2017 paper and a second study published in 2019 contained incomplete data and misrepresented the findings. The DFG investigation found evidence of scientific misconduct and required that Dr. Birbaumer return the grant he had received for the research. The agency also banned Dr. Birbaumer from applying for grants or serving as a grant reviewer for 5 years. Dr. Chaudhary was banned for 3 years. PLOS Biology later retracted the papers.

Both researchers have refuted the allegations and have reportedly sued the German Research Foundation.

“We have no information about the status of our lawsuit against the DFG; it’s still pending,” Dr. Birbaumer told this news organization. “I hope they investigate our present study because the study of 2017 they did not investigate carefully enough.”
 

Results ‘not stunningly good’

The controversial history prompted the Wyss Center, Geneva, which led this new study, to seek out at an independent BCI expert to audit and monitor the study.

Nick Ramsey, PhD, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at the Brain Center of the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, agreed to take on the assignment in March 2020.

Dr. Ramsey has also conducted research on BCI in patients with ALS, but his work has not included patients in CLIS.

“I judged the study to be compliant with universal standards of scientific integrity,” Dr. Ramsey told this news organization. “I am confident that the data and results presented in the paper are valid and will withstand academic and medical scrutiny.”

Commenting on the new findings, Dr. Ramsey noted that the results of the study are “not stunningly good, as the user could only communicate during a limited number of days, and even then with considerable slowness,” Dr. Ramsey said. However, he added that the study does provide proof of principle that communication is possible in CLIS patients.

“The question remains whether a BCI implant continues to work well in these patients, as there are some indications that people in such a state may lose their mental capabilities within months or a few years as a result of the disease and can thus no longer generate a wish to communicate,” Dr. Ramsey said.

Responding to a query from this news organization, a spokesperson for Nature Communications declined to comment on the new study but said that journal editors are “are alert to controversies within each field and take care when considering submissions during the peer-review process.”

“We have rigorous policies to safeguard the integrity of the research we publish,” the spokesperson continued, “including to ensure that research has been conducted to a high ethical standard and is reported transparently.”

The research was funded by Wyss Center for Bio and Neuroengineering, Geneva and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ramsey received payment from the Wyss Center for his advisory role in this project.

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

The Heartland virus is circulating in lone star ticks in Georgia, according to a new study published in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

People can get the virus after being bitten by an infected tick, which can lead to hospitalization and death. The virus has also been found among deer and other wild mammals.

“Heartland is an emerging infectious disease that is not well understood,” Gonzalo Vazquez-Prokopec, PhD, the senior study author and an expert in vector-borne diseases at Emory University, Atlanta, said in a statement.

“We’re trying to get ahead of this virus by learning everything that we can about it before it potentially becomes a bigger problem,” he said.

Researchers at Emory and the University of Georgia analyzed virus samples from nearly 10,000 ticks collected in central Georgia. They found that about 1 out of every 2,000 specimens had the Heartland virus, including the adult and nymph stages.

The virus, which was first identified in Missouri in 2009, has been documented in several states across the Southeast and Midwest. There have been more than 50 cases in people from 11 states, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with most cases requiring hospitalization. Most people diagnosed with the disease became sick from May to September, the CDC reported. Symptoms can be a high fever, fatigue, diarrhea, muscle pain, and low counts of white blood cells and platelets. It can take up to 2 weeks for symptoms to appear after a bite from an infected tick.

There are no vaccines or medications to prevent or treat the Heartland virus, according to the CDC. Doctors may be able to provide medications to improve symptoms. Overall, though, experts recommend that people avoid tick bites as much as possible, particularly during “high tick season” between April and September.

“You should be thinking about them almost any time of the year. It’s something that should be on everybody’s mind,” Jonathan Larson, PhD, an extension entomologist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, told USA Today.

The CDC recognizes 18 tick-borne diseases in the United States, including Lyme disease, which has become the most common vector-borne disease in the country. The black-legged tick, also known as the deer tick, typically transmits the bacteria that causes Lyme disease.

But researchers are still studying how the Heartland virus spreads. In the latest study, they found the virus in the lone star tick, which is named for a distinctive white spot on its back and is the most common tick in Georgia. The tick is also widely distributed in wooded areas across the Southeast, Midwest, and Eastern United States.

The research team will now collect ticks across Georgia for testing to better understand what could raise the risk of getting the Heartland virus.

“We want to start filling in the huge gaps of knowledge of the transmission cycle for Heartland virus,” Dr. Vazquez-Prokopec said. “We need to better understand the key actors that transmit the virus and any environmental factors that may help it to persist within different habitats.”

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

The Heartland virus is circulating in lone star ticks in Georgia, according to a new study published in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

People can get the virus after being bitten by an infected tick, which can lead to hospitalization and death. The virus has also been found among deer and other wild mammals.

“Heartland is an emerging infectious disease that is not well understood,” Gonzalo Vazquez-Prokopec, PhD, the senior study author and an expert in vector-borne diseases at Emory University, Atlanta, said in a statement.

“We’re trying to get ahead of this virus by learning everything that we can about it before it potentially becomes a bigger problem,” he said.

Researchers at Emory and the University of Georgia analyzed virus samples from nearly 10,000 ticks collected in central Georgia. They found that about 1 out of every 2,000 specimens had the Heartland virus, including the adult and nymph stages.

The virus, which was first identified in Missouri in 2009, has been documented in several states across the Southeast and Midwest. There have been more than 50 cases in people from 11 states, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with most cases requiring hospitalization. Most people diagnosed with the disease became sick from May to September, the CDC reported. Symptoms can be a high fever, fatigue, diarrhea, muscle pain, and low counts of white blood cells and platelets. It can take up to 2 weeks for symptoms to appear after a bite from an infected tick.

There are no vaccines or medications to prevent or treat the Heartland virus, according to the CDC. Doctors may be able to provide medications to improve symptoms. Overall, though, experts recommend that people avoid tick bites as much as possible, particularly during “high tick season” between April and September.

“You should be thinking about them almost any time of the year. It’s something that should be on everybody’s mind,” Jonathan Larson, PhD, an extension entomologist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, told USA Today.

The CDC recognizes 18 tick-borne diseases in the United States, including Lyme disease, which has become the most common vector-borne disease in the country. The black-legged tick, also known as the deer tick, typically transmits the bacteria that causes Lyme disease.

But researchers are still studying how the Heartland virus spreads. In the latest study, they found the virus in the lone star tick, which is named for a distinctive white spot on its back and is the most common tick in Georgia. The tick is also widely distributed in wooded areas across the Southeast, Midwest, and Eastern United States.

The research team will now collect ticks across Georgia for testing to better understand what could raise the risk of getting the Heartland virus.

“We want to start filling in the huge gaps of knowledge of the transmission cycle for Heartland virus,” Dr. Vazquez-Prokopec said. “We need to better understand the key actors that transmit the virus and any environmental factors that may help it to persist within different habitats.”

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

The Heartland virus is circulating in lone star ticks in Georgia, according to a new study published in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

People can get the virus after being bitten by an infected tick, which can lead to hospitalization and death. The virus has also been found among deer and other wild mammals.

“Heartland is an emerging infectious disease that is not well understood,” Gonzalo Vazquez-Prokopec, PhD, the senior study author and an expert in vector-borne diseases at Emory University, Atlanta, said in a statement.

“We’re trying to get ahead of this virus by learning everything that we can about it before it potentially becomes a bigger problem,” he said.

Researchers at Emory and the University of Georgia analyzed virus samples from nearly 10,000 ticks collected in central Georgia. They found that about 1 out of every 2,000 specimens had the Heartland virus, including the adult and nymph stages.

The virus, which was first identified in Missouri in 2009, has been documented in several states across the Southeast and Midwest. There have been more than 50 cases in people from 11 states, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with most cases requiring hospitalization. Most people diagnosed with the disease became sick from May to September, the CDC reported. Symptoms can be a high fever, fatigue, diarrhea, muscle pain, and low counts of white blood cells and platelets. It can take up to 2 weeks for symptoms to appear after a bite from an infected tick.

There are no vaccines or medications to prevent or treat the Heartland virus, according to the CDC. Doctors may be able to provide medications to improve symptoms. Overall, though, experts recommend that people avoid tick bites as much as possible, particularly during “high tick season” between April and September.

“You should be thinking about them almost any time of the year. It’s something that should be on everybody’s mind,” Jonathan Larson, PhD, an extension entomologist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, told USA Today.

The CDC recognizes 18 tick-borne diseases in the United States, including Lyme disease, which has become the most common vector-borne disease in the country. The black-legged tick, also known as the deer tick, typically transmits the bacteria that causes Lyme disease.

But researchers are still studying how the Heartland virus spreads. In the latest study, they found the virus in the lone star tick, which is named for a distinctive white spot on its back and is the most common tick in Georgia. The tick is also widely distributed in wooded areas across the Southeast, Midwest, and Eastern United States.

The research team will now collect ticks across Georgia for testing to better understand what could raise the risk of getting the Heartland virus.

“We want to start filling in the huge gaps of knowledge of the transmission cycle for Heartland virus,” Dr. Vazquez-Prokopec said. “We need to better understand the key actors that transmit the virus and any environmental factors that may help it to persist within different habitats.”

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

Vaccination strategies for people with rheumatic diseases have received significant scrutiny in regard to COVID-19 vaccines. People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at higher risk for adverse outcomes related to COVID-19 but also may have reduced immunogenicity to COVID-19 vaccines; thus, temporary withdrawal of medications has been suggested. Renner Araujo and colleagues report the results of a single-center randomized study from Brazil looking at the immune response to two doses of the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine in 129 patients with RA. They found that those who stopped methotrexate for 2 weeks after both doses had a higher rate of seroconversion, based on immunoglobulin (Ig) G positivity (78% vs. 54%), than those who remained on methotrexate. Antibody titers were also higher in the "methotrexate-hold" group. Flare rates were higher, based on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) — though not on the Disease Activity Scale-28 (DAS-28) — in patients who withdrew from methotrexate. This information is interesting with respect to the use of future inactivated virus vaccines, though its applicability to mRNA vaccines, other than predicting the possibility of flare, is less clear. However, the results could be useful in informed discussions and decision-making regarding withdrawing immunosuppressive drugs.

Some people with rheumatic diseases have been concerned about flares of disease activity related to COVID-19 vaccination. Tedeschi and colleagues conducted a prospective observational study of 71 patients with RA who were previously inoculated against COVID-19 with two mRNA vaccine doses or one adenovirus vector vaccine dose. Using the patient-reported Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index-5 (RADAI-5), they measured disease activity weekly from study enrollment through 4 weeks after an additional dose. They did not find any change in mean RADAI-5 score between pre- and post additional dose, nor was disease activity different in patients who stopped disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) compared with those who did not. The study also examined flow cytometry of lymphocyte populations among a subset of these patients (n = 27) and found no significant differences in T peripheral helper cells, T follicular helper cells, age-associated B cells, and plasmablasts among patients before and after the additional vaccine dose. Though the flow cytometry data are difficult to generalize, given the presumed heterogeneity and small number of patients, the lack of change in RA disease activity after the additional vaccine dose is reassuring.

Achievement of remission in patients with RA is also an area of continued interest, especially because of the difficulty of reaching this target under real-world conditions. Larid and colleagues report the prognostic factors of remission and characteristics of 215 patients with RA over 7 years of follow-up at an academic hospital in France. Notably, 33% of patients were in remission at 1 year, of whom 76% remained in remission at 7 years. However, 48% of patients who were not in remission at 1 year achieved remission at 7 years; 58% of study participants were in remission in total at 7 years of follow-up. Those in remission were more frequently being prescribed both conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) and biologic DMARD (bDMARD), while those not in remission at 7 years were receiving corticosteroids at higher doses. Owing to the lack of more precise treatment information, as well as the large number of patients who did not complete the 7-year follow-up visit, drawing conclusions is difficult. While we cannot say, based on these results, that use of certain medication regimens or strategies is more likely to lead to remission, the data at least lend support to the possibility of achieving remission in the long term.

Finally, Ahmad and colleagues performed a post-hoc analysis of the phase 3b AVERT trial of abatacept vs. methotrexate; 172 patients in remission were evaluated at 6 and 12 months after withdrawal of abatacept + methotrexate, abatacept monotherapy, or methotrexate monotherapy. Similar proportions of patients in all three treatment groups experienced a flare (about 58% at 6 months and 66% at 12 months). Patients with higher Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores and evidence of erosions on MRI at withdrawal were more likely to experience a flare, consistent with prior studies. This highlights potential predictors of withdrawal from therapy. Given the lack of significant difference between the treatment groups, however, it does raise the question of why combination therapy with abatacept and methotrexate is more likely to lead to patients achieving remission in studies without as big an effect on drug-free remission after withdrawal. A more stringent definition of remission rather than DAS-28 C-reactive protein may be desirable.

Vaccination strategies for people with rheumatic diseases have received significant scrutiny in regard to COVID-19 vaccines. People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at higher risk for adverse outcomes related to COVID-19 but also may have reduced immunogenicity to COVID-19 vaccines; thus, temporary withdrawal of medications has been suggested. Renner Araujo and colleagues report the results of a single-center randomized study from Brazil looking at the immune response to two doses of the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine in 129 patients with RA. They found that those who stopped methotrexate for 2 weeks after both doses had a higher rate of seroconversion, based on immunoglobulin (Ig) G positivity (78% vs. 54%), than those who remained on methotrexate. Antibody titers were also higher in the "methotrexate-hold" group. Flare rates were higher, based on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) — though not on the Disease Activity Scale-28 (DAS-28) — in patients who withdrew from methotrexate. This information is interesting with respect to the use of future inactivated virus vaccines, though its applicability to mRNA vaccines, other than predicting the possibility of flare, is less clear. However, the results could be useful in informed discussions and decision-making regarding withdrawing immunosuppressive drugs.

Some people with rheumatic diseases have been concerned about flares of disease activity related to COVID-19 vaccination. Tedeschi and colleagues conducted a prospective observational study of 71 patients with RA who were previously inoculated against COVID-19 with two mRNA vaccine doses or one adenovirus vector vaccine dose. Using the patient-reported Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index-5 (RADAI-5), they measured disease activity weekly from study enrollment through 4 weeks after an additional dose. They did not find any change in mean RADAI-5 score between pre- and post additional dose, nor was disease activity different in patients who stopped disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) compared with those who did not. The study also examined flow cytometry of lymphocyte populations among a subset of these patients (n = 27) and found no significant differences in T peripheral helper cells, T follicular helper cells, age-associated B cells, and plasmablasts among patients before and after the additional vaccine dose. Though the flow cytometry data are difficult to generalize, given the presumed heterogeneity and small number of patients, the lack of change in RA disease activity after the additional vaccine dose is reassuring.

Achievement of remission in patients with RA is also an area of continued interest, especially because of the difficulty of reaching this target under real-world conditions. Larid and colleagues report the prognostic factors of remission and characteristics of 215 patients with RA over 7 years of follow-up at an academic hospital in France. Notably, 33% of patients were in remission at 1 year, of whom 76% remained in remission at 7 years. However, 48% of patients who were not in remission at 1 year achieved remission at 7 years; 58% of study participants were in remission in total at 7 years of follow-up. Those in remission were more frequently being prescribed both conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) and biologic DMARD (bDMARD), while those not in remission at 7 years were receiving corticosteroids at higher doses. Owing to the lack of more precise treatment information, as well as the large number of patients who did not complete the 7-year follow-up visit, drawing conclusions is difficult. While we cannot say, based on these results, that use of certain medication regimens or strategies is more likely to lead to remission, the data at least lend support to the possibility of achieving remission in the long term.

Finally, Ahmad and colleagues performed a post-hoc analysis of the phase 3b AVERT trial of abatacept vs. methotrexate; 172 patients in remission were evaluated at 6 and 12 months after withdrawal of abatacept + methotrexate, abatacept monotherapy, or methotrexate monotherapy. Similar proportions of patients in all three treatment groups experienced a flare (about 58% at 6 months and 66% at 12 months). Patients with higher Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores and evidence of erosions on MRI at withdrawal were more likely to experience a flare, consistent with prior studies. This highlights potential predictors of withdrawal from therapy. Given the lack of significant difference between the treatment groups, however, it does raise the question of why combination therapy with abatacept and methotrexate is more likely to lead to patients achieving remission in studies without as big an effect on drug-free remission after withdrawal. A more stringent definition of remission rather than DAS-28 C-reactive protein may be desirable.

Vaccination strategies for people with rheumatic diseases have received significant scrutiny in regard to COVID-19 vaccines. People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at higher risk for adverse outcomes related to COVID-19 but also may have reduced immunogenicity to COVID-19 vaccines; thus, temporary withdrawal of medications has been suggested. Renner Araujo and colleagues report the results of a single-center randomized study from Brazil looking at the immune response to two doses of the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine in 129 patients with RA. They found that those who stopped methotrexate for 2 weeks after both doses had a higher rate of seroconversion, based on immunoglobulin (Ig) G positivity (78% vs. 54%), than those who remained on methotrexate. Antibody titers were also higher in the "methotrexate-hold" group. Flare rates were higher, based on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) — though not on the Disease Activity Scale-28 (DAS-28) — in patients who withdrew from methotrexate. This information is interesting with respect to the use of future inactivated virus vaccines, though its applicability to mRNA vaccines, other than predicting the possibility of flare, is less clear. However, the results could be useful in informed discussions and decision-making regarding withdrawing immunosuppressive drugs.

Some people with rheumatic diseases have been concerned about flares of disease activity related to COVID-19 vaccination. Tedeschi and colleagues conducted a prospective observational study of 71 patients with RA who were previously inoculated against COVID-19 with two mRNA vaccine doses or one adenovirus vector vaccine dose. Using the patient-reported Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index-5 (RADAI-5), they measured disease activity weekly from study enrollment through 4 weeks after an additional dose. They did not find any change in mean RADAI-5 score between pre- and post additional dose, nor was disease activity different in patients who stopped disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) compared with those who did not. The study also examined flow cytometry of lymphocyte populations among a subset of these patients (n = 27) and found no significant differences in T peripheral helper cells, T follicular helper cells, age-associated B cells, and plasmablasts among patients before and after the additional vaccine dose. Though the flow cytometry data are difficult to generalize, given the presumed heterogeneity and small number of patients, the lack of change in RA disease activity after the additional vaccine dose is reassuring.

Achievement of remission in patients with RA is also an area of continued interest, especially because of the difficulty of reaching this target under real-world conditions. Larid and colleagues report the prognostic factors of remission and characteristics of 215 patients with RA over 7 years of follow-up at an academic hospital in France. Notably, 33% of patients were in remission at 1 year, of whom 76% remained in remission at 7 years. However, 48% of patients who were not in remission at 1 year achieved remission at 7 years; 58% of study participants were in remission in total at 7 years of follow-up. Those in remission were more frequently being prescribed both conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) and biologic DMARD (bDMARD), while those not in remission at 7 years were receiving corticosteroids at higher doses. Owing to the lack of more precise treatment information, as well as the large number of patients who did not complete the 7-year follow-up visit, drawing conclusions is difficult. While we cannot say, based on these results, that use of certain medication regimens or strategies is more likely to lead to remission, the data at least lend support to the possibility of achieving remission in the long term.

Finally, Ahmad and colleagues performed a post-hoc analysis of the phase 3b AVERT trial of abatacept vs. methotrexate; 172 patients in remission were evaluated at 6 and 12 months after withdrawal of abatacept + methotrexate, abatacept monotherapy, or methotrexate monotherapy. Similar proportions of patients in all three treatment groups experienced a flare (about 58% at 6 months and 66% at 12 months). Patients with higher Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores and evidence of erosions on MRI at withdrawal were more likely to experience a flare, consistent with prior studies. This highlights potential predictors of withdrawal from therapy. Given the lack of significant difference between the treatment groups, however, it does raise the question of why combination therapy with abatacept and methotrexate is more likely to lead to patients achieving remission in studies without as big an effect on drug-free remission after withdrawal. A more stringent definition of remission rather than DAS-28 C-reactive protein may be desirable.

Yao and colleagues confirmed that there are well-known risk factors for recurrence of HCC after surgical resection. They retrospectively analyzed 1424 patients who underwent resection with curative intent for Barcelona Clinical Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage 0/A HCC in several centers in China. Of those patients, 679 (47.7%) developed recurrence at a median follow-up of 54.8 months, including 408 (60.1%) with an early recurrence (≤ 2 years after surgery) and 271 (39.9%) with a late recurrence (> 2 years). Cirrhosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.49; P < .001), preoperative alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level > 400 µg/L (aHR 1.28; P = .004), tumor size > 5 cm (aHR 1.74; P < .001), the presence of satellite nodules (aHR 1.35; P = .040), multiple tumors (aHR 1.63; P = .015), microvascular invasion (aHR 1.51; P < .001), and intraoperative blood transfusion (aHR 1.50; P = .013) were identified as independent risk factors associated with postoperative HCC recurrence. The authors concluded that those patients with risk factors for recurrence would benefit from more intensive surveillance and potentially additional liver-directed therapy with curative intent.

Not all patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and HCC are offered antiviral therapy. Takaura and colleagues confirmed that active HCV infection worsens the prognosis of patients with very early-stage HCC who undergo treatment with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). In this single-center retrospective study, 302 patients with BCLC stage 0 HCC who underwent RFA were analyzed. Of those patients, 195 had evidence of HCV, and 132 had an active infection. The authors concluded that active HCV infection was a significant risk factor for shorter overall survival (aHR 2.17; P = .003) and early recurrence of HCC (aHR 1.47; P = .022). Patients with active HCV infection had a shorter median overall survival (66 months vs 145 months) and recurrence-free survival (20 months vs 31 months) (both P < .001). Therefore, treatment of active HCV should be offered to patients even after the development of HCC.

Kuroda and colleagues retrospectively analyzed a multicenter cohort of 247 patients with unresectable HCC treated with lenvatinib between 2018 and 2020. Out of those, 63 patients who received lenvatinib and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) sequential therapy were propensity-score matched to those receiving lenvatinib monotherapy. The overall survival and progression-free survival in the sequential group were significantly higher than those in the lenvatinib monotherapy group, 31.2 (26.4-34.3) vs 15.7 (13.1-19.4) months and 12.2 (8.5-17.3) vs 6.7 (5.3-10.2) months (P = .002 and P = .037), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that the deep response was independently associated with the initial response to levatinib; the partial response showed an odds ratio of 13.75 (95% CI 0.41-1.32; P < .001). The authors concluded that sequential therapy might provide more clinical benefits than lenvatinib monotherapy in patients who responded to initial lenvatinib treatment, with objective response to initial lenvatinib being an independent factor predicting sequential therapy deep response.

Yao and colleagues confirmed that there are well-known risk factors for recurrence of HCC after surgical resection. They retrospectively analyzed 1424 patients who underwent resection with curative intent for Barcelona Clinical Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage 0/A HCC in several centers in China. Of those patients, 679 (47.7%) developed recurrence at a median follow-up of 54.8 months, including 408 (60.1%) with an early recurrence (≤ 2 years after surgery) and 271 (39.9%) with a late recurrence (> 2 years). Cirrhosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.49; P < .001), preoperative alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level > 400 µg/L (aHR 1.28; P = .004), tumor size > 5 cm (aHR 1.74; P < .001), the presence of satellite nodules (aHR 1.35; P = .040), multiple tumors (aHR 1.63; P = .015), microvascular invasion (aHR 1.51; P < .001), and intraoperative blood transfusion (aHR 1.50; P = .013) were identified as independent risk factors associated with postoperative HCC recurrence. The authors concluded that those patients with risk factors for recurrence would benefit from more intensive surveillance and potentially additional liver-directed therapy with curative intent.

Not all patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and HCC are offered antiviral therapy. Takaura and colleagues confirmed that active HCV infection worsens the prognosis of patients with very early-stage HCC who undergo treatment with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). In this single-center retrospective study, 302 patients with BCLC stage 0 HCC who underwent RFA were analyzed. Of those patients, 195 had evidence of HCV, and 132 had an active infection. The authors concluded that active HCV infection was a significant risk factor for shorter overall survival (aHR 2.17; P = .003) and early recurrence of HCC (aHR 1.47; P = .022). Patients with active HCV infection had a shorter median overall survival (66 months vs 145 months) and recurrence-free survival (20 months vs 31 months) (both P < .001). Therefore, treatment of active HCV should be offered to patients even after the development of HCC.

Kuroda and colleagues retrospectively analyzed a multicenter cohort of 247 patients with unresectable HCC treated with lenvatinib between 2018 and 2020. Out of those, 63 patients who received lenvatinib and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) sequential therapy were propensity-score matched to those receiving lenvatinib monotherapy. The overall survival and progression-free survival in the sequential group were significantly higher than those in the lenvatinib monotherapy group, 31.2 (26.4-34.3) vs 15.7 (13.1-19.4) months and 12.2 (8.5-17.3) vs 6.7 (5.3-10.2) months (P = .002 and P = .037), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that the deep response was independently associated with the initial response to levatinib; the partial response showed an odds ratio of 13.75 (95% CI 0.41-1.32; P < .001). The authors concluded that sequential therapy might provide more clinical benefits than lenvatinib monotherapy in patients who responded to initial lenvatinib treatment, with objective response to initial lenvatinib being an independent factor predicting sequential therapy deep response.

Yao and colleagues confirmed that there are well-known risk factors for recurrence of HCC after surgical resection. They retrospectively analyzed 1424 patients who underwent resection with curative intent for Barcelona Clinical Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage 0/A HCC in several centers in China. Of those patients, 679 (47.7%) developed recurrence at a median follow-up of 54.8 months, including 408 (60.1%) with an early recurrence (≤ 2 years after surgery) and 271 (39.9%) with a late recurrence (> 2 years). Cirrhosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.49; P < .001), preoperative alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level > 400 µg/L (aHR 1.28; P = .004), tumor size > 5 cm (aHR 1.74; P < .001), the presence of satellite nodules (aHR 1.35; P = .040), multiple tumors (aHR 1.63; P = .015), microvascular invasion (aHR 1.51; P < .001), and intraoperative blood transfusion (aHR 1.50; P = .013) were identified as independent risk factors associated with postoperative HCC recurrence. The authors concluded that those patients with risk factors for recurrence would benefit from more intensive surveillance and potentially additional liver-directed therapy with curative intent.

Not all patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and HCC are offered antiviral therapy. Takaura and colleagues confirmed that active HCV infection worsens the prognosis of patients with very early-stage HCC who undergo treatment with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). In this single-center retrospective study, 302 patients with BCLC stage 0 HCC who underwent RFA were analyzed. Of those patients, 195 had evidence of HCV, and 132 had an active infection. The authors concluded that active HCV infection was a significant risk factor for shorter overall survival (aHR 2.17; P = .003) and early recurrence of HCC (aHR 1.47; P = .022). Patients with active HCV infection had a shorter median overall survival (66 months vs 145 months) and recurrence-free survival (20 months vs 31 months) (both P < .001). Therefore, treatment of active HCV should be offered to patients even after the development of HCC.

Kuroda and colleagues retrospectively analyzed a multicenter cohort of 247 patients with unresectable HCC treated with lenvatinib between 2018 and 2020. Out of those, 63 patients who received lenvatinib and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) sequential therapy were propensity-score matched to those receiving lenvatinib monotherapy. The overall survival and progression-free survival in the sequential group were significantly higher than those in the lenvatinib monotherapy group, 31.2 (26.4-34.3) vs 15.7 (13.1-19.4) months and 12.2 (8.5-17.3) vs 6.7 (5.3-10.2) months (P = .002 and P = .037), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that the deep response was independently associated with the initial response to levatinib; the partial response showed an odds ratio of 13.75 (95% CI 0.41-1.32; P < .001). The authors concluded that sequential therapy might provide more clinical benefits than lenvatinib monotherapy in patients who responded to initial lenvatinib treatment, with objective response to initial lenvatinib being an independent factor predicting sequential therapy deep response.

Yao and colleagues confirmed that there are well-known risk factors for recurrence of HCC after surgical resection. They retrospectively analyzed 1424 patients who underwent resection with curative intent for Barcelona Clinical Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage 0/A HCC in several centers in China. Of those patients, 679 (47.7%) developed recurrence at a median follow-up of 54.8 months, including 408 (60.1%) with an early recurrence (≤ 2 years after surgery) and 271 (39.9%) with a late recurrence (> 2 years). Cirrhosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.49; P < .001), preoperative alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level > 400 µg/L (aHR 1.28; P = .004), tumor size > 5 cm (aHR 1.74; P < .001), the presence of satellite nodules (aHR 1.35; P = .040), multiple tumors (aHR 1.63; P = .015), microvascular invasion (aHR 1.51; P < .001), and intraoperative blood transfusion (aHR 1.50; P = .013) were identified as independent risk factors associated with postoperative HCC recurrence. The authors concluded that those patients with risk factors for recurrence would benefit from more intensive surveillance and potentially additional liver-directed therapy with curative intent.

Not all patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and HCC are offered antiviral therapy. Takaura and colleagues confirmed that active HCV infection worsens the prognosis of patients with very early-stage HCC who undergo treatment with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). In this single-center retrospective study, 302 patients with BCLC stage 0 HCC who underwent RFA were analyzed. Of those patients, 195 had evidence of HCV, and 132 had an active infection. The authors concluded that active HCV infection was a significant risk factor for shorter overall survival (aHR 2.17; P = .003) and early recurrence of HCC (aHR 1.47; P = .022). Patients with active HCV infection had a shorter median overall survival (66 months vs 145 months) and recurrence-free survival (20 months vs 31 months) (both P < .001). Therefore, treatment of active HCV should be offered to patients even after the development of HCC.

Kuroda and colleagues retrospectively analyzed a multicenter cohort of 247 patients with unresectable HCC treated with lenvatinib between 2018 and 2020. Out of those, 63 patients who received lenvatinib and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) sequential therapy were propensity-score matched to those receiving lenvatinib monotherapy. The overall survival and progression-free survival in the sequential group were significantly higher than those in the lenvatinib monotherapy group, 31.2 (26.4-34.3) vs 15.7 (13.1-19.4) months and 12.2 (8.5-17.3) vs 6.7 (5.3-10.2) months (P = .002 and P = .037), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that the deep response was independently associated with the initial response to levatinib; the partial response showed an odds ratio of 13.75 (95% CI 0.41-1.32; P < .001). The authors concluded that sequential therapy might provide more clinical benefits than lenvatinib monotherapy in patients who responded to initial lenvatinib treatment, with objective response to initial lenvatinib being an independent factor predicting sequential therapy deep response.

Yao and colleagues confirmed that there are well-known risk factors for recurrence of HCC after surgical resection. They retrospectively analyzed 1424 patients who underwent resection with curative intent for Barcelona Clinical Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage 0/A HCC in several centers in China. Of those patients, 679 (47.7%) developed recurrence at a median follow-up of 54.8 months, including 408 (60.1%) with an early recurrence (≤ 2 years after surgery) and 271 (39.9%) with a late recurrence (> 2 years). Cirrhosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.49; P < .001), preoperative alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level > 400 µg/L (aHR 1.28; P = .004), tumor size > 5 cm (aHR 1.74; P < .001), the presence of satellite nodules (aHR 1.35; P = .040), multiple tumors (aHR 1.63; P = .015), microvascular invasion (aHR 1.51; P < .001), and intraoperative blood transfusion (aHR 1.50; P = .013) were identified as independent risk factors associated with postoperative HCC recurrence. The authors concluded that those patients with risk factors for recurrence would benefit from more intensive surveillance and potentially additional liver-directed therapy with curative intent.

Not all patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and HCC are offered antiviral therapy. Takaura and colleagues confirmed that active HCV infection worsens the prognosis of patients with very early-stage HCC who undergo treatment with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). In this single-center retrospective study, 302 patients with BCLC stage 0 HCC who underwent RFA were analyzed. Of those patients, 195 had evidence of HCV, and 132 had an active infection. The authors concluded that active HCV infection was a significant risk factor for shorter overall survival (aHR 2.17; P = .003) and early recurrence of HCC (aHR 1.47; P = .022). Patients with active HCV infection had a shorter median overall survival (66 months vs 145 months) and recurrence-free survival (20 months vs 31 months) (both P < .001). Therefore, treatment of active HCV should be offered to patients even after the development of HCC.

Kuroda and colleagues retrospectively analyzed a multicenter cohort of 247 patients with unresectable HCC treated with lenvatinib between 2018 and 2020. Out of those, 63 patients who received lenvatinib and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) sequential therapy were propensity-score matched to those receiving lenvatinib monotherapy. The overall survival and progression-free survival in the sequential group were significantly higher than those in the lenvatinib monotherapy group, 31.2 (26.4-34.3) vs 15.7 (13.1-19.4) months and 12.2 (8.5-17.3) vs 6.7 (5.3-10.2) months (P = .002 and P = .037), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that the deep response was independently associated with the initial response to levatinib; the partial response showed an odds ratio of 13.75 (95% CI 0.41-1.32; P < .001). The authors concluded that sequential therapy might provide more clinical benefits than lenvatinib monotherapy in patients who responded to initial lenvatinib treatment, with objective response to initial lenvatinib being an independent factor predicting sequential therapy deep response.

Yao and colleagues confirmed that there are well-known risk factors for recurrence of HCC after surgical resection. They retrospectively analyzed 1424 patients who underwent resection with curative intent for Barcelona Clinical Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage 0/A HCC in several centers in China. Of those patients, 679 (47.7%) developed recurrence at a median follow-up of 54.8 months, including 408 (60.1%) with an early recurrence (≤ 2 years after surgery) and 271 (39.9%) with a late recurrence (> 2 years). Cirrhosis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.49; P < .001), preoperative alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level > 400 µg/L (aHR 1.28; P = .004), tumor size > 5 cm (aHR 1.74; P < .001), the presence of satellite nodules (aHR 1.35; P = .040), multiple tumors (aHR 1.63; P = .015), microvascular invasion (aHR 1.51; P < .001), and intraoperative blood transfusion (aHR 1.50; P = .013) were identified as independent risk factors associated with postoperative HCC recurrence. The authors concluded that those patients with risk factors for recurrence would benefit from more intensive surveillance and potentially additional liver-directed therapy with curative intent.

Not all patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and HCC are offered antiviral therapy. Takaura and colleagues confirmed that active HCV infection worsens the prognosis of patients with very early-stage HCC who undergo treatment with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). In this single-center retrospective study, 302 patients with BCLC stage 0 HCC who underwent RFA were analyzed. Of those patients, 195 had evidence of HCV, and 132 had an active infection. The authors concluded that active HCV infection was a significant risk factor for shorter overall survival (aHR 2.17; P = .003) and early recurrence of HCC (aHR 1.47; P = .022). Patients with active HCV infection had a shorter median overall survival (66 months vs 145 months) and recurrence-free survival (20 months vs 31 months) (both P < .001). Therefore, treatment of active HCV should be offered to patients even after the development of HCC.

Kuroda and colleagues retrospectively analyzed a multicenter cohort of 247 patients with unresectable HCC treated with lenvatinib between 2018 and 2020. Out of those, 63 patients who received lenvatinib and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) sequential therapy were propensity-score matched to those receiving lenvatinib monotherapy. The overall survival and progression-free survival in the sequential group were significantly higher than those in the lenvatinib monotherapy group, 31.2 (26.4-34.3) vs 15.7 (13.1-19.4) months and 12.2 (8.5-17.3) vs 6.7 (5.3-10.2) months (P = .002 and P = .037), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that the deep response was independently associated with the initial response to levatinib; the partial response showed an odds ratio of 13.75 (95% CI 0.41-1.32; P < .001). The authors concluded that sequential therapy might provide more clinical benefits than lenvatinib monotherapy in patients who responded to initial lenvatinib treatment, with objective response to initial lenvatinib being an independent factor predicting sequential therapy deep response.

Studies have demonstrated inferior survival outcomes associated with delays in time to surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. The timing of adjuvant endocrine therapy is also notable because of the favorable effect on recurrence risk and survival with these agents in early HR+ breast cancer. A cohort study from the National Cancer Database including 144,103 women demonstrated a 31% increase in the risk for death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31; P < .001) with a time to adjuvant hormone therapy (TTH) > 150 days (6.4% of patients) compared with those with TTH ≤ 150 days (93.6% of patients). Factors associated with delay in TTH included Black race, nonprivate insurance, metropolitan residence (vs. urban or rural), community hospital setting (vs. academic), higher comorbidity index, poorly differentiated tumors, higher stage, breast conservation surgery (vs. mastectomy), and radiation therapy. This study highlights the need to avoid unnecessary delays in adjuvant hormone therapy and encourages further exploration of barriers to timely initiation of breast cancer therapies to maximize outcomes for patients.

The role of reproductive hormones in breast cancer risk and carcinogenesis has been extensively studied and hormonal therapies are an essential component of the management of HR+ breast cancer. Lan and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis including 196 premenopausal and 137 postmenopausal women treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, investigating the correlation between pretreatment levels of reproductive hormone levels with pathologic and survival outcomes. Higher likelihood of achieving pathologic complete response was seen in premenopausal women with lower vs. higher testosterone levels (odds ratio [OR] 0.996; P = .026) and in postmenopausal women with higher vs. lower follicle-stimulating hormone levels (OR 1.045; P = .005). Furthermore, lower progesterone levels in premenopausal patients was associated with inferior overall survival (OS) (3-year OS 72.9% vs. 97.4% for lowest tertile progesterone vs. higher tertiles; P = .007). These data suggest a potential role of reproductive hormones in the preoperative evaluation for breast cancer patients. Also, the complex actions of progesterone and "crosstalk" between estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors continue to be elucidated and ongoing studies are evaluating progestin combined with endocrine therapy.

The CLEOPATRA trial has established the regimen of trastuzumab plus pertuzumab plus docetaxel as first-line therapy for metastatic HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer with an absolute survival benefit of 16.3 months vs. trastuzumab plus docetaxel. A retrospective study conducted in Ontario, Canada, explored real-world outcomes of pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus chemotherapy among 1158 patients and demonstrated a similar magnitude of survival improvement with the addition of pertuzumab (14.9 months) (Dai et al). The median OS was higher among patients receiving pertuzumab compared with control (40.2 vs. 25.3 months), and although the median OS was shorter in the real-world setting than in the CLEOPATRA trial, they had similar HRs for mortality reduction (0.66 for real-world and 0.69 for trial). Furthermore, there was no increase in cardiotoxicity and lower cumulative incidence of hospitalization at 1 year with pertuzumab vs. control (11.7% vs. 19.0%; P < .001). This study adds to the existing body of data supporting first-line treatment with pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus chemotherapy for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. The treatment landscape for these patients is certainly dynamic with the development of novel therapies and combinations in this space and resultant shifts in the current algorithm.

Recommended Additional Reading:

Hortobagyi GN et al. LBA17 Overall survival (OS) results from the phase III MONALEESA-2 (ML-2) trial of postmenopausal patients (pts) with hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with endocrine therapy (ET) ± ribociclib (RIB). Ann Oncol. 2021;32:S1290-S1291. Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.08.2090

Chavez-MacGregor M et al. Delayed initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy among patients with breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:322-329. Doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3856

Trabert B et al. Progesterone and breast cancer. Endocr Rev. 2020;41:320-344. Doi: 10.1210/endrev/bnz001

Swain SM et al; on behalf of the CLEOPATRA study group. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (CLEOPATRA): end-of-study results from a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:519-530. Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30863-0

Studies have demonstrated inferior survival outcomes associated with delays in time to surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. The timing of adjuvant endocrine therapy is also notable because of the favorable effect on recurrence risk and survival with these agents in early HR+ breast cancer. A cohort study from the National Cancer Database including 144,103 women demonstrated a 31% increase in the risk for death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31; P < .001) with a time to adjuvant hormone therapy (TTH) > 150 days (6.4% of patients) compared with those with TTH ≤ 150 days (93.6% of patients). Factors associated with delay in TTH included Black race, nonprivate insurance, metropolitan residence (vs. urban or rural), community hospital setting (vs. academic), higher comorbidity index, poorly differentiated tumors, higher stage, breast conservation surgery (vs. mastectomy), and radiation therapy. This study highlights the need to avoid unnecessary delays in adjuvant hormone therapy and encourages further exploration of barriers to timely initiation of breast cancer therapies to maximize outcomes for patients.

The role of reproductive hormones in breast cancer risk and carcinogenesis has been extensively studied and hormonal therapies are an essential component of the management of HR+ breast cancer. Lan and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis including 196 premenopausal and 137 postmenopausal women treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, investigating the correlation between pretreatment levels of reproductive hormone levels with pathologic and survival outcomes. Higher likelihood of achieving pathologic complete response was seen in premenopausal women with lower vs. higher testosterone levels (odds ratio [OR] 0.996; P = .026) and in postmenopausal women with higher vs. lower follicle-stimulating hormone levels (OR 1.045; P = .005). Furthermore, lower progesterone levels in premenopausal patients was associated with inferior overall survival (OS) (3-year OS 72.9% vs. 97.4% for lowest tertile progesterone vs. higher tertiles; P = .007). These data suggest a potential role of reproductive hormones in the preoperative evaluation for breast cancer patients. Also, the complex actions of progesterone and "crosstalk" between estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors continue to be elucidated and ongoing studies are evaluating progestin combined with endocrine therapy.

The CLEOPATRA trial has established the regimen of trastuzumab plus pertuzumab plus docetaxel as first-line therapy for metastatic HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer with an absolute survival benefit of 16.3 months vs. trastuzumab plus docetaxel. A retrospective study conducted in Ontario, Canada, explored real-world outcomes of pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus chemotherapy among 1158 patients and demonstrated a similar magnitude of survival improvement with the addition of pertuzumab (14.9 months) (Dai et al). The median OS was higher among patients receiving pertuzumab compared with control (40.2 vs. 25.3 months), and although the median OS was shorter in the real-world setting than in the CLEOPATRA trial, they had similar HRs for mortality reduction (0.66 for real-world and 0.69 for trial). Furthermore, there was no increase in cardiotoxicity and lower cumulative incidence of hospitalization at 1 year with pertuzumab vs. control (11.7% vs. 19.0%; P < .001). This study adds to the existing body of data supporting first-line treatment with pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus chemotherapy for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. The treatment landscape for these patients is certainly dynamic with the development of novel therapies and combinations in this space and resultant shifts in the current algorithm.

Recommended Additional Reading:

Hortobagyi GN et al. LBA17 Overall survival (OS) results from the phase III MONALEESA-2 (ML-2) trial of postmenopausal patients (pts) with hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with endocrine therapy (ET) ± ribociclib (RIB). Ann Oncol. 2021;32:S1290-S1291. Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.08.2090

Chavez-MacGregor M et al. Delayed initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy among patients with breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:322-329. Doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3856

Trabert B et al. Progesterone and breast cancer. Endocr Rev. 2020;41:320-344. Doi: 10.1210/endrev/bnz001

Swain SM et al; on behalf of the CLEOPATRA study group. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (CLEOPATRA): end-of-study results from a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:519-530. Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30863-0

Studies have demonstrated inferior survival outcomes associated with delays in time to surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. The timing of adjuvant endocrine therapy is also notable because of the favorable effect on recurrence risk and survival with these agents in early HR+ breast cancer. A cohort study from the National Cancer Database including 144,103 women demonstrated a 31% increase in the risk for death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31; P < .001) with a time to adjuvant hormone therapy (TTH) > 150 days (6.4% of patients) compared with those with TTH ≤ 150 days (93.6% of patients). Factors associated with delay in TTH included Black race, nonprivate insurance, metropolitan residence (vs. urban or rural), community hospital setting (vs. academic), higher comorbidity index, poorly differentiated tumors, higher stage, breast conservation surgery (vs. mastectomy), and radiation therapy. This study highlights the need to avoid unnecessary delays in adjuvant hormone therapy and encourages further exploration of barriers to timely initiation of breast cancer therapies to maximize outcomes for patients.

The role of reproductive hormones in breast cancer risk and carcinogenesis has been extensively studied and hormonal therapies are an essential component of the management of HR+ breast cancer. Lan and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis including 196 premenopausal and 137 postmenopausal women treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, investigating the correlation between pretreatment levels of reproductive hormone levels with pathologic and survival outcomes. Higher likelihood of achieving pathologic complete response was seen in premenopausal women with lower vs. higher testosterone levels (odds ratio [OR] 0.996; P = .026) and in postmenopausal women with higher vs. lower follicle-stimulating hormone levels (OR 1.045; P = .005). Furthermore, lower progesterone levels in premenopausal patients was associated with inferior overall survival (OS) (3-year OS 72.9% vs. 97.4% for lowest tertile progesterone vs. higher tertiles; P = .007). These data suggest a potential role of reproductive hormones in the preoperative evaluation for breast cancer patients. Also, the complex actions of progesterone and "crosstalk" between estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors continue to be elucidated and ongoing studies are evaluating progestin combined with endocrine therapy.

The CLEOPATRA trial has established the regimen of trastuzumab plus pertuzumab plus docetaxel as first-line therapy for metastatic HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer with an absolute survival benefit of 16.3 months vs. trastuzumab plus docetaxel. A retrospective study conducted in Ontario, Canada, explored real-world outcomes of pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus chemotherapy among 1158 patients and demonstrated a similar magnitude of survival improvement with the addition of pertuzumab (14.9 months) (Dai et al). The median OS was higher among patients receiving pertuzumab compared with control (40.2 vs. 25.3 months), and although the median OS was shorter in the real-world setting than in the CLEOPATRA trial, they had similar HRs for mortality reduction (0.66 for real-world and 0.69 for trial). Furthermore, there was no increase in cardiotoxicity and lower cumulative incidence of hospitalization at 1 year with pertuzumab vs. control (11.7% vs. 19.0%; P < .001). This study adds to the existing body of data supporting first-line treatment with pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus chemotherapy for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. The treatment landscape for these patients is certainly dynamic with the development of novel therapies and combinations in this space and resultant shifts in the current algorithm.

Recommended Additional Reading:

Hortobagyi GN et al. LBA17 Overall survival (OS) results from the phase III MONALEESA-2 (ML-2) trial of postmenopausal patients (pts) with hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HR+/HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with endocrine therapy (ET) ± ribociclib (RIB). Ann Oncol. 2021;32:S1290-S1291. Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.08.2090

Chavez-MacGregor M et al. Delayed initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy among patients with breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:322-329. Doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3856

Trabert B et al. Progesterone and breast cancer. Endocr Rev. 2020;41:320-344. Doi: 10.1210/endrev/bnz001

Swain SM et al; on behalf of the CLEOPATRA study group. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (CLEOPATRA): end-of-study results from a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:519-530. Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30863-0

CHICAGO - Posterior-stabilized (PS) bearings used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may increase the risk of revision compared with bearings of other design, new data suggest.

That possibility has previously been reported in studies outside the United States, and now an analysis of more than 300,000 cases in the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) suggests it’s the case in the United States as well.

Principal investigator Ryland Kagan, MD, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, told this news organization, “What’s unique about our experience in the U.S. is our overall high use of PS implants.”

More than half of TKAs in the United States use the PS bearings; in comparison, in Australia and European countries, PS use is closer to 20%, he said. Because of this disparity, previous studies have not been seen as generalizable to the United States, he said.

Researchers used AJRR data from 2012 to 2019 and identified all primary TKA procedures performed during that period. Cases were linked to supplemental Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data to find revision procedures that may not have been included in the AJRR database.

Jamil Kendall, MD, an orthopedic resident at OHSU, was first author on the study. The team evaluated patient demographics, polyethylene characteristics, procedure dates, and cause for revision in the 305,279 cases.

Of those cases in which implant characteristics were reported, 161,486 (52.9%) patients received PS bearings, and 143,793 (47.1%) received minimally stabilized bearings.

The researchers compared three minimally stabilized implants (cruciate retaining [CR], anterior stabilized [AS], or pivot bearing designs) with each other for risk and then compared minimally stabilized options as a group with the PS bearings.

They found no significant differences among the three minimally stabilized options.

But revision risk was higher when they compared the minimally stabilized implants with the PS bearing implants. Use of PS bearings had a hazard ratio of 1.25 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.3; P < .0001) for all-cause revision and an HR of 1.18 (95% CI, 1.0-1.4; P = .02) for infection.

Among the patients with minimally stabilized bearings, 1,693 (1.2%) underwent revision for any cause, and 334 (0.2%) underwent revision for infection. For patients with PS bearings, 2,406 (1.5%) underwent revision for any cause, and 446 (0.3%) underwent revision for infection.

Even a small difference significant

Dr. Kagan said, “The difference isn’t dramatic, but when you think of the total number of total knee arthroplasties done, you’re talking about millions of procedures. Even with a small increased risk, you’re going to see a large influence for a population.”

Richard Lynn Illgen, MD, director of the University of Wisconsin-Madison joint replacement program, told this news organization this work identifies a trend, but he pointed out that registry-based studies have important limitations.

“They cannot establish causality,” he said. “There are many potential confounding variables and potential selection biases that could affect the study. Specifically, the study did not control for degree of deformity or medical comorbidities. Although some surgeons routinely use PS designs for all primary TKAs, others use PS designs for patients with more severe deformities. It is possible that PS designs were used more frequently in patients with a greater degree of deformity, and this could introduce a selection bias.”

He added that no data were included to enable stratification of groups according to medical comorbidities.

“It is possible that selection bias exists comparing the relative degree of medical comorbidities between patients in the PS TKA and minimally constrained TKA groups,” Dr. Illgen said.

He said further prospective, randomized studies are needed to eliminate selection bias and to better determine whether the observed pattern of increased risk of revision holds up, compared with the minimally supported versions.

The authors acknowledged those limitations, but Dr. Kagan said the high percentage of PS procedures in the United States helps mitigate potential bias.

Dr. Illgen serves as a consultant and developer for Stryker, is chair of the AAOS AJRR Research Projects Subcommittee, and is a member of the AJRR Steering Committee. Dr. Kagan receives research support from KCI, Ortho Development, and Smith & Nephew, where he is also a paid consultant. Dr. Kendall reports no relevant financial relationships. Another coauthor of the study is a paid consultant for 3M, Heraeus, Immunis, Smith & Nephew, Zimmer Biomet, and Total Joint Orthopedics and has stock or stock options in Joint Development.

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

CHICAGO - Posterior-stabilized (PS) bearings used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may increase the risk of revision compared with bearings of other design, new data suggest.

That possibility has previously been reported in studies outside the United States, and now an analysis of more than 300,000 cases in the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) suggests it’s the case in the United States as well.

Principal investigator Ryland Kagan, MD, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, told this news organization, “What’s unique about our experience in the U.S. is our overall high use of PS implants.”

More than half of TKAs in the United States use the PS bearings; in comparison, in Australia and European countries, PS use is closer to 20%, he said. Because of this disparity, previous studies have not been seen as generalizable to the United States, he said.

Researchers used AJRR data from 2012 to 2019 and identified all primary TKA procedures performed during that period. Cases were linked to supplemental Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data to find revision procedures that may not have been included in the AJRR database.

Jamil Kendall, MD, an orthopedic resident at OHSU, was first author on the study. The team evaluated patient demographics, polyethylene characteristics, procedure dates, and cause for revision in the 305,279 cases.

Of those cases in which implant characteristics were reported, 161,486 (52.9%) patients received PS bearings, and 143,793 (47.1%) received minimally stabilized bearings.

The researchers compared three minimally stabilized implants (cruciate retaining [CR], anterior stabilized [AS], or pivot bearing designs) with each other for risk and then compared minimally stabilized options as a group with the PS bearings.

They found no significant differences among the three minimally stabilized options.

But revision risk was higher when they compared the minimally stabilized implants with the PS bearing implants. Use of PS bearings had a hazard ratio of 1.25 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.3; P < .0001) for all-cause revision and an HR of 1.18 (95% CI, 1.0-1.4; P = .02) for infection.

Among the patients with minimally stabilized bearings, 1,693 (1.2%) underwent revision for any cause, and 334 (0.2%) underwent revision for infection. For patients with PS bearings, 2,406 (1.5%) underwent revision for any cause, and 446 (0.3%) underwent revision for infection.

Even a small difference significant

Dr. Kagan said, “The difference isn’t dramatic, but when you think of the total number of total knee arthroplasties done, you’re talking about millions of procedures. Even with a small increased risk, you’re going to see a large influence for a population.”

Richard Lynn Illgen, MD, director of the University of Wisconsin-Madison joint replacement program, told this news organization this work identifies a trend, but he pointed out that registry-based studies have important limitations.

“They cannot establish causality,” he said. “There are many potential confounding variables and potential selection biases that could affect the study. Specifically, the study did not control for degree of deformity or medical comorbidities. Although some surgeons routinely use PS designs for all primary TKAs, others use PS designs for patients with more severe deformities. It is possible that PS designs were used more frequently in patients with a greater degree of deformity, and this could introduce a selection bias.”

He added that no data were included to enable stratification of groups according to medical comorbidities.

“It is possible that selection bias exists comparing the relative degree of medical comorbidities between patients in the PS TKA and minimally constrained TKA groups,” Dr. Illgen said.

He said further prospective, randomized studies are needed to eliminate selection bias and to better determine whether the observed pattern of increased risk of revision holds up, compared with the minimally supported versions.

The authors acknowledged those limitations, but Dr. Kagan said the high percentage of PS procedures in the United States helps mitigate potential bias.

Dr. Illgen serves as a consultant and developer for Stryker, is chair of the AAOS AJRR Research Projects Subcommittee, and is a member of the AJRR Steering Committee. Dr. Kagan receives research support from KCI, Ortho Development, and Smith & Nephew, where he is also a paid consultant. Dr. Kendall reports no relevant financial relationships. Another coauthor of the study is a paid consultant for 3M, Heraeus, Immunis, Smith & Nephew, Zimmer Biomet, and Total Joint Orthopedics and has stock or stock options in Joint Development.

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

CHICAGO - Posterior-stabilized (PS) bearings used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may increase the risk of revision compared with bearings of other design, new data suggest.

That possibility has previously been reported in studies outside the United States, and now an analysis of more than 300,000 cases in the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) suggests it’s the case in the United States as well.

Principal investigator Ryland Kagan, MD, of the department of orthopedic surgery at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, told this news organization, “What’s unique about our experience in the U.S. is our overall high use of PS implants.”

More than half of TKAs in the United States use the PS bearings; in comparison, in Australia and European countries, PS use is closer to 20%, he said. Because of this disparity, previous studies have not been seen as generalizable to the United States, he said.

Researchers used AJRR data from 2012 to 2019 and identified all primary TKA procedures performed during that period. Cases were linked to supplemental Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data to find revision procedures that may not have been included in the AJRR database.

Jamil Kendall, MD, an orthopedic resident at OHSU, was first author on the study. The team evaluated patient demographics, polyethylene characteristics, procedure dates, and cause for revision in the 305,279 cases.

Of those cases in which implant characteristics were reported, 161,486 (52.9%) patients received PS bearings, and 143,793 (47.1%) received minimally stabilized bearings.

The researchers compared three minimally stabilized implants (cruciate retaining [CR], anterior stabilized [AS], or pivot bearing designs) with each other for risk and then compared minimally stabilized options as a group with the PS bearings.

They found no significant differences among the three minimally stabilized options.

But revision risk was higher when they compared the minimally stabilized implants with the PS bearing implants. Use of PS bearings had a hazard ratio of 1.25 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.3; P < .0001) for all-cause revision and an HR of 1.18 (95% CI, 1.0-1.4; P = .02) for infection.

Among the patients with minimally stabilized bearings, 1,693 (1.2%) underwent revision for any cause, and 334 (0.2%) underwent revision for infection. For patients with PS bearings, 2,406 (1.5%) underwent revision for any cause, and 446 (0.3%) underwent revision for infection.

Even a small difference significant

Dr. Kagan said, “The difference isn’t dramatic, but when you think of the total number of total knee arthroplasties done, you’re talking about millions of procedures. Even with a small increased risk, you’re going to see a large influence for a population.”

Richard Lynn Illgen, MD, director of the University of Wisconsin-Madison joint replacement program, told this news organization this work identifies a trend, but he pointed out that registry-based studies have important limitations.

“They cannot establish causality,” he said. “There are many potential confounding variables and potential selection biases that could affect the study. Specifically, the study did not control for degree of deformity or medical comorbidities. Although some surgeons routinely use PS designs for all primary TKAs, others use PS designs for patients with more severe deformities. It is possible that PS designs were used more frequently in patients with a greater degree of deformity, and this could introduce a selection bias.”

He added that no data were included to enable stratification of groups according to medical comorbidities.

“It is possible that selection bias exists comparing the relative degree of medical comorbidities between patients in the PS TKA and minimally constrained TKA groups,” Dr. Illgen said.

He said further prospective, randomized studies are needed to eliminate selection bias and to better determine whether the observed pattern of increased risk of revision holds up, compared with the minimally supported versions.

The authors acknowledged those limitations, but Dr. Kagan said the high percentage of PS procedures in the United States helps mitigate potential bias.

Dr. Illgen serves as a consultant and developer for Stryker, is chair of the AAOS AJRR Research Projects Subcommittee, and is a member of the AJRR Steering Committee. Dr. Kagan receives research support from KCI, Ortho Development, and Smith & Nephew, where he is also a paid consultant. Dr. Kendall reports no relevant financial relationships. Another coauthor of the study is a paid consultant for 3M, Heraeus, Immunis, Smith & Nephew, Zimmer Biomet, and Total Joint Orthopedics and has stock or stock options in Joint Development.

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

CHICAGO - Patients 80 years or older undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have similar odds of complications, compared with 65- to 79-year-old patients, an analysis of more than 1.7 million cases suggests.

Priscilla Varghese, MBA, MS, and an MD candidate at State University of New York, Brooklyn, led the research, presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2022 annual meeting.

Ms. Varghese’s team queried a Medicare claims database for the years 2005-2014 and analyzed information from 295,908 octogenarians and 1.4 million control patients aged 65-79 who received TKA.

Study group patients were randomly matched to controls in a 1:5 ratio according to gender and comorbidities, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and kidney failure.

Octogenarians were found to have higher incidence and odds of 90-day readmission rates (10.59% vs. 9.35%; odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.16; P < .0001).   

Hospital stays were also longer (3.69 days ± 1.95 vs. 3.23 days ± 1.83; P < .0001), compared with controls.

Reassuring older patients

However, Ms. Varghese told this news organization she was surprised to find that the older group had equal incidence and odds of developing medical complications (1.26% vs. 1.26%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03; P =.99).

“That’s a really important piece of information to have when we are advising 80-year-olds – to be able to say their risk of adverse outcomes is similar to someone who’s 10 years, 15 years younger,” she said. “It’s really reassuring.”

These results offer good news to older patients who might be hesitant to undergo the surgery, and good news in general as life expectancy increases and people stay active long into their later years, forecasting the need for more knee replacements.

The number of total knee replacements is expected to rise dramatically in the United States.

In a 2017 study published in Osteoarthritis Cartilage, the authors write, “the number of TKAs in the U.S., which already has the highest [incidence rate] of knee arthroplasty in the world, is expected to increase 143% by 2050.”

Thomas Fleeter, MD, an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Reston, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization this study reinforces that “it’s OK to do knee replacements in elderly people; you just have to pick the right ones.”

He pointed out that the study also showed that the 80-and-older patients don’t have the added risk of loosening their mechanical components after the surgery, likely because they are less inclined than their younger counterparts to follow surgery with strenuous activities.

In a subanalysis, revision rates were also lower for the octogenarians (0.01% vs. 0.02% for controls).

Octogenarians who had TKA were found to have lower incidence and odds (1.6% vs. 1.93%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88, P < .001) of implant-related complications, compared with the younger group.

The increased length of stay would be expected, Dr. Fleeter said, because those 80-plus may need a bit more help getting out of bed and may not have as much support at home.

A total knee replacement can have the substantial benefit of improving octogenarians’ ability to maintain their independence longer by facilitating driving or walking.

“It’s a small and manageable risk if you pick the right patients,” he said.

Demand for TKAs rises as population ages

As patients are living longer and wanting to maintain their mobility and as obesity rates are rising, more older patients will seek total knee replacements, especially since the payoff is high, Ms. Varghese noted.

“People who undergo this operation tend to show remarkable decreases in pain and increases in range of motion,” she said.

This study has the advantage of a more personalized look at risks of TKA because it stratifies age groups.

“The literature tends to look at the elderly population as one big cohort – 65 and older,” Ms. Varghese said. “We were able to provide patients more specific data.”

Ms. Varghese and Dr. Fleeter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO - Patients 80 years or older undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have similar odds of complications, compared with 65- to 79-year-old patients, an analysis of more than 1.7 million cases suggests.

Priscilla Varghese, MBA, MS, and an MD candidate at State University of New York, Brooklyn, led the research, presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2022 annual meeting.

Ms. Varghese’s team queried a Medicare claims database for the years 2005-2014 and analyzed information from 295,908 octogenarians and 1.4 million control patients aged 65-79 who received TKA.

Study group patients were randomly matched to controls in a 1:5 ratio according to gender and comorbidities, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and kidney failure.

Octogenarians were found to have higher incidence and odds of 90-day readmission rates (10.59% vs. 9.35%; odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.16; P < .0001).   

Hospital stays were also longer (3.69 days ± 1.95 vs. 3.23 days ± 1.83; P < .0001), compared with controls.

Reassuring older patients

However, Ms. Varghese told this news organization she was surprised to find that the older group had equal incidence and odds of developing medical complications (1.26% vs. 1.26%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03; P =.99).

“That’s a really important piece of information to have when we are advising 80-year-olds – to be able to say their risk of adverse outcomes is similar to someone who’s 10 years, 15 years younger,” she said. “It’s really reassuring.”

These results offer good news to older patients who might be hesitant to undergo the surgery, and good news in general as life expectancy increases and people stay active long into their later years, forecasting the need for more knee replacements.

The number of total knee replacements is expected to rise dramatically in the United States.

In a 2017 study published in Osteoarthritis Cartilage, the authors write, “the number of TKAs in the U.S., which already has the highest [incidence rate] of knee arthroplasty in the world, is expected to increase 143% by 2050.”

Thomas Fleeter, MD, an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Reston, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization this study reinforces that “it’s OK to do knee replacements in elderly people; you just have to pick the right ones.”

He pointed out that the study also showed that the 80-and-older patients don’t have the added risk of loosening their mechanical components after the surgery, likely because they are less inclined than their younger counterparts to follow surgery with strenuous activities.

In a subanalysis, revision rates were also lower for the octogenarians (0.01% vs. 0.02% for controls).

Octogenarians who had TKA were found to have lower incidence and odds (1.6% vs. 1.93%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88, P < .001) of implant-related complications, compared with the younger group.

The increased length of stay would be expected, Dr. Fleeter said, because those 80-plus may need a bit more help getting out of bed and may not have as much support at home.

A total knee replacement can have the substantial benefit of improving octogenarians’ ability to maintain their independence longer by facilitating driving or walking.

“It’s a small and manageable risk if you pick the right patients,” he said.

Demand for TKAs rises as population ages

As patients are living longer and wanting to maintain their mobility and as obesity rates are rising, more older patients will seek total knee replacements, especially since the payoff is high, Ms. Varghese noted.

“People who undergo this operation tend to show remarkable decreases in pain and increases in range of motion,” she said.

This study has the advantage of a more personalized look at risks of TKA because it stratifies age groups.

“The literature tends to look at the elderly population as one big cohort – 65 and older,” Ms. Varghese said. “We were able to provide patients more specific data.”

Ms. Varghese and Dr. Fleeter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO - Patients 80 years or older undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have similar odds of complications, compared with 65- to 79-year-old patients, an analysis of more than 1.7 million cases suggests.

Priscilla Varghese, MBA, MS, and an MD candidate at State University of New York, Brooklyn, led the research, presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2022 annual meeting.

Ms. Varghese’s team queried a Medicare claims database for the years 2005-2014 and analyzed information from 295,908 octogenarians and 1.4 million control patients aged 65-79 who received TKA.

Study group patients were randomly matched to controls in a 1:5 ratio according to gender and comorbidities, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and kidney failure.

Octogenarians were found to have higher incidence and odds of 90-day readmission rates (10.59% vs. 9.35%; odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.16; P < .0001).   

Hospital stays were also longer (3.69 days ± 1.95 vs. 3.23 days ± 1.83; P < .0001), compared with controls.

Reassuring older patients

However, Ms. Varghese told this news organization she was surprised to find that the older group had equal incidence and odds of developing medical complications (1.26% vs. 1.26%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03; P =.99).

“That’s a really important piece of information to have when we are advising 80-year-olds – to be able to say their risk of adverse outcomes is similar to someone who’s 10 years, 15 years younger,” she said. “It’s really reassuring.”

These results offer good news to older patients who might be hesitant to undergo the surgery, and good news in general as life expectancy increases and people stay active long into their later years, forecasting the need for more knee replacements.

The number of total knee replacements is expected to rise dramatically in the United States.

In a 2017 study published in Osteoarthritis Cartilage, the authors write, “the number of TKAs in the U.S., which already has the highest [incidence rate] of knee arthroplasty in the world, is expected to increase 143% by 2050.”

Thomas Fleeter, MD, an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Reston, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization this study reinforces that “it’s OK to do knee replacements in elderly people; you just have to pick the right ones.”

He pointed out that the study also showed that the 80-and-older patients don’t have the added risk of loosening their mechanical components after the surgery, likely because they are less inclined than their younger counterparts to follow surgery with strenuous activities.

In a subanalysis, revision rates were also lower for the octogenarians (0.01% vs. 0.02% for controls).

Octogenarians who had TKA were found to have lower incidence and odds (1.6% vs. 1.93%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88, P < .001) of implant-related complications, compared with the younger group.

The increased length of stay would be expected, Dr. Fleeter said, because those 80-plus may need a bit more help getting out of bed and may not have as much support at home.

A total knee replacement can have the substantial benefit of improving octogenarians’ ability to maintain their independence longer by facilitating driving or walking.

“It’s a small and manageable risk if you pick the right patients,” he said.

Demand for TKAs rises as population ages

As patients are living longer and wanting to maintain their mobility and as obesity rates are rising, more older patients will seek total knee replacements, especially since the payoff is high, Ms. Varghese noted.

“People who undergo this operation tend to show remarkable decreases in pain and increases in range of motion,” she said.

This study has the advantage of a more personalized look at risks of TKA because it stratifies age groups.

“The literature tends to look at the elderly population as one big cohort – 65 and older,” Ms. Varghese said. “We were able to provide patients more specific data.”

Ms. Varghese and Dr. Fleeter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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