Identifying risk factors associated with transition from cutaneous psoriasis to arthritic psoriasis remains a hot area of research. In a retrospective nested case-control study using the resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project, Karmacharya et al¹ identified 164 patients with incident PsA between 2000 and 2017. Among the 158 total patients satisfying study criteria, 64 (41%) had concurrent psoriasis and PsA and 94 (59%) had onset of psoriasis before PsA. The median time from psoriasis diagnosis to the incidence of PsA was 35.5 months with age at psoriasis onset (odds ratio [OR] per 10-year decrease 1.63; 95% CI 1.26-2.11) and its severity (OR for severe vs. mild 3.65; 95% CI 1.18-11.32) being associated with having a psoriasis diagnosis >1 year prior to incident PsA. Early onset as well as severe psoriasis is associated with the HLA- C*06 allele as is longer psoriasis-PsA latency. Although not evaluated in this study, this genetic factor, or other factors such as detection bias, may underly these observations.

Once diagnosed, stratification of PsA severity is important for planning treatment. Towards this goal, Dubash et al² demonstrated that the presence of dactylitis indicates a more severe PsA phenotype. In a study of 177 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naive patients with early PsA, they found that those with dactylitis (46%) had significantly higher tender and swollen joint counts and C-reactive protein than those with non-dactylitic PsA. Ultrasound synovitis and erosions were also significantly more prevalent in dactylitic PsA. Thus, the presence of dactylitis indicates a more severe phenotype, and patients with dactylitis should be treated aggressively to improve long-term outcomes.

Novel therapies are being frequently evaluated in PsA and a recent target is interleukin (IL)-23, a key cytokine in the T-helper 17 (Th17) pathway and in the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease. Risankizumab is a novel monoclonal antibody targeting IL-23. In the double-blind phase 3 KEEPsAKE 1 study including 964 patients with active PsA and inadequate response to one or more conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. They were randomly assigned to receive 150 mg risankizumab or placebo, Kristensen et al³ demonstrated that, at week 24, at least a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20) was achieved by a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving risankizumab vs. placebo (57.3% vs. 33.5%; P < .001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were mild-to-moderate and reported at similar frequencies in the risankizumab (40.4%) and placebo (38.7%) groups. Thus, risankizumab was efficacious in reducing clinical manifestations of PsA in patients with inadequate response to csDMARDs with no new adverse events. An important question when treating patients with PsA with targeted therapies is the need for concomitant therapy with csDMARDs. In a pooled analysis of 2 phase 3 trials, SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2,  1,916 patients with active PsA with an inadequate response to ≥1 non-biologic (nb) DMARDs or biologic DMARDs were randomly assigned to placebo, 15 mg upadacitinib, or 30 mg upadacitinib as monotherapy or in combination with ≤2 nbDMARDs for 24 weeks, Nash et al⁴ demonstrated that at week 12, ACR20 response was achieved by a similar proportion of patients receiving 15 mg upadacitinib or 30 mg upadacitinib as monotherapy (15 mg: 33.7%; 95% CI 24.4%-43.1%; 30 mg: 45.7%; 95% CI 36.9%-54.5%) or combination therapy (15 mg: 34.0%; 95% CI 27.9%-40.1%; 30 mg: 39.6%; 95% CI 33.7%-45.5%). Adverse events were generally similar between monotherapy and combination therapy. Although, we don’t have information regarding the sustainability of the response, these data indicate that upadacitinib may be used without concomitant csDMARDs in PsA.

References

1. Karmacharya P et al. Time to transition from psoriasis to psoriatic arthritis: A population-based study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2021(Dec 31):S0049-0172(21)00230-4.
2. Dubash S et al. Dactylitis is an indicator of a more severe phenotype independently associated with greater SJC, CRP, ultrasound synovitis and erosive damage in DMARD-naive early psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021(Dec 10):annrheumdis-2021-220964.
3. Kristensen LE et al. Efficacy and safety of risankizumab for active psoriatic arthritis: 24-week results from the randomised, double-blind, phase 3 KEEPsAKE 1 trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022(Feb);81(2):225-231.
4. Nash P et al. Upadacitinib as monotherapy and in combination with non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021(Dec 3):keab905.

Identifying risk factors associated with transition from cutaneous psoriasis to arthritic psoriasis remains a hot area of research. In a retrospective nested case-control study using the resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project, Karmacharya et al¹ identified 164 patients with incident PsA between 2000 and 2017. Among the 158 total patients satisfying study criteria, 64 (41%) had concurrent psoriasis and PsA and 94 (59%) had onset of psoriasis before PsA. The median time from psoriasis diagnosis to the incidence of PsA was 35.5 months with age at psoriasis onset (odds ratio [OR] per 10-year decrease 1.63; 95% CI 1.26-2.11) and its severity (OR for severe vs. mild 3.65; 95% CI 1.18-11.32) being associated with having a psoriasis diagnosis >1 year prior to incident PsA. Early onset as well as severe psoriasis is associated with the HLA- C*06 allele as is longer psoriasis-PsA latency. Although not evaluated in this study, this genetic factor, or other factors such as detection bias, may underly these observations.

Once diagnosed, stratification of PsA severity is important for planning treatment. Towards this goal, Dubash et al² demonstrated that the presence of dactylitis indicates a more severe PsA phenotype. In a study of 177 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naive patients with early PsA, they found that those with dactylitis (46%) had significantly higher tender and swollen joint counts and C-reactive protein than those with non-dactylitic PsA. Ultrasound synovitis and erosions were also significantly more prevalent in dactylitic PsA. Thus, the presence of dactylitis indicates a more severe phenotype, and patients with dactylitis should be treated aggressively to improve long-term outcomes.

Novel therapies are being frequently evaluated in PsA and a recent target is interleukin (IL)-23, a key cytokine in the T-helper 17 (Th17) pathway and in the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease. Risankizumab is a novel monoclonal antibody targeting IL-23. In the double-blind phase 3 KEEPsAKE 1 study including 964 patients with active PsA and inadequate response to one or more conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. They were randomly assigned to receive 150 mg risankizumab or placebo, Kristensen et al³ demonstrated that, at week 24, at least a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20) was achieved by a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving risankizumab vs. placebo (57.3% vs. 33.5%; P < .001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were mild-to-moderate and reported at similar frequencies in the risankizumab (40.4%) and placebo (38.7%) groups. Thus, risankizumab was efficacious in reducing clinical manifestations of PsA in patients with inadequate response to csDMARDs with no new adverse events. An important question when treating patients with PsA with targeted therapies is the need for concomitant therapy with csDMARDs. In a pooled analysis of 2 phase 3 trials, SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2,  1,916 patients with active PsA with an inadequate response to ≥1 non-biologic (nb) DMARDs or biologic DMARDs were randomly assigned to placebo, 15 mg upadacitinib, or 30 mg upadacitinib as monotherapy or in combination with ≤2 nbDMARDs for 24 weeks, Nash et al⁴ demonstrated that at week 12, ACR20 response was achieved by a similar proportion of patients receiving 15 mg upadacitinib or 30 mg upadacitinib as monotherapy (15 mg: 33.7%; 95% CI 24.4%-43.1%; 30 mg: 45.7%; 95% CI 36.9%-54.5%) or combination therapy (15 mg: 34.0%; 95% CI 27.9%-40.1%; 30 mg: 39.6%; 95% CI 33.7%-45.5%). Adverse events were generally similar between monotherapy and combination therapy. Although, we don’t have information regarding the sustainability of the response, these data indicate that upadacitinib may be used without concomitant csDMARDs in PsA.

References

1. Karmacharya P et al. Time to transition from psoriasis to psoriatic arthritis: A population-based study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2021(Dec 31):S0049-0172(21)00230-4.
2. Dubash S et al. Dactylitis is an indicator of a more severe phenotype independently associated with greater SJC, CRP, ultrasound synovitis and erosive damage in DMARD-naive early psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021(Dec 10):annrheumdis-2021-220964.
3. Kristensen LE et al. Efficacy and safety of risankizumab for active psoriatic arthritis: 24-week results from the randomised, double-blind, phase 3 KEEPsAKE 1 trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022(Feb);81(2):225-231.
4. Nash P et al. Upadacitinib as monotherapy and in combination with non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021(Dec 3):keab905.

Identifying risk factors associated with transition from cutaneous psoriasis to arthritic psoriasis remains a hot area of research. In a retrospective nested case-control study using the resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project, Karmacharya et al¹ identified 164 patients with incident PsA between 2000 and 2017. Among the 158 total patients satisfying study criteria, 64 (41%) had concurrent psoriasis and PsA and 94 (59%) had onset of psoriasis before PsA. The median time from psoriasis diagnosis to the incidence of PsA was 35.5 months with age at psoriasis onset (odds ratio [OR] per 10-year decrease 1.63; 95% CI 1.26-2.11) and its severity (OR for severe vs. mild 3.65; 95% CI 1.18-11.32) being associated with having a psoriasis diagnosis >1 year prior to incident PsA. Early onset as well as severe psoriasis is associated with the HLA- C*06 allele as is longer psoriasis-PsA latency. Although not evaluated in this study, this genetic factor, or other factors such as detection bias, may underly these observations.

Once diagnosed, stratification of PsA severity is important for planning treatment. Towards this goal, Dubash et al² demonstrated that the presence of dactylitis indicates a more severe PsA phenotype. In a study of 177 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naive patients with early PsA, they found that those with dactylitis (46%) had significantly higher tender and swollen joint counts and C-reactive protein than those with non-dactylitic PsA. Ultrasound synovitis and erosions were also significantly more prevalent in dactylitic PsA. Thus, the presence of dactylitis indicates a more severe phenotype, and patients with dactylitis should be treated aggressively to improve long-term outcomes.

Novel therapies are being frequently evaluated in PsA and a recent target is interleukin (IL)-23, a key cytokine in the T-helper 17 (Th17) pathway and in the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease. Risankizumab is a novel monoclonal antibody targeting IL-23. In the double-blind phase 3 KEEPsAKE 1 study including 964 patients with active PsA and inadequate response to one or more conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. They were randomly assigned to receive 150 mg risankizumab or placebo, Kristensen et al³ demonstrated that, at week 24, at least a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20) was achieved by a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving risankizumab vs. placebo (57.3% vs. 33.5%; P < .001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were mild-to-moderate and reported at similar frequencies in the risankizumab (40.4%) and placebo (38.7%) groups. Thus, risankizumab was efficacious in reducing clinical manifestations of PsA in patients with inadequate response to csDMARDs with no new adverse events. An important question when treating patients with PsA with targeted therapies is the need for concomitant therapy with csDMARDs. In a pooled analysis of 2 phase 3 trials, SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2,  1,916 patients with active PsA with an inadequate response to ≥1 non-biologic (nb) DMARDs or biologic DMARDs were randomly assigned to placebo, 15 mg upadacitinib, or 30 mg upadacitinib as monotherapy or in combination with ≤2 nbDMARDs for 24 weeks, Nash et al⁴ demonstrated that at week 12, ACR20 response was achieved by a similar proportion of patients receiving 15 mg upadacitinib or 30 mg upadacitinib as monotherapy (15 mg: 33.7%; 95% CI 24.4%-43.1%; 30 mg: 45.7%; 95% CI 36.9%-54.5%) or combination therapy (15 mg: 34.0%; 95% CI 27.9%-40.1%; 30 mg: 39.6%; 95% CI 33.7%-45.5%). Adverse events were generally similar between monotherapy and combination therapy. Although, we don’t have information regarding the sustainability of the response, these data indicate that upadacitinib may be used without concomitant csDMARDs in PsA.

References

1. Karmacharya P et al. Time to transition from psoriasis to psoriatic arthritis: A population-based study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2021(Dec 31):S0049-0172(21)00230-4.
2. Dubash S et al. Dactylitis is an indicator of a more severe phenotype independently associated with greater SJC, CRP, ultrasound synovitis and erosive damage in DMARD-naive early psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021(Dec 10):annrheumdis-2021-220964.
3. Kristensen LE et al. Efficacy and safety of risankizumab for active psoriatic arthritis: 24-week results from the randomised, double-blind, phase 3 KEEPsAKE 1 trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022(Feb);81(2):225-231.
4. Nash P et al. Upadacitinib as monotherapy and in combination with non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021(Dec 3):keab905.

Japanese researchers say the Omicron variant survives longer on plastic and skin than other COVID-19 variants, one possible explanation for why Omicron has spread so rapidly around the world.

In a lab experiment, samples of different variants were applied to pieces of plastic and human skin collected from autopsies, researchers from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine wrote in bioRxiv. A variant “survived” until it could no longer be detected on the surface.

“This study showed that the Omicron variant also has the highest environmental stability among VOCs (variants of concern), which suggests that this high stability might also be one of the factors that have allowed the Omicron variant to replace the Delta variant and spread rapidly,” the researchers wrote.

On plastic, the Omicron variant samples survived an average of 193.5 hours, a little more than 8 days. By comparison, the other survival times on plastic were 56 hours for the original COVID strain, 191.3 hours for Alpha, 156.6 hours for Beta, 59.3 hours for Gamma, and 114 hours for Delta.

On skin samples, the Omicron samples survived an average of 21.1 hours. The other variants had these average survival times on skin: 8.6 hours for the original version, 19.6 hours for Alpha, 19.1 hours for Beta, 11 hours for Gamma, and 16.8 hours for Delta.

The study found that the variants had more resistance to ethanol than the original strain of COVID. That said, all COVID samples were inactivated after being exposed to alcohol-based hand sanitizers for 15 seconds.

“Therefore, it is highly recommended that current infection control (hand hygiene) practices use disinfectants ... as proposed by the World Health Organization,” the researchers said.

The study has not been peer-reviewed.

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

Japanese researchers say the Omicron variant survives longer on plastic and skin than other COVID-19 variants, one possible explanation for why Omicron has spread so rapidly around the world.

In a lab experiment, samples of different variants were applied to pieces of plastic and human skin collected from autopsies, researchers from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine wrote in bioRxiv. A variant “survived” until it could no longer be detected on the surface.

“This study showed that the Omicron variant also has the highest environmental stability among VOCs (variants of concern), which suggests that this high stability might also be one of the factors that have allowed the Omicron variant to replace the Delta variant and spread rapidly,” the researchers wrote.

On plastic, the Omicron variant samples survived an average of 193.5 hours, a little more than 8 days. By comparison, the other survival times on plastic were 56 hours for the original COVID strain, 191.3 hours for Alpha, 156.6 hours for Beta, 59.3 hours for Gamma, and 114 hours for Delta.

On skin samples, the Omicron samples survived an average of 21.1 hours. The other variants had these average survival times on skin: 8.6 hours for the original version, 19.6 hours for Alpha, 19.1 hours for Beta, 11 hours for Gamma, and 16.8 hours for Delta.

The study found that the variants had more resistance to ethanol than the original strain of COVID. That said, all COVID samples were inactivated after being exposed to alcohol-based hand sanitizers for 15 seconds.

“Therefore, it is highly recommended that current infection control (hand hygiene) practices use disinfectants ... as proposed by the World Health Organization,” the researchers said.

The study has not been peer-reviewed.

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

Japanese researchers say the Omicron variant survives longer on plastic and skin than other COVID-19 variants, one possible explanation for why Omicron has spread so rapidly around the world.

In a lab experiment, samples of different variants were applied to pieces of plastic and human skin collected from autopsies, researchers from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine wrote in bioRxiv. A variant “survived” until it could no longer be detected on the surface.

“This study showed that the Omicron variant also has the highest environmental stability among VOCs (variants of concern), which suggests that this high stability might also be one of the factors that have allowed the Omicron variant to replace the Delta variant and spread rapidly,” the researchers wrote.

On plastic, the Omicron variant samples survived an average of 193.5 hours, a little more than 8 days. By comparison, the other survival times on plastic were 56 hours for the original COVID strain, 191.3 hours for Alpha, 156.6 hours for Beta, 59.3 hours for Gamma, and 114 hours for Delta.

On skin samples, the Omicron samples survived an average of 21.1 hours. The other variants had these average survival times on skin: 8.6 hours for the original version, 19.6 hours for Alpha, 19.1 hours for Beta, 11 hours for Gamma, and 16.8 hours for Delta.

The study found that the variants had more resistance to ethanol than the original strain of COVID. That said, all COVID samples were inactivated after being exposed to alcohol-based hand sanitizers for 15 seconds.

“Therefore, it is highly recommended that current infection control (hand hygiene) practices use disinfectants ... as proposed by the World Health Organization,” the researchers said.

The study has not been peer-reviewed.

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

Adding the checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab (Imfinzi) to chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer, as compared to chemotherapy alone, according to interim results from the TOPAZ-1 trial.

The risk of death for those taking durvalumab plus chemotherapy was 20% lower than for patients on chemotherapy alone. At 18 months, overall survival was 35.1% in the durvalumab group versus 25.6% for chemotherapy alone. By 2 years, overall survival was 24.9% versus 10.4%.

“TOPAZ-1 is the first phase 3 trial to show that adding immunotherapy to standard chemotherapy can increase survival in biliary tract cancer, and importantly, does so without inducing any new serious side effects,” said lead author Do-Youn Oh, MD, PhD, professor in the Division of Medical Oncology at Seoul National University Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine, Korea.

“The study met its primary endpoint at a prespecified interim analysis, and durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful prolonged overall survival compared with placebo plus chemotherapy,” she said.

“This is an effective first-line therapy and could become a new standard of care for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer,” she added.

Dr. Oh presented the results at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (GICS) 2022.

In a discussion of the paper, Nilofer Saba Azad, MD, from the department of oncology, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, noted that overall, “we are seeing enticing benefit in survival and response rate.”

“There is moderately strong preliminary clinical data and biological rationale that immune checkpoint may have some activity in biliary tract cancer,” she said. “The trial was adequately powered and accounted for important known clinical subsets, and [it] was placebo controlled. The results suggest a meaningful benefit for patients.”

However, she pointed out that there are still open questions, mostly having to do with the subgroup analysis.
 

Biliary tract cancer: Incidence is rising

Biliary tract cancers are a relatively rare and heterogeneous group of cancers, and global incidence is rising. “Advanced unresectable biliary tract cancer is an area of high unmet need due to its aggressive nature, limited treatment options, and poor prognosis,” explained Dr. Oh. “The first-line standard of care for advanced biliary tract cancers, gemcitabine and cisplatin, has remained unchanged for over a decade.”

Previous research has suggested that checkpoint inhibition may result in antitumor immune responses, she commented. A previous phase 2 trial showed that durvalumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin showed promising antitumor activity in advanced biliary tract cancer. This latest study is a larger phase 3 trial to investigate this effect further.

The study involved 365 patients with unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic biliary tract cancers. Patients had one of three types of biliary tract cancer: 55% had intrahepatic cancers; 19% had extrahepatic cancers; and 25% had gallbladder cancer.

The trial was conducted in the U.S. and 17 countries in Europe, South America, and Asia. Nearly 55% of the cohort was from Asia, including South Korea, Thailand, Japan, and China.

All patients received chemotherapy with gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m²) and cisplatin (25 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) for up to eight cycles.

Patients were randomized to receive either durvalumab (1,500 mg every 3 weeks) or placebo before chemotherapy and also to receive durvalumab (1,500 mg every 4 weeks) or placebo after chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

At approximately 1 year, the authors found that adding durvalumab significantly improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .021).

Progression-free survival was also significantly better with durvalumab compared to placebo: 7.2 months versus 5.7 months (HR, 0.75; P = .001).

The overall response rate (ORR) was 26.7% with durvalumab and 18.7% with placebo.

The most common adverse events were anemia (experienced by 48.2% of patients), neutropenia (31.7%), and nausea (40.2%). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 75.7% of patients receiving durvalumab versus 77.8% for placebo, indicating that the majority of side effects in both arms were from chemotherapy, Dr. Oh commented. Discontinuation of any study medication because of toxicity occurred in 8.9% and 11.4% of patients, respectively.
 

Enticing benefit, but questions remain

In her discussion of the paper, Dr. Azad pointed out that Asian patients comprised more than half of the cohort and appeared to derive more benefit from the investigational treatment compared to other groups. “So the question is if that is driving the benefit or just an increased benefit,” she said. “That is going to be an open question for our research community.”

Dr. Azad also noted that patients with nonmetastatic disease at enrollment did a little better, so more data are needed on how that affected the outcomes.

“PDL-1 just missed statistical significance, but that is something that will be further explored,” she said. “And we still have open questions about viral hepatitis, liver fluke infection, and cirrhosis, and I do hope that these will be included in the final analysis of the study.”

The GICS meeting is organized by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the society highlighted these data in a press release. Cathy Eng, MD, FACP, ASCO expert in gastrointestinal cancers, commented in the statement: “TOPAZ-1 is the first phase 3 trial to demonstrate the benefit of immunotherapy for improved overall survival, in combination with chemotherapy, creating a new standard of care.”

The study received funding from AstraZeneca, marker of durvalumab. Dr. Oh and Dr. Azad reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

Adding the checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab (Imfinzi) to chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer, as compared to chemotherapy alone, according to interim results from the TOPAZ-1 trial.

The risk of death for those taking durvalumab plus chemotherapy was 20% lower than for patients on chemotherapy alone. At 18 months, overall survival was 35.1% in the durvalumab group versus 25.6% for chemotherapy alone. By 2 years, overall survival was 24.9% versus 10.4%.

“TOPAZ-1 is the first phase 3 trial to show that adding immunotherapy to standard chemotherapy can increase survival in biliary tract cancer, and importantly, does so without inducing any new serious side effects,” said lead author Do-Youn Oh, MD, PhD, professor in the Division of Medical Oncology at Seoul National University Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine, Korea.

“The study met its primary endpoint at a prespecified interim analysis, and durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful prolonged overall survival compared with placebo plus chemotherapy,” she said.

“This is an effective first-line therapy and could become a new standard of care for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer,” she added.

Dr. Oh presented the results at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (GICS) 2022.

In a discussion of the paper, Nilofer Saba Azad, MD, from the department of oncology, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, noted that overall, “we are seeing enticing benefit in survival and response rate.”

“There is moderately strong preliminary clinical data and biological rationale that immune checkpoint may have some activity in biliary tract cancer,” she said. “The trial was adequately powered and accounted for important known clinical subsets, and [it] was placebo controlled. The results suggest a meaningful benefit for patients.”

However, she pointed out that there are still open questions, mostly having to do with the subgroup analysis.
 

Biliary tract cancer: Incidence is rising

Biliary tract cancers are a relatively rare and heterogeneous group of cancers, and global incidence is rising. “Advanced unresectable biliary tract cancer is an area of high unmet need due to its aggressive nature, limited treatment options, and poor prognosis,” explained Dr. Oh. “The first-line standard of care for advanced biliary tract cancers, gemcitabine and cisplatin, has remained unchanged for over a decade.”

Previous research has suggested that checkpoint inhibition may result in antitumor immune responses, she commented. A previous phase 2 trial showed that durvalumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin showed promising antitumor activity in advanced biliary tract cancer. This latest study is a larger phase 3 trial to investigate this effect further.

The study involved 365 patients with unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic biliary tract cancers. Patients had one of three types of biliary tract cancer: 55% had intrahepatic cancers; 19% had extrahepatic cancers; and 25% had gallbladder cancer.

The trial was conducted in the U.S. and 17 countries in Europe, South America, and Asia. Nearly 55% of the cohort was from Asia, including South Korea, Thailand, Japan, and China.

All patients received chemotherapy with gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m²) and cisplatin (25 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) for up to eight cycles.

Patients were randomized to receive either durvalumab (1,500 mg every 3 weeks) or placebo before chemotherapy and also to receive durvalumab (1,500 mg every 4 weeks) or placebo after chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

At approximately 1 year, the authors found that adding durvalumab significantly improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .021).

Progression-free survival was also significantly better with durvalumab compared to placebo: 7.2 months versus 5.7 months (HR, 0.75; P = .001).

The overall response rate (ORR) was 26.7% with durvalumab and 18.7% with placebo.

The most common adverse events were anemia (experienced by 48.2% of patients), neutropenia (31.7%), and nausea (40.2%). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 75.7% of patients receiving durvalumab versus 77.8% for placebo, indicating that the majority of side effects in both arms were from chemotherapy, Dr. Oh commented. Discontinuation of any study medication because of toxicity occurred in 8.9% and 11.4% of patients, respectively.
 

Enticing benefit, but questions remain

In her discussion of the paper, Dr. Azad pointed out that Asian patients comprised more than half of the cohort and appeared to derive more benefit from the investigational treatment compared to other groups. “So the question is if that is driving the benefit or just an increased benefit,” she said. “That is going to be an open question for our research community.”

Dr. Azad also noted that patients with nonmetastatic disease at enrollment did a little better, so more data are needed on how that affected the outcomes.

“PDL-1 just missed statistical significance, but that is something that will be further explored,” she said. “And we still have open questions about viral hepatitis, liver fluke infection, and cirrhosis, and I do hope that these will be included in the final analysis of the study.”

The GICS meeting is organized by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the society highlighted these data in a press release. Cathy Eng, MD, FACP, ASCO expert in gastrointestinal cancers, commented in the statement: “TOPAZ-1 is the first phase 3 trial to demonstrate the benefit of immunotherapy for improved overall survival, in combination with chemotherapy, creating a new standard of care.”

The study received funding from AstraZeneca, marker of durvalumab. Dr. Oh and Dr. Azad reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

Adding the checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab (Imfinzi) to chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer, as compared to chemotherapy alone, according to interim results from the TOPAZ-1 trial.

The risk of death for those taking durvalumab plus chemotherapy was 20% lower than for patients on chemotherapy alone. At 18 months, overall survival was 35.1% in the durvalumab group versus 25.6% for chemotherapy alone. By 2 years, overall survival was 24.9% versus 10.4%.

“TOPAZ-1 is the first phase 3 trial to show that adding immunotherapy to standard chemotherapy can increase survival in biliary tract cancer, and importantly, does so without inducing any new serious side effects,” said lead author Do-Youn Oh, MD, PhD, professor in the Division of Medical Oncology at Seoul National University Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine, Korea.

“The study met its primary endpoint at a prespecified interim analysis, and durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful prolonged overall survival compared with placebo plus chemotherapy,” she said.

“This is an effective first-line therapy and could become a new standard of care for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer,” she added.

Dr. Oh presented the results at the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (GICS) 2022.

In a discussion of the paper, Nilofer Saba Azad, MD, from the department of oncology, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, noted that overall, “we are seeing enticing benefit in survival and response rate.”

“There is moderately strong preliminary clinical data and biological rationale that immune checkpoint may have some activity in biliary tract cancer,” she said. “The trial was adequately powered and accounted for important known clinical subsets, and [it] was placebo controlled. The results suggest a meaningful benefit for patients.”

However, she pointed out that there are still open questions, mostly having to do with the subgroup analysis.
 

Biliary tract cancer: Incidence is rising

Biliary tract cancers are a relatively rare and heterogeneous group of cancers, and global incidence is rising. “Advanced unresectable biliary tract cancer is an area of high unmet need due to its aggressive nature, limited treatment options, and poor prognosis,” explained Dr. Oh. “The first-line standard of care for advanced biliary tract cancers, gemcitabine and cisplatin, has remained unchanged for over a decade.”

Previous research has suggested that checkpoint inhibition may result in antitumor immune responses, she commented. A previous phase 2 trial showed that durvalumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin showed promising antitumor activity in advanced biliary tract cancer. This latest study is a larger phase 3 trial to investigate this effect further.

The study involved 365 patients with unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic biliary tract cancers. Patients had one of three types of biliary tract cancer: 55% had intrahepatic cancers; 19% had extrahepatic cancers; and 25% had gallbladder cancer.

The trial was conducted in the U.S. and 17 countries in Europe, South America, and Asia. Nearly 55% of the cohort was from Asia, including South Korea, Thailand, Japan, and China.

All patients received chemotherapy with gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m²) and cisplatin (25 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) for up to eight cycles.

Patients were randomized to receive either durvalumab (1,500 mg every 3 weeks) or placebo before chemotherapy and also to receive durvalumab (1,500 mg every 4 weeks) or placebo after chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

At approximately 1 year, the authors found that adding durvalumab significantly improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .021).

Progression-free survival was also significantly better with durvalumab compared to placebo: 7.2 months versus 5.7 months (HR, 0.75; P = .001).

The overall response rate (ORR) was 26.7% with durvalumab and 18.7% with placebo.

The most common adverse events were anemia (experienced by 48.2% of patients), neutropenia (31.7%), and nausea (40.2%). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 75.7% of patients receiving durvalumab versus 77.8% for placebo, indicating that the majority of side effects in both arms were from chemotherapy, Dr. Oh commented. Discontinuation of any study medication because of toxicity occurred in 8.9% and 11.4% of patients, respectively.
 

Enticing benefit, but questions remain

In her discussion of the paper, Dr. Azad pointed out that Asian patients comprised more than half of the cohort and appeared to derive more benefit from the investigational treatment compared to other groups. “So the question is if that is driving the benefit or just an increased benefit,” she said. “That is going to be an open question for our research community.”

Dr. Azad also noted that patients with nonmetastatic disease at enrollment did a little better, so more data are needed on how that affected the outcomes.

“PDL-1 just missed statistical significance, but that is something that will be further explored,” she said. “And we still have open questions about viral hepatitis, liver fluke infection, and cirrhosis, and I do hope that these will be included in the final analysis of the study.”

The GICS meeting is organized by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the society highlighted these data in a press release. Cathy Eng, MD, FACP, ASCO expert in gastrointestinal cancers, commented in the statement: “TOPAZ-1 is the first phase 3 trial to demonstrate the benefit of immunotherapy for improved overall survival, in combination with chemotherapy, creating a new standard of care.”

The study received funding from AstraZeneca, marker of durvalumab. Dr. Oh and Dr. Azad reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

Once they reach retirement age, increasing numbers of patients come to Eric L. Simpson, MD, complaining of an itchy rash that has appeared seemingly out of the blue.

“They ask: ‘What happened? Why did I get this? Everything was going so well and all of a sudden, I get this itchy rash that keeps me up every night,’ ” Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “Is this elderly atopic dermatitis? Is that a real thing?”

But such patients often lack flexural involvement, which is a telltale sign of atopic dermatitis, “so I really struggle with making the diagnosis of new onset AD in the elderly,” he said, adding that existing medical literature on the topic is variable, with the use of terms that include chronic eczematous eruption of the elderly, chronic “eczematiform” eruption in the elderly, chronic eczematous eruption of the aged, eczematous dermatitis not otherwise specified, dermal hypersensitivity reaction, urticarial dermatitis, and eczematous drug eruptions.

“Pruritus of the elderly is not a diagnosis,” Dr. Simpson said. “That’s just a symptom with a million etiologies. Never put that as your assessment. You could put pruritic eruption or pruritus, but try to look for the cause.”

More than 50% of older patients have xerosis, according to a 2013 clinical review on pruritus in the elderly, by Timothy G. Berger, MD, and colleagues at the University of California, San Francisco, which includes advice on the evaluation and management of pruritus in this group of patients based on whether they have a rash or not. For a patient with no rash, Dr. Simpson said, the workup “includes ruling out xerosis, scabies, and effects of medications that could cause rash such as narcotics and Adderall; as well as a generalized pruritus workup including renal and hepatic function, blood count, and thyroid levels.”

In a separate analysis of pruritic elderly patients by the same authors, five rash-related diagnoses accounted for 75% of cases: eczematous dermatitis, lichen simplex/prurigo nodularis, subacute prurigo, transient acantholytic dermatosis, and neuropathic disorder. “Morphology of pruritus with rash is also important,” Dr. Simpson added. “Is it eczematous? Papular? Prurigo nodularis? This helps lead you in the right direction.”

Some case-control studies have shown that calcium channel blockers could be related to eczema in older patients.

“But there aren’t a lot of studies out there that show that when you stop your calcium channel blocker, your eczema gets better,” Dr. Simpson said. “I’m reluctant to stop medications to try to help their eczema. I haven’t had many good results doing that.”

In an abstract presented during the 2021 annual meeting of the Society of Investigative Dermatology, he and his colleagues prospectively reviewed 89 patients over age 65 who had been referred with new-onset eczema. Of these, 34 underwent drug cessation trials for 1-3 months. “Not one patient improved when they stopped medications,” Dr. Simpson said, but “multiple patients were hospitalized for discontinuing their cardiac and antihypertensive medications.” While this was a biased sample of patients coming to him with chronic eczema, “in my experience, if you have chronic eczema in an older patient, stopping medications is likely not going to help.”

Other diagnostic tips he offered included asking patients what skin products they’re using, considering patch testing, and considering biopsy to rule out cutaneous T-cell lymphoma or bullous pemphigoid. “If you’re not sure there’s a rash, you might need to do a pruritus workup,” he said. If an eczematous rash is present and no other cause is found, try treating it like AD, he added. 

Dr. Simpson reported serving as an investigator for and consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Once they reach retirement age, increasing numbers of patients come to Eric L. Simpson, MD, complaining of an itchy rash that has appeared seemingly out of the blue.

“They ask: ‘What happened? Why did I get this? Everything was going so well and all of a sudden, I get this itchy rash that keeps me up every night,’ ” Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “Is this elderly atopic dermatitis? Is that a real thing?”

But such patients often lack flexural involvement, which is a telltale sign of atopic dermatitis, “so I really struggle with making the diagnosis of new onset AD in the elderly,” he said, adding that existing medical literature on the topic is variable, with the use of terms that include chronic eczematous eruption of the elderly, chronic “eczematiform” eruption in the elderly, chronic eczematous eruption of the aged, eczematous dermatitis not otherwise specified, dermal hypersensitivity reaction, urticarial dermatitis, and eczematous drug eruptions.

“Pruritus of the elderly is not a diagnosis,” Dr. Simpson said. “That’s just a symptom with a million etiologies. Never put that as your assessment. You could put pruritic eruption or pruritus, but try to look for the cause.”

More than 50% of older patients have xerosis, according to a 2013 clinical review on pruritus in the elderly, by Timothy G. Berger, MD, and colleagues at the University of California, San Francisco, which includes advice on the evaluation and management of pruritus in this group of patients based on whether they have a rash or not. For a patient with no rash, Dr. Simpson said, the workup “includes ruling out xerosis, scabies, and effects of medications that could cause rash such as narcotics and Adderall; as well as a generalized pruritus workup including renal and hepatic function, blood count, and thyroid levels.”

In a separate analysis of pruritic elderly patients by the same authors, five rash-related diagnoses accounted for 75% of cases: eczematous dermatitis, lichen simplex/prurigo nodularis, subacute prurigo, transient acantholytic dermatosis, and neuropathic disorder. “Morphology of pruritus with rash is also important,” Dr. Simpson added. “Is it eczematous? Papular? Prurigo nodularis? This helps lead you in the right direction.”

Some case-control studies have shown that calcium channel blockers could be related to eczema in older patients.

“But there aren’t a lot of studies out there that show that when you stop your calcium channel blocker, your eczema gets better,” Dr. Simpson said. “I’m reluctant to stop medications to try to help their eczema. I haven’t had many good results doing that.”

In an abstract presented during the 2021 annual meeting of the Society of Investigative Dermatology, he and his colleagues prospectively reviewed 89 patients over age 65 who had been referred with new-onset eczema. Of these, 34 underwent drug cessation trials for 1-3 months. “Not one patient improved when they stopped medications,” Dr. Simpson said, but “multiple patients were hospitalized for discontinuing their cardiac and antihypertensive medications.” While this was a biased sample of patients coming to him with chronic eczema, “in my experience, if you have chronic eczema in an older patient, stopping medications is likely not going to help.”

Other diagnostic tips he offered included asking patients what skin products they’re using, considering patch testing, and considering biopsy to rule out cutaneous T-cell lymphoma or bullous pemphigoid. “If you’re not sure there’s a rash, you might need to do a pruritus workup,” he said. If an eczematous rash is present and no other cause is found, try treating it like AD, he added. 

Dr. Simpson reported serving as an investigator for and consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Once they reach retirement age, increasing numbers of patients come to Eric L. Simpson, MD, complaining of an itchy rash that has appeared seemingly out of the blue.

“They ask: ‘What happened? Why did I get this? Everything was going so well and all of a sudden, I get this itchy rash that keeps me up every night,’ ” Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “Is this elderly atopic dermatitis? Is that a real thing?”

But such patients often lack flexural involvement, which is a telltale sign of atopic dermatitis, “so I really struggle with making the diagnosis of new onset AD in the elderly,” he said, adding that existing medical literature on the topic is variable, with the use of terms that include chronic eczematous eruption of the elderly, chronic “eczematiform” eruption in the elderly, chronic eczematous eruption of the aged, eczematous dermatitis not otherwise specified, dermal hypersensitivity reaction, urticarial dermatitis, and eczematous drug eruptions.

“Pruritus of the elderly is not a diagnosis,” Dr. Simpson said. “That’s just a symptom with a million etiologies. Never put that as your assessment. You could put pruritic eruption or pruritus, but try to look for the cause.”

More than 50% of older patients have xerosis, according to a 2013 clinical review on pruritus in the elderly, by Timothy G. Berger, MD, and colleagues at the University of California, San Francisco, which includes advice on the evaluation and management of pruritus in this group of patients based on whether they have a rash or not. For a patient with no rash, Dr. Simpson said, the workup “includes ruling out xerosis, scabies, and effects of medications that could cause rash such as narcotics and Adderall; as well as a generalized pruritus workup including renal and hepatic function, blood count, and thyroid levels.”

In a separate analysis of pruritic elderly patients by the same authors, five rash-related diagnoses accounted for 75% of cases: eczematous dermatitis, lichen simplex/prurigo nodularis, subacute prurigo, transient acantholytic dermatosis, and neuropathic disorder. “Morphology of pruritus with rash is also important,” Dr. Simpson added. “Is it eczematous? Papular? Prurigo nodularis? This helps lead you in the right direction.”

Some case-control studies have shown that calcium channel blockers could be related to eczema in older patients.

“But there aren’t a lot of studies out there that show that when you stop your calcium channel blocker, your eczema gets better,” Dr. Simpson said. “I’m reluctant to stop medications to try to help their eczema. I haven’t had many good results doing that.”

In an abstract presented during the 2021 annual meeting of the Society of Investigative Dermatology, he and his colleagues prospectively reviewed 89 patients over age 65 who had been referred with new-onset eczema. Of these, 34 underwent drug cessation trials for 1-3 months. “Not one patient improved when they stopped medications,” Dr. Simpson said, but “multiple patients were hospitalized for discontinuing their cardiac and antihypertensive medications.” While this was a biased sample of patients coming to him with chronic eczema, “in my experience, if you have chronic eczema in an older patient, stopping medications is likely not going to help.”

Other diagnostic tips he offered included asking patients what skin products they’re using, considering patch testing, and considering biopsy to rule out cutaneous T-cell lymphoma or bullous pemphigoid. “If you’re not sure there’s a rash, you might need to do a pruritus workup,” he said. If an eczematous rash is present and no other cause is found, try treating it like AD, he added. 

Dr. Simpson reported serving as an investigator for and consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

As inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL-cholesterol lowering drug, enters the U.S. market following Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021, several issues muddy how popular inclisiran will be in actual practice. That’s despite stellar phase 3 trial evidence for safety, tolerability, and a potent lipid-lowering effect.

The active ingredient of inclisiran (Leqvio) is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule that shuts down production of the PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) protein, an enzyme that’s made and functions primarily in the liver and degrades cellular receptors for LDL cholesterol. Inhibiting PCSK9 production means LDL-cholesterol receptors accumulate and boost the ability of liver cells to pull more LDL cholesterol out of blood.

PCSK9 inhibition is the most potent LDL-cholesterol lowering method now available, and it works well in patients who have maxed out LDL reduction by diet and statin treatment. The siRNA of inclisiran is tweaked to target the molecule to the surface of liver cells following subcutaneous injection. Other modifications of the siRNA give it stability that allows twice-a-year dosing, although patients receive a third injection during their first year to hasten a maximum treatment effect.

Inclisiran’s FDA approval relied on results from three pivotal trials that together enrolled 3,660 patients with either atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), ASCVD risk equivalents, or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH), and LDL-cholesterol levels of at least 70 mg/dL in those with established ASCVD, or at least 100 mg/dL in other patients. (HeFH and ASCVD are the drug’s approved indications.) Pooled data from the three trials showed that inclisiran was safe and well tolerated during 18 months and produced an average LDL-cholesterol reduction after 510 days (1.4 years) of about 51% compared to baseline after correction for placebo effects (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Mar 9;77 [9]:1182-93).

These data showed inclisiran was about as safe and effective for reducing LDL-cholesterol as agents from another class of PCSK9 inhibitors that rely on injected antibodies to inactivate PCSK9. Two agents from this class, alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha), both came on the U.S. market in 2015. Although their performance in routine practice during the ensuing 6-plus years has been as safe and effective as what they showed in their respective registration trials, they have faced a rocky uptake road that’s been primarily hindered by the hefty price tag that both drugs carry.
 

Prior-authorization blues

When they first came out, evolocumab and alirocumab were burdened by annual drug costs of roughly $14,000, a fact that led to widespread prior-authorization and copay barriers set up by U.S. insurers. Although these barriers gradually lessened over time, in part aided by a substantial price cut for both drugs that led to annual drug costs more in the range of $6,000/year, they remain relatively pricey and are still not easy to start in patients because of prior-authorization requirements, said clinicians.

Recent penetration of the older PCSK9 inhibitors into eligible U.S. patients “is only about 1%-2%, based on the latest data,” said Michael H. Davidson, MD, a lipid specialist and director of Preventive Cardiology at the University of Chicago.

“We have these great, effective drugs, but they haven’t really made an impact over the past 5 years,” because of very limited uptake, a situation Dr. Davidson called “very disappointing,” during an interview.

Given this recent history, inclisiran, another expensive PCSK9 inhibitor, may face similar coverage pushback as it hits the U.S. market with a retail price, announced by its manufacturer Novartis, of $3,250/dose. This means that patients who start the drug and receive their initial dose, a second dose after 3 months, and then additional doses every 6 months, rack up a drug cost of close to $10,000 the first year on the drug and $6,500 each subsequent year.

This treatment schedule highlights the major logistical difference that distinguishes inclisiran from the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors, which are given by repeated subcutaneous injection every 2 or 4 weeks, usually with patients self-injecting the drugs at home. The less-frequent dosing schedule for inclisiran prompted the drug’s developers to schedule injections by a clinician in an office setting in the pivotal trials, which led to labeling for inclisiran that specifies administration only by a health care professional.
 

The ‘buy-and-bill’ coverage model

This difference in drug administration between inclisiran and the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors set up Novartis to promote insurance reimbursement for inclisiran using a “buy-and-bill” paradigm that was first developed for oncology drugs and which may provide a loophole around the prior-authorization roadblocks that hindered early uptake of the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors.

It’s also an approach that has made U.S. clinicians unsure how it will play out in practice. Infrequent inclisiran dosing may also boost patient compliance.

“Adherence is the greatest challenge in preventive cardiology, and thus inclisiran has the potential to be a game changer,” commented Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“Will it be easier for physicians to write a prescription and for patients to get the medication without a demanding and frustrating prior-authorization process?” he wondered during an interview. “I’m waiting to see how this unfolds, especially in systems where pharmacy is not fully integrated with the outpatient setting. In some ways, this is as big of an experiment as was development of the drug,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

Although the prior-authorization hoops for evolocumab and alirocumab have become easier to jump through, “most physicians don’t have the resources to handle it and don’t bother,” noted Dr. Davidson, and he’s concerned that infrastructure challenges will also hamper the buy-and-bill strategy for inclisiran.

He also expressed skepticism that the prior-authorization barrier will disappear. “Payers don’t want to open a large population to a very expensive drug without some gatekeeping,” he said, while acknowledging that in late January 2022 he did not yet have personal experience administering inclisiran or navigating its insurance reimbursement.
 

Boosting patient compliance

Dr. Davidson agreed that the prospect for enhanced patient compliance with inclisiran was intriguing and had already drawn the interest of some of his patients.

“There is a lot of appeal” to a treatment that’s only given once every 6 months, he said. “Compliance is a major issue, and this is less work for patients.”

“The biggest possible attraction of inclisiran is that it is given twice a year, but whether this plays out as anticipated in the real world need to be seen,” cautioned Vijay Nambi, MD, a cardiologist at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Hospital, Houston, and at Baylor College of Medicine who has written about inclisiran. He noted that while two doses a year is “on paper very attractive,” this scheme opens the door to missed or delayed appointments because of vacations, other patient travel, or events like a pandemic.

“The biggest pro for inclisiran is the dosing schedule,” said Chandni Bardolia, PharmD, a drug information specialist at Tabula Rasa Healthcare, Moorestown, N.J., who has analyzed and written about inclisiran and other lipid-lowering medications. “Twice yearly dosing following initiation will be a huge benefit to improve adherence and reduce the number of injections.”

However, inclisiran’s attractive dosing schedule as well as its safety and potent efficacy do not tell the whole story, she highlighted in an interview.

Inclisiran’s clinical evidence still cooking

“I see inclisiran as a last-line drug, mainly because the current alternatives have more safety and efficacy data,” Dr. Bardolia said.

Inclisiran’s “cost and the fact that there are other agents with clinical outcome data already available [alirocumab and evolocumab] means inclisiran is not a first-line agent after statins,” agreed Dr. Nambi.

The FDA based its inclisiran approval entirely on the drug’s demonstrated safety and LDL-lowering efficacy. The cardiovascular outcomes trial for inclisiran, ORION-4, with about 15,000 enrolled patients, started in 2018 and remains in progress with full results expected in 2026.

The lack of clinical outcomes data for inclisiran is a major limitation, said Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Northwestern University, Chicago, and vice chair of the panel that wrote the most recent cholesterol guideline for the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.

“My greatest concern is the lack of outcome trial data. That’s very important,” Dr. Stone said in an interview.

But others minimize this limitation given the overwhelming evidence that links lower levels of LDL-cholesterol to reduced clinical events.

Most clinicians “support lower LDL as a surrogate” for reduced clinical events, “just like blood pressure and hemoglobin A1c,” noted Dr. Davidson, although he conceded that a “substantial minority wants to wait to see inclisiran’s outcome benefits.”
 

It’s all about price

While opinions are mixed on the need for clinical outcomes data, experts are more uniform in seeing drug prices that run to several thousands per year as the main uptake issue.

“We need to look at the cost-efficacy with inclisiran, and we need benefit data to determine this,” said Dr. Stone.

“Outcomes data are central to characterizing value. I imagine that costs will impact adoption and dissemination” of inclisiran, commented Paul L. Hess, MD, a cardiologist at the Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Denver.

Patient interest in less frequent dosing will be important for driving use, but “ultimately cost will be the most important driving factor,” for inclisiran uptake, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist affiliated with the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

Dr. Davidson has ties to New Amsterdam Pharma and Amgen, which markets evolocumab (Repatha). Dr. Ballantyne is a consultant to numerous companies, including Amgen and Regeneron, which market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Nambi has been a site investigator for studies sponsored by Amgen, and by Merck, which markets the LDL-cholesterol drug ezetimibe (Zetia) and is developing an oral PCSK9 inhibitor (he said that the views he expressed are his own and don’t represent that of the department of Veterans Affairs or Baylor.) Dr. Bardolia had no disclosures beyond her employment at Tabula Rasa Healthcare. Dr. Stone, Dr. Hess, and Dr. Eckel had no relevant disclosures.


 

As inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL-cholesterol lowering drug, enters the U.S. market following Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021, several issues muddy how popular inclisiran will be in actual practice. That’s despite stellar phase 3 trial evidence for safety, tolerability, and a potent lipid-lowering effect.

The active ingredient of inclisiran (Leqvio) is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule that shuts down production of the PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) protein, an enzyme that’s made and functions primarily in the liver and degrades cellular receptors for LDL cholesterol. Inhibiting PCSK9 production means LDL-cholesterol receptors accumulate and boost the ability of liver cells to pull more LDL cholesterol out of blood.

PCSK9 inhibition is the most potent LDL-cholesterol lowering method now available, and it works well in patients who have maxed out LDL reduction by diet and statin treatment. The siRNA of inclisiran is tweaked to target the molecule to the surface of liver cells following subcutaneous injection. Other modifications of the siRNA give it stability that allows twice-a-year dosing, although patients receive a third injection during their first year to hasten a maximum treatment effect.

Inclisiran’s FDA approval relied on results from three pivotal trials that together enrolled 3,660 patients with either atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), ASCVD risk equivalents, or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH), and LDL-cholesterol levels of at least 70 mg/dL in those with established ASCVD, or at least 100 mg/dL in other patients. (HeFH and ASCVD are the drug’s approved indications.) Pooled data from the three trials showed that inclisiran was safe and well tolerated during 18 months and produced an average LDL-cholesterol reduction after 510 days (1.4 years) of about 51% compared to baseline after correction for placebo effects (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Mar 9;77 [9]:1182-93).

These data showed inclisiran was about as safe and effective for reducing LDL-cholesterol as agents from another class of PCSK9 inhibitors that rely on injected antibodies to inactivate PCSK9. Two agents from this class, alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha), both came on the U.S. market in 2015. Although their performance in routine practice during the ensuing 6-plus years has been as safe and effective as what they showed in their respective registration trials, they have faced a rocky uptake road that’s been primarily hindered by the hefty price tag that both drugs carry.
 

Prior-authorization blues

When they first came out, evolocumab and alirocumab were burdened by annual drug costs of roughly $14,000, a fact that led to widespread prior-authorization and copay barriers set up by U.S. insurers. Although these barriers gradually lessened over time, in part aided by a substantial price cut for both drugs that led to annual drug costs more in the range of $6,000/year, they remain relatively pricey and are still not easy to start in patients because of prior-authorization requirements, said clinicians.

Recent penetration of the older PCSK9 inhibitors into eligible U.S. patients “is only about 1%-2%, based on the latest data,” said Michael H. Davidson, MD, a lipid specialist and director of Preventive Cardiology at the University of Chicago.

“We have these great, effective drugs, but they haven’t really made an impact over the past 5 years,” because of very limited uptake, a situation Dr. Davidson called “very disappointing,” during an interview.

Given this recent history, inclisiran, another expensive PCSK9 inhibitor, may face similar coverage pushback as it hits the U.S. market with a retail price, announced by its manufacturer Novartis, of $3,250/dose. This means that patients who start the drug and receive their initial dose, a second dose after 3 months, and then additional doses every 6 months, rack up a drug cost of close to $10,000 the first year on the drug and $6,500 each subsequent year.

This treatment schedule highlights the major logistical difference that distinguishes inclisiran from the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors, which are given by repeated subcutaneous injection every 2 or 4 weeks, usually with patients self-injecting the drugs at home. The less-frequent dosing schedule for inclisiran prompted the drug’s developers to schedule injections by a clinician in an office setting in the pivotal trials, which led to labeling for inclisiran that specifies administration only by a health care professional.
 

The ‘buy-and-bill’ coverage model

This difference in drug administration between inclisiran and the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors set up Novartis to promote insurance reimbursement for inclisiran using a “buy-and-bill” paradigm that was first developed for oncology drugs and which may provide a loophole around the prior-authorization roadblocks that hindered early uptake of the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors.

It’s also an approach that has made U.S. clinicians unsure how it will play out in practice. Infrequent inclisiran dosing may also boost patient compliance.

“Adherence is the greatest challenge in preventive cardiology, and thus inclisiran has the potential to be a game changer,” commented Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“Will it be easier for physicians to write a prescription and for patients to get the medication without a demanding and frustrating prior-authorization process?” he wondered during an interview. “I’m waiting to see how this unfolds, especially in systems where pharmacy is not fully integrated with the outpatient setting. In some ways, this is as big of an experiment as was development of the drug,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

Although the prior-authorization hoops for evolocumab and alirocumab have become easier to jump through, “most physicians don’t have the resources to handle it and don’t bother,” noted Dr. Davidson, and he’s concerned that infrastructure challenges will also hamper the buy-and-bill strategy for inclisiran.

He also expressed skepticism that the prior-authorization barrier will disappear. “Payers don’t want to open a large population to a very expensive drug without some gatekeeping,” he said, while acknowledging that in late January 2022 he did not yet have personal experience administering inclisiran or navigating its insurance reimbursement.
 

Boosting patient compliance

Dr. Davidson agreed that the prospect for enhanced patient compliance with inclisiran was intriguing and had already drawn the interest of some of his patients.

“There is a lot of appeal” to a treatment that’s only given once every 6 months, he said. “Compliance is a major issue, and this is less work for patients.”

“The biggest possible attraction of inclisiran is that it is given twice a year, but whether this plays out as anticipated in the real world need to be seen,” cautioned Vijay Nambi, MD, a cardiologist at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Hospital, Houston, and at Baylor College of Medicine who has written about inclisiran. He noted that while two doses a year is “on paper very attractive,” this scheme opens the door to missed or delayed appointments because of vacations, other patient travel, or events like a pandemic.

“The biggest pro for inclisiran is the dosing schedule,” said Chandni Bardolia, PharmD, a drug information specialist at Tabula Rasa Healthcare, Moorestown, N.J., who has analyzed and written about inclisiran and other lipid-lowering medications. “Twice yearly dosing following initiation will be a huge benefit to improve adherence and reduce the number of injections.”

However, inclisiran’s attractive dosing schedule as well as its safety and potent efficacy do not tell the whole story, she highlighted in an interview.

Inclisiran’s clinical evidence still cooking

“I see inclisiran as a last-line drug, mainly because the current alternatives have more safety and efficacy data,” Dr. Bardolia said.

Inclisiran’s “cost and the fact that there are other agents with clinical outcome data already available [alirocumab and evolocumab] means inclisiran is not a first-line agent after statins,” agreed Dr. Nambi.

The FDA based its inclisiran approval entirely on the drug’s demonstrated safety and LDL-lowering efficacy. The cardiovascular outcomes trial for inclisiran, ORION-4, with about 15,000 enrolled patients, started in 2018 and remains in progress with full results expected in 2026.

The lack of clinical outcomes data for inclisiran is a major limitation, said Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Northwestern University, Chicago, and vice chair of the panel that wrote the most recent cholesterol guideline for the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.

“My greatest concern is the lack of outcome trial data. That’s very important,” Dr. Stone said in an interview.

But others minimize this limitation given the overwhelming evidence that links lower levels of LDL-cholesterol to reduced clinical events.

Most clinicians “support lower LDL as a surrogate” for reduced clinical events, “just like blood pressure and hemoglobin A1c,” noted Dr. Davidson, although he conceded that a “substantial minority wants to wait to see inclisiran’s outcome benefits.”
 

It’s all about price

While opinions are mixed on the need for clinical outcomes data, experts are more uniform in seeing drug prices that run to several thousands per year as the main uptake issue.

“We need to look at the cost-efficacy with inclisiran, and we need benefit data to determine this,” said Dr. Stone.

“Outcomes data are central to characterizing value. I imagine that costs will impact adoption and dissemination” of inclisiran, commented Paul L. Hess, MD, a cardiologist at the Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Denver.

Patient interest in less frequent dosing will be important for driving use, but “ultimately cost will be the most important driving factor,” for inclisiran uptake, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist affiliated with the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

Dr. Davidson has ties to New Amsterdam Pharma and Amgen, which markets evolocumab (Repatha). Dr. Ballantyne is a consultant to numerous companies, including Amgen and Regeneron, which market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Nambi has been a site investigator for studies sponsored by Amgen, and by Merck, which markets the LDL-cholesterol drug ezetimibe (Zetia) and is developing an oral PCSK9 inhibitor (he said that the views he expressed are his own and don’t represent that of the department of Veterans Affairs or Baylor.) Dr. Bardolia had no disclosures beyond her employment at Tabula Rasa Healthcare. Dr. Stone, Dr. Hess, and Dr. Eckel had no relevant disclosures.


 

As inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL-cholesterol lowering drug, enters the U.S. market following Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021, several issues muddy how popular inclisiran will be in actual practice. That’s despite stellar phase 3 trial evidence for safety, tolerability, and a potent lipid-lowering effect.

The active ingredient of inclisiran (Leqvio) is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule that shuts down production of the PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) protein, an enzyme that’s made and functions primarily in the liver and degrades cellular receptors for LDL cholesterol. Inhibiting PCSK9 production means LDL-cholesterol receptors accumulate and boost the ability of liver cells to pull more LDL cholesterol out of blood.

PCSK9 inhibition is the most potent LDL-cholesterol lowering method now available, and it works well in patients who have maxed out LDL reduction by diet and statin treatment. The siRNA of inclisiran is tweaked to target the molecule to the surface of liver cells following subcutaneous injection. Other modifications of the siRNA give it stability that allows twice-a-year dosing, although patients receive a third injection during their first year to hasten a maximum treatment effect.

Inclisiran’s FDA approval relied on results from three pivotal trials that together enrolled 3,660 patients with either atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), ASCVD risk equivalents, or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH), and LDL-cholesterol levels of at least 70 mg/dL in those with established ASCVD, or at least 100 mg/dL in other patients. (HeFH and ASCVD are the drug’s approved indications.) Pooled data from the three trials showed that inclisiran was safe and well tolerated during 18 months and produced an average LDL-cholesterol reduction after 510 days (1.4 years) of about 51% compared to baseline after correction for placebo effects (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Mar 9;77 [9]:1182-93).

These data showed inclisiran was about as safe and effective for reducing LDL-cholesterol as agents from another class of PCSK9 inhibitors that rely on injected antibodies to inactivate PCSK9. Two agents from this class, alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha), both came on the U.S. market in 2015. Although their performance in routine practice during the ensuing 6-plus years has been as safe and effective as what they showed in their respective registration trials, they have faced a rocky uptake road that’s been primarily hindered by the hefty price tag that both drugs carry.
 

Prior-authorization blues

When they first came out, evolocumab and alirocumab were burdened by annual drug costs of roughly $14,000, a fact that led to widespread prior-authorization and copay barriers set up by U.S. insurers. Although these barriers gradually lessened over time, in part aided by a substantial price cut for both drugs that led to annual drug costs more in the range of $6,000/year, they remain relatively pricey and are still not easy to start in patients because of prior-authorization requirements, said clinicians.

Recent penetration of the older PCSK9 inhibitors into eligible U.S. patients “is only about 1%-2%, based on the latest data,” said Michael H. Davidson, MD, a lipid specialist and director of Preventive Cardiology at the University of Chicago.

“We have these great, effective drugs, but they haven’t really made an impact over the past 5 years,” because of very limited uptake, a situation Dr. Davidson called “very disappointing,” during an interview.

Given this recent history, inclisiran, another expensive PCSK9 inhibitor, may face similar coverage pushback as it hits the U.S. market with a retail price, announced by its manufacturer Novartis, of $3,250/dose. This means that patients who start the drug and receive their initial dose, a second dose after 3 months, and then additional doses every 6 months, rack up a drug cost of close to $10,000 the first year on the drug and $6,500 each subsequent year.

This treatment schedule highlights the major logistical difference that distinguishes inclisiran from the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors, which are given by repeated subcutaneous injection every 2 or 4 weeks, usually with patients self-injecting the drugs at home. The less-frequent dosing schedule for inclisiran prompted the drug’s developers to schedule injections by a clinician in an office setting in the pivotal trials, which led to labeling for inclisiran that specifies administration only by a health care professional.
 

The ‘buy-and-bill’ coverage model

This difference in drug administration between inclisiran and the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors set up Novartis to promote insurance reimbursement for inclisiran using a “buy-and-bill” paradigm that was first developed for oncology drugs and which may provide a loophole around the prior-authorization roadblocks that hindered early uptake of the antibody-based PCSK9 inhibitors.

It’s also an approach that has made U.S. clinicians unsure how it will play out in practice. Infrequent inclisiran dosing may also boost patient compliance.

“Adherence is the greatest challenge in preventive cardiology, and thus inclisiran has the potential to be a game changer,” commented Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

“Will it be easier for physicians to write a prescription and for patients to get the medication without a demanding and frustrating prior-authorization process?” he wondered during an interview. “I’m waiting to see how this unfolds, especially in systems where pharmacy is not fully integrated with the outpatient setting. In some ways, this is as big of an experiment as was development of the drug,” Dr. Ballantyne said.

Although the prior-authorization hoops for evolocumab and alirocumab have become easier to jump through, “most physicians don’t have the resources to handle it and don’t bother,” noted Dr. Davidson, and he’s concerned that infrastructure challenges will also hamper the buy-and-bill strategy for inclisiran.

He also expressed skepticism that the prior-authorization barrier will disappear. “Payers don’t want to open a large population to a very expensive drug without some gatekeeping,” he said, while acknowledging that in late January 2022 he did not yet have personal experience administering inclisiran or navigating its insurance reimbursement.
 

Boosting patient compliance

Dr. Davidson agreed that the prospect for enhanced patient compliance with inclisiran was intriguing and had already drawn the interest of some of his patients.

“There is a lot of appeal” to a treatment that’s only given once every 6 months, he said. “Compliance is a major issue, and this is less work for patients.”

“The biggest possible attraction of inclisiran is that it is given twice a year, but whether this plays out as anticipated in the real world need to be seen,” cautioned Vijay Nambi, MD, a cardiologist at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Hospital, Houston, and at Baylor College of Medicine who has written about inclisiran. He noted that while two doses a year is “on paper very attractive,” this scheme opens the door to missed or delayed appointments because of vacations, other patient travel, or events like a pandemic.

“The biggest pro for inclisiran is the dosing schedule,” said Chandni Bardolia, PharmD, a drug information specialist at Tabula Rasa Healthcare, Moorestown, N.J., who has analyzed and written about inclisiran and other lipid-lowering medications. “Twice yearly dosing following initiation will be a huge benefit to improve adherence and reduce the number of injections.”

However, inclisiran’s attractive dosing schedule as well as its safety and potent efficacy do not tell the whole story, she highlighted in an interview.

Inclisiran’s clinical evidence still cooking

“I see inclisiran as a last-line drug, mainly because the current alternatives have more safety and efficacy data,” Dr. Bardolia said.

Inclisiran’s “cost and the fact that there are other agents with clinical outcome data already available [alirocumab and evolocumab] means inclisiran is not a first-line agent after statins,” agreed Dr. Nambi.

The FDA based its inclisiran approval entirely on the drug’s demonstrated safety and LDL-lowering efficacy. The cardiovascular outcomes trial for inclisiran, ORION-4, with about 15,000 enrolled patients, started in 2018 and remains in progress with full results expected in 2026.

The lack of clinical outcomes data for inclisiran is a major limitation, said Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Northwestern University, Chicago, and vice chair of the panel that wrote the most recent cholesterol guideline for the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.

“My greatest concern is the lack of outcome trial data. That’s very important,” Dr. Stone said in an interview.

But others minimize this limitation given the overwhelming evidence that links lower levels of LDL-cholesterol to reduced clinical events.

Most clinicians “support lower LDL as a surrogate” for reduced clinical events, “just like blood pressure and hemoglobin A1c,” noted Dr. Davidson, although he conceded that a “substantial minority wants to wait to see inclisiran’s outcome benefits.”
 

It’s all about price

While opinions are mixed on the need for clinical outcomes data, experts are more uniform in seeing drug prices that run to several thousands per year as the main uptake issue.

“We need to look at the cost-efficacy with inclisiran, and we need benefit data to determine this,” said Dr. Stone.

“Outcomes data are central to characterizing value. I imagine that costs will impact adoption and dissemination” of inclisiran, commented Paul L. Hess, MD, a cardiologist at the Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Denver.

Patient interest in less frequent dosing will be important for driving use, but “ultimately cost will be the most important driving factor,” for inclisiran uptake, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist affiliated with the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

Dr. Davidson has ties to New Amsterdam Pharma and Amgen, which markets evolocumab (Repatha). Dr. Ballantyne is a consultant to numerous companies, including Amgen and Regeneron, which market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Nambi has been a site investigator for studies sponsored by Amgen, and by Merck, which markets the LDL-cholesterol drug ezetimibe (Zetia) and is developing an oral PCSK9 inhibitor (he said that the views he expressed are his own and don’t represent that of the department of Veterans Affairs or Baylor.) Dr. Bardolia had no disclosures beyond her employment at Tabula Rasa Healthcare. Dr. Stone, Dr. Hess, and Dr. Eckel had no relevant disclosures.


 

A deep molecular dive into COVID-19 patients found that the presence of autoantibodies in peripheral blood at initial diagnosis was the chief of four risk factors predicting if a patient would experience long COVID.

Other significant early predictors of prolonged COVID symptoms – which the researchers called postacute sequelae – were having type 2 diabetes, SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia, and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) viremia, Yapeng Su, PhD, of the Institute for Systems Biology (ISB) in Seattle, and colleagues wrote in Cell.

Having EBV viremia suggested that latent EBV has been reactivated, the authors noted.

“The most important postacute sequelae [that is conditions that are consequences of a disease] of COVID is the presence of autoantibodies,” James R. Heath, PhD, president of ISB and a bioengineering professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “It’s about two times more important than the others.”

Dr. Heath and coauthors said early detection of this and other variables could prompt earlier aggressive treatment in patients susceptible to long COVID and ward off lingering symptoms.

“These predictive measures of long COVID can also help to better inform patients of their possible disease course,” study coauthor Daniel G. Chen, an undergraduate researcher at ISB, said in an interview. “We were also able to partially resolve the immunological underpinnings of some postacute sequelae of COVID in a way that suggested potential therapies, and the timing of those therapies.”

For example, he continued, the use of antivirals very early in the infectious course may mitigate the later development of long COVID. “This will, of course, have to be explored in an appropriately designed clinical trial.

“We also identified biomarkers of certain types of long COVID, such as neurological sequelae. Those biomarkers can help define the condition, which is a first step towards developing treatments.”

Study findings

With COVID patients monitored for 2 or 3 months, the study findings of the international “multiomic profiling” analysis include:

• Subclinical patient autoantibodies that reduce anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies suggest there is immune dysregulation during COVID-19 infection.
• Reactivation of latent other viruses during initial infection may be contributing to long COVID.
• Gastrointestinal postacute sequelae of COVID presents with a unique postacute expansion of cytotoxic T cells.
• SARS-CoV-2–specific and cytomegalovirus-specific CD8+ T cells displayed unique dynamics during recovery from infection.

According to the authors, as many as 69% of COVID-19 patients suffer from long COVID – a range of new, recurrent, or ongoing problems 4 or more weeks following initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. These may include memory loss, gastrointestinal distress, fatigue, anosmia, and shortness of breath.

Long COVID has been associated with acute disease severity, and is suspected to be related to autoimmune factors and unresolved viral fragments, according to the paper.
 

Research methods

The international study did a deep and detailed dive into multiple molecular markers of long COVID. It enrolled 209 COVID-19 patients with varying degrees of disease severity and matched them to 457 healthy controls. The researchers’ goal was to identify discrete and quantifiable long COVID factors and guide possible preemptive treatment. 

Patients were assessed at three time points: at initial diagnosis, during the acute disease phase about a week later, and again 2 to 3 months post onset of symptoms after recovery from the acute phase of COVID. At the third assessment, some patients had lingering symptoms such as fatigue (52% ), cough (25%), and loss of taste or sense of smell (18%).

Blood draws were analyzed for autoantibodies and SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, global plasma proteomic and metabolomic profiles, and single-cell multiomic characterizations of peripheral blood mononuclear cells.

Each blood draw was paired with nasal-swab and plasma measurements of SARS-CoV-2 viral load and the data sets were integrated with electronic health records and self-reported patient symptoms to guide the interpretation of the molecular signatures of long COVID.
 

Author conclusions

The authors found an association between T2 hyperinflammation and long COVID–anticipating autoantibodies. This association further implies that hyperinflammation-controlling therapies in the acute stage of COVID may influence whether a patient experiences long COVID. “However, the detailed timing and context of these therapies matter, and, thus, future well-controlled studies will be needed to test these and other therapeutic implications,” Dr. Su and colleagues wrote.

Moreover, the negative correlations between anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG and certain autoantibodies may suggest that patients with elevated autoantibody levels are more susceptible to breakthrough infections, the authors said.

“Many patients with high autoantibodies simultaneously have low protective antibodies that neutralize SARS-CoV-2, and that’s going to make them more susceptible to breakthrough infections,” Mr. Chen explained.*

“Detectability of most [long COVID-19 factors] at COVID diagnosis emphasizes the importance of early disease measurements for understanding emergent chronic conditions and suggests [long COVID] treatment strategies,” they wrote.

According to Mr. Chen, there are clear similarities in underlying immunobiology between patients with COVID autoantibodies and patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

“These findings are also helping us frame our thinking around other chronic autoimmune conditions, such as postacute Lyme syndrome, for example,” said Dr. Heath.

The bottom line, said Mr. Chen, is that measuring early long COVID indicators may result in preventive treatments. “An example is the cortisol deficiency we see in certain long COVID patients. There are known treatments such as cortisol replacement therapy that should be explored for this group.”

Outside expert’s take on findings

Commenting on the study, Sherry Hsiang-Yi Chou, MD, who was not involved in the research, called the study a very important first step in understanding the path of this complex phenomenon and perhaps other conditions with long-term side effects.

“The researchers have done huge amount of innovative scientific work. They’ve shown the DNA signature of how our bodies respond to this disease,” said Dr. Chou, who is chief of the division of neurocritical care at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.

“This type of research will help us scientifically understand and differentiate the various syndromes within long COVID. It will help identify who’s at risk for different aspects of this syndrome and lead to following them for longer periods in clinical trials,” she added.

The authors acknowledged that lengthier studies in larger cohorts were needed to see which patients will develop long-term chronic postacute sequelae of COVID.

This research was supported by the Wilke Family Foundation, the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Merck, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Other support came from the National Institutes of Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Saint John’s Cancer Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Dr. Heath is a cofounder of Pact Pharma. He and several coauthors disclosed various ties to multiple private-sector companies. Mr. Chen and Dr. Chou had no competing interests.

*Correction, 1/28: An earlier version of this story misidentified Daniel G. Chen, an undergraduate researcher at ISB.

A deep molecular dive into COVID-19 patients found that the presence of autoantibodies in peripheral blood at initial diagnosis was the chief of four risk factors predicting if a patient would experience long COVID.

Other significant early predictors of prolonged COVID symptoms – which the researchers called postacute sequelae – were having type 2 diabetes, SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia, and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) viremia, Yapeng Su, PhD, of the Institute for Systems Biology (ISB) in Seattle, and colleagues wrote in Cell.

Having EBV viremia suggested that latent EBV has been reactivated, the authors noted.

“The most important postacute sequelae [that is conditions that are consequences of a disease] of COVID is the presence of autoantibodies,” James R. Heath, PhD, president of ISB and a bioengineering professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “It’s about two times more important than the others.”

Dr. Heath and coauthors said early detection of this and other variables could prompt earlier aggressive treatment in patients susceptible to long COVID and ward off lingering symptoms.

“These predictive measures of long COVID can also help to better inform patients of their possible disease course,” study coauthor Daniel G. Chen, an undergraduate researcher at ISB, said in an interview. “We were also able to partially resolve the immunological underpinnings of some postacute sequelae of COVID in a way that suggested potential therapies, and the timing of those therapies.”

For example, he continued, the use of antivirals very early in the infectious course may mitigate the later development of long COVID. “This will, of course, have to be explored in an appropriately designed clinical trial.

“We also identified biomarkers of certain types of long COVID, such as neurological sequelae. Those biomarkers can help define the condition, which is a first step towards developing treatments.”

Study findings

With COVID patients monitored for 2 or 3 months, the study findings of the international “multiomic profiling” analysis include:

• Subclinical patient autoantibodies that reduce anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies suggest there is immune dysregulation during COVID-19 infection.
• Reactivation of latent other viruses during initial infection may be contributing to long COVID.
• Gastrointestinal postacute sequelae of COVID presents with a unique postacute expansion of cytotoxic T cells.
• SARS-CoV-2–specific and cytomegalovirus-specific CD8+ T cells displayed unique dynamics during recovery from infection.

According to the authors, as many as 69% of COVID-19 patients suffer from long COVID – a range of new, recurrent, or ongoing problems 4 or more weeks following initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. These may include memory loss, gastrointestinal distress, fatigue, anosmia, and shortness of breath.

Long COVID has been associated with acute disease severity, and is suspected to be related to autoimmune factors and unresolved viral fragments, according to the paper.
 

Research methods

The international study did a deep and detailed dive into multiple molecular markers of long COVID. It enrolled 209 COVID-19 patients with varying degrees of disease severity and matched them to 457 healthy controls. The researchers’ goal was to identify discrete and quantifiable long COVID factors and guide possible preemptive treatment. 

Patients were assessed at three time points: at initial diagnosis, during the acute disease phase about a week later, and again 2 to 3 months post onset of symptoms after recovery from the acute phase of COVID. At the third assessment, some patients had lingering symptoms such as fatigue (52% ), cough (25%), and loss of taste or sense of smell (18%).

Blood draws were analyzed for autoantibodies and SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, global plasma proteomic and metabolomic profiles, and single-cell multiomic characterizations of peripheral blood mononuclear cells.

Each blood draw was paired with nasal-swab and plasma measurements of SARS-CoV-2 viral load and the data sets were integrated with electronic health records and self-reported patient symptoms to guide the interpretation of the molecular signatures of long COVID.
 

Author conclusions

The authors found an association between T2 hyperinflammation and long COVID–anticipating autoantibodies. This association further implies that hyperinflammation-controlling therapies in the acute stage of COVID may influence whether a patient experiences long COVID. “However, the detailed timing and context of these therapies matter, and, thus, future well-controlled studies will be needed to test these and other therapeutic implications,” Dr. Su and colleagues wrote.

Moreover, the negative correlations between anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG and certain autoantibodies may suggest that patients with elevated autoantibody levels are more susceptible to breakthrough infections, the authors said.

“Many patients with high autoantibodies simultaneously have low protective antibodies that neutralize SARS-CoV-2, and that’s going to make them more susceptible to breakthrough infections,” Mr. Chen explained.*

“Detectability of most [long COVID-19 factors] at COVID diagnosis emphasizes the importance of early disease measurements for understanding emergent chronic conditions and suggests [long COVID] treatment strategies,” they wrote.

According to Mr. Chen, there are clear similarities in underlying immunobiology between patients with COVID autoantibodies and patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

“These findings are also helping us frame our thinking around other chronic autoimmune conditions, such as postacute Lyme syndrome, for example,” said Dr. Heath.

The bottom line, said Mr. Chen, is that measuring early long COVID indicators may result in preventive treatments. “An example is the cortisol deficiency we see in certain long COVID patients. There are known treatments such as cortisol replacement therapy that should be explored for this group.”

Outside expert’s take on findings

Commenting on the study, Sherry Hsiang-Yi Chou, MD, who was not involved in the research, called the study a very important first step in understanding the path of this complex phenomenon and perhaps other conditions with long-term side effects.

“The researchers have done huge amount of innovative scientific work. They’ve shown the DNA signature of how our bodies respond to this disease,” said Dr. Chou, who is chief of the division of neurocritical care at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.

“This type of research will help us scientifically understand and differentiate the various syndromes within long COVID. It will help identify who’s at risk for different aspects of this syndrome and lead to following them for longer periods in clinical trials,” she added.

The authors acknowledged that lengthier studies in larger cohorts were needed to see which patients will develop long-term chronic postacute sequelae of COVID.

This research was supported by the Wilke Family Foundation, the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Merck, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Other support came from the National Institutes of Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Saint John’s Cancer Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Dr. Heath is a cofounder of Pact Pharma. He and several coauthors disclosed various ties to multiple private-sector companies. Mr. Chen and Dr. Chou had no competing interests.

*Correction, 1/28: An earlier version of this story misidentified Daniel G. Chen, an undergraduate researcher at ISB.

A deep molecular dive into COVID-19 patients found that the presence of autoantibodies in peripheral blood at initial diagnosis was the chief of four risk factors predicting if a patient would experience long COVID.

Other significant early predictors of prolonged COVID symptoms – which the researchers called postacute sequelae – were having type 2 diabetes, SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia, and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) viremia, Yapeng Su, PhD, of the Institute for Systems Biology (ISB) in Seattle, and colleagues wrote in Cell.

Having EBV viremia suggested that latent EBV has been reactivated, the authors noted.

“The most important postacute sequelae [that is conditions that are consequences of a disease] of COVID is the presence of autoantibodies,” James R. Heath, PhD, president of ISB and a bioengineering professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “It’s about two times more important than the others.”

Dr. Heath and coauthors said early detection of this and other variables could prompt earlier aggressive treatment in patients susceptible to long COVID and ward off lingering symptoms.

“These predictive measures of long COVID can also help to better inform patients of their possible disease course,” study coauthor Daniel G. Chen, an undergraduate researcher at ISB, said in an interview. “We were also able to partially resolve the immunological underpinnings of some postacute sequelae of COVID in a way that suggested potential therapies, and the timing of those therapies.”

For example, he continued, the use of antivirals very early in the infectious course may mitigate the later development of long COVID. “This will, of course, have to be explored in an appropriately designed clinical trial.

“We also identified biomarkers of certain types of long COVID, such as neurological sequelae. Those biomarkers can help define the condition, which is a first step towards developing treatments.”

Study findings

With COVID patients monitored for 2 or 3 months, the study findings of the international “multiomic profiling” analysis include:

• Subclinical patient autoantibodies that reduce anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies suggest there is immune dysregulation during COVID-19 infection.
• Reactivation of latent other viruses during initial infection may be contributing to long COVID.
• Gastrointestinal postacute sequelae of COVID presents with a unique postacute expansion of cytotoxic T cells.
• SARS-CoV-2–specific and cytomegalovirus-specific CD8+ T cells displayed unique dynamics during recovery from infection.

According to the authors, as many as 69% of COVID-19 patients suffer from long COVID – a range of new, recurrent, or ongoing problems 4 or more weeks following initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. These may include memory loss, gastrointestinal distress, fatigue, anosmia, and shortness of breath.

Long COVID has been associated with acute disease severity, and is suspected to be related to autoimmune factors and unresolved viral fragments, according to the paper.
 

Research methods

The international study did a deep and detailed dive into multiple molecular markers of long COVID. It enrolled 209 COVID-19 patients with varying degrees of disease severity and matched them to 457 healthy controls. The researchers’ goal was to identify discrete and quantifiable long COVID factors and guide possible preemptive treatment. 

Patients were assessed at three time points: at initial diagnosis, during the acute disease phase about a week later, and again 2 to 3 months post onset of symptoms after recovery from the acute phase of COVID. At the third assessment, some patients had lingering symptoms such as fatigue (52% ), cough (25%), and loss of taste or sense of smell (18%).

Blood draws were analyzed for autoantibodies and SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, global plasma proteomic and metabolomic profiles, and single-cell multiomic characterizations of peripheral blood mononuclear cells.

Each blood draw was paired with nasal-swab and plasma measurements of SARS-CoV-2 viral load and the data sets were integrated with electronic health records and self-reported patient symptoms to guide the interpretation of the molecular signatures of long COVID.
 

Author conclusions

The authors found an association between T2 hyperinflammation and long COVID–anticipating autoantibodies. This association further implies that hyperinflammation-controlling therapies in the acute stage of COVID may influence whether a patient experiences long COVID. “However, the detailed timing and context of these therapies matter, and, thus, future well-controlled studies will be needed to test these and other therapeutic implications,” Dr. Su and colleagues wrote.

Moreover, the negative correlations between anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG and certain autoantibodies may suggest that patients with elevated autoantibody levels are more susceptible to breakthrough infections, the authors said.

“Many patients with high autoantibodies simultaneously have low protective antibodies that neutralize SARS-CoV-2, and that’s going to make them more susceptible to breakthrough infections,” Mr. Chen explained.*

“Detectability of most [long COVID-19 factors] at COVID diagnosis emphasizes the importance of early disease measurements for understanding emergent chronic conditions and suggests [long COVID] treatment strategies,” they wrote.

According to Mr. Chen, there are clear similarities in underlying immunobiology between patients with COVID autoantibodies and patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

“These findings are also helping us frame our thinking around other chronic autoimmune conditions, such as postacute Lyme syndrome, for example,” said Dr. Heath.

The bottom line, said Mr. Chen, is that measuring early long COVID indicators may result in preventive treatments. “An example is the cortisol deficiency we see in certain long COVID patients. There are known treatments such as cortisol replacement therapy that should be explored for this group.”

Outside expert’s take on findings

Commenting on the study, Sherry Hsiang-Yi Chou, MD, who was not involved in the research, called the study a very important first step in understanding the path of this complex phenomenon and perhaps other conditions with long-term side effects.

“The researchers have done huge amount of innovative scientific work. They’ve shown the DNA signature of how our bodies respond to this disease,” said Dr. Chou, who is chief of the division of neurocritical care at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.

“This type of research will help us scientifically understand and differentiate the various syndromes within long COVID. It will help identify who’s at risk for different aspects of this syndrome and lead to following them for longer periods in clinical trials,” she added.

The authors acknowledged that lengthier studies in larger cohorts were needed to see which patients will develop long-term chronic postacute sequelae of COVID.

This research was supported by the Wilke Family Foundation, the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Merck, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Other support came from the National Institutes of Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Saint John’s Cancer Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Dr. Heath is a cofounder of Pact Pharma. He and several coauthors disclosed various ties to multiple private-sector companies. Mr. Chen and Dr. Chou had no competing interests.

*Correction, 1/28: An earlier version of this story misidentified Daniel G. Chen, an undergraduate researcher at ISB.

After participating in the activity, PCPs should be able to:

• Assess a patient with possible signs and symptoms of opioid use disorder
• Identify criteria necessary to make a diagnosis of opioid use disorder
• Recognize factors that should be considered to tailor treatments for patients with opioid use disorder
• Select the best treatment option for patients with opioid use disorder

Click here to access this content now 

After participating in the activity, PCPs should be able to:

• Assess a patient with possible signs and symptoms of opioid use disorder
• Identify criteria necessary to make a diagnosis of opioid use disorder
• Recognize factors that should be considered to tailor treatments for patients with opioid use disorder
• Select the best treatment option for patients with opioid use disorder

Click here to access this content now 

After participating in the activity, PCPs should be able to:

• Assess a patient with possible signs and symptoms of opioid use disorder
• Identify criteria necessary to make a diagnosis of opioid use disorder
• Recognize factors that should be considered to tailor treatments for patients with opioid use disorder
• Select the best treatment option for patients with opioid use disorder

Click here to access this content now 

More steps per day, particularly at a higher intensity, may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes in older women, based on a prospective cohort study.

The link between daily stepping and diabetes was not significantly modified by body mass index (BMI) or other common diabetes risk factors, suggesting that the relationship is highly generalizable, lead author Alexis C. Garduno, MPH, a PhD student at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.

“Physical activity is a key modifiable behavior for diabetes prevention and management,” the investigators wrote in Diabetes Care. “Many prevention studies have demonstrated that regular physical activity, along with improved diet, reduces the risk of diabetes in adults. ... To the best of our knowledge, there are few studies examining the association between objectively measured steps per day and incident diabetes in a community-based setting.”

To this end, the investigators analyzed data from 4,838 older, community-living women in the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health Study. Upon enrollment, women were without physician-diagnosed diabetes and had a mean age of 78.9 years. For 1 week, participants wore ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers to measure steps per day, as well as step intensity, graded as light or moderate to vigorous.

The relationship between daily activity and diabetes was analyzed using three multivariate models: The first included race/ethnicity and age; the second also included family history of diabetes, education, physical functioning, self-rated health, smoking status, and alcohol consumption; and the third added BMI, “a potential mediator in the causal pathway between steps per day and diabetes,” the investigators wrote.

Participants took an average of 3,729 steps per day, divided roughly evenly between light and moderate to vigorous intensity.

After a median follow-up of 5.7 years, 8.1% of women developed diabetes. The least-adjusted model showed a 14% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.92; P = .007), whereas the second model, adjusting for more confounding variables, showed a 12% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00; P = .045).

The final model, which added BMI, showed a 10% reduction in risk, although it didn’t reach statistical significance (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.02; P = .11). Furthermore, accelerated failure time models suggested that BMI did not significantly impact the link between steps and diabetes (proportion mediated, 17.7%;95% CI, –55.0 to 142.0; P = .09). Further analyses also found no significant interactions between BMI or other possible confounders.

“The steps per day–diabetes association was not modified by age, race/ethnicity, BMI, physical functioning, or family history of diabetes, which supports the generalizability of these findings to community-living older women,” the investigators wrote.

Increased stepping intensity also appeared to lower risk of diabetes. After adjusting for confounding variables, light stepping was not linked to reduced risk (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.29; P = .83), whereas moderate to vigorous stepping reduced risk by 14% per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00; P = .04).

“This study provides evidence supporting an association between steps per day and lower incident diabetes,” the investigators concluded. “While further work is needed to identify whether there is a minimum number of steps per day that results in a clinically significant reduction of diabetes and to evaluate the role that step intensity plays in diabetes etiology for older adults, findings from this study suggest that moderate-vigorous–intensity steps may be more important than lower-intensity steps with respect to incident diabetes. Steps per day–based interventions are needed to advance diabetes prevention science in older adults.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, and others. The investigators had no potential conflicts of interest.

More steps per day, particularly at a higher intensity, may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes in older women, based on a prospective cohort study.

The link between daily stepping and diabetes was not significantly modified by body mass index (BMI) or other common diabetes risk factors, suggesting that the relationship is highly generalizable, lead author Alexis C. Garduno, MPH, a PhD student at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.

“Physical activity is a key modifiable behavior for diabetes prevention and management,” the investigators wrote in Diabetes Care. “Many prevention studies have demonstrated that regular physical activity, along with improved diet, reduces the risk of diabetes in adults. ... To the best of our knowledge, there are few studies examining the association between objectively measured steps per day and incident diabetes in a community-based setting.”

To this end, the investigators analyzed data from 4,838 older, community-living women in the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health Study. Upon enrollment, women were without physician-diagnosed diabetes and had a mean age of 78.9 years. For 1 week, participants wore ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers to measure steps per day, as well as step intensity, graded as light or moderate to vigorous.

The relationship between daily activity and diabetes was analyzed using three multivariate models: The first included race/ethnicity and age; the second also included family history of diabetes, education, physical functioning, self-rated health, smoking status, and alcohol consumption; and the third added BMI, “a potential mediator in the causal pathway between steps per day and diabetes,” the investigators wrote.

Participants took an average of 3,729 steps per day, divided roughly evenly between light and moderate to vigorous intensity.

After a median follow-up of 5.7 years, 8.1% of women developed diabetes. The least-adjusted model showed a 14% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.92; P = .007), whereas the second model, adjusting for more confounding variables, showed a 12% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00; P = .045).

The final model, which added BMI, showed a 10% reduction in risk, although it didn’t reach statistical significance (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.02; P = .11). Furthermore, accelerated failure time models suggested that BMI did not significantly impact the link between steps and diabetes (proportion mediated, 17.7%;95% CI, –55.0 to 142.0; P = .09). Further analyses also found no significant interactions between BMI or other possible confounders.

“The steps per day–diabetes association was not modified by age, race/ethnicity, BMI, physical functioning, or family history of diabetes, which supports the generalizability of these findings to community-living older women,” the investigators wrote.

Increased stepping intensity also appeared to lower risk of diabetes. After adjusting for confounding variables, light stepping was not linked to reduced risk (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.29; P = .83), whereas moderate to vigorous stepping reduced risk by 14% per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00; P = .04).

“This study provides evidence supporting an association between steps per day and lower incident diabetes,” the investigators concluded. “While further work is needed to identify whether there is a minimum number of steps per day that results in a clinically significant reduction of diabetes and to evaluate the role that step intensity plays in diabetes etiology for older adults, findings from this study suggest that moderate-vigorous–intensity steps may be more important than lower-intensity steps with respect to incident diabetes. Steps per day–based interventions are needed to advance diabetes prevention science in older adults.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, and others. The investigators had no potential conflicts of interest.

More steps per day, particularly at a higher intensity, may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes in older women, based on a prospective cohort study.

The link between daily stepping and diabetes was not significantly modified by body mass index (BMI) or other common diabetes risk factors, suggesting that the relationship is highly generalizable, lead author Alexis C. Garduno, MPH, a PhD student at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.

“Physical activity is a key modifiable behavior for diabetes prevention and management,” the investigators wrote in Diabetes Care. “Many prevention studies have demonstrated that regular physical activity, along with improved diet, reduces the risk of diabetes in adults. ... To the best of our knowledge, there are few studies examining the association between objectively measured steps per day and incident diabetes in a community-based setting.”

To this end, the investigators analyzed data from 4,838 older, community-living women in the Objective Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Health Study. Upon enrollment, women were without physician-diagnosed diabetes and had a mean age of 78.9 years. For 1 week, participants wore ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers to measure steps per day, as well as step intensity, graded as light or moderate to vigorous.

The relationship between daily activity and diabetes was analyzed using three multivariate models: The first included race/ethnicity and age; the second also included family history of diabetes, education, physical functioning, self-rated health, smoking status, and alcohol consumption; and the third added BMI, “a potential mediator in the causal pathway between steps per day and diabetes,” the investigators wrote.

Participants took an average of 3,729 steps per day, divided roughly evenly between light and moderate to vigorous intensity.

After a median follow-up of 5.7 years, 8.1% of women developed diabetes. The least-adjusted model showed a 14% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.92; P = .007), whereas the second model, adjusting for more confounding variables, showed a 12% reduction in diabetes risk per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00; P = .045).

The final model, which added BMI, showed a 10% reduction in risk, although it didn’t reach statistical significance (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.02; P = .11). Furthermore, accelerated failure time models suggested that BMI did not significantly impact the link between steps and diabetes (proportion mediated, 17.7%;95% CI, –55.0 to 142.0; P = .09). Further analyses also found no significant interactions between BMI or other possible confounders.

“The steps per day–diabetes association was not modified by age, race/ethnicity, BMI, physical functioning, or family history of diabetes, which supports the generalizability of these findings to community-living older women,” the investigators wrote.

Increased stepping intensity also appeared to lower risk of diabetes. After adjusting for confounding variables, light stepping was not linked to reduced risk (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.29; P = .83), whereas moderate to vigorous stepping reduced risk by 14% per 2,000 steps (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00; P = .04).

“This study provides evidence supporting an association between steps per day and lower incident diabetes,” the investigators concluded. “While further work is needed to identify whether there is a minimum number of steps per day that results in a clinically significant reduction of diabetes and to evaluate the role that step intensity plays in diabetes etiology for older adults, findings from this study suggest that moderate-vigorous–intensity steps may be more important than lower-intensity steps with respect to incident diabetes. Steps per day–based interventions are needed to advance diabetes prevention science in older adults.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, and others. The investigators had no potential conflicts of interest.

A new statement from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes that current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for atrial fibrillation (AFib) in asymptomatic adults.

The guidance is similar to the task force’s 2018 statement on screening for AFib with electrocardiography in asymptomatic adults 65 years or older, but lowers the inclusion age to adults 50 years or older.

“This 2021 evidence review included searching for evidence on additional screening methods such as automated blood pressure cuffs, pulse oximeters, and consumer devices such as smartwatches and smartphone apps. However, even with this expanded scope, the USPSTF did not find evidence to recommend for or against screening for AF,” the task force states.

The prevalence of increases in age from less than 0.2% in adults younger than 55 years to about 10% in those 85 years or older, the group says. The prevalence is higher in men than in women, but it is uncertain if it differs by race and ethnicity.

Although AFib substantially increases the risk for stroke, the stroke risk associated with subclinical AFib, particularly that of shorter duration lasting less than 24 hours or of lower burden, as might be detected by some screening approaches, is “uncertain,” the task force adds.

The updated recommendations were published online in JAMA, along with a separate evidence report and editorial.

The task force reviewed 26 studies in 113,784 patients, including 12 new to the update.

Studies showed that systematic screening detected significantly more AFib than no screening or pulse palpation (absolute difference, 1.0%-4.8% over up to 12 months). In two of the trials, however, only 10.7% and 44.5% of participants actually received the screening test.

The review included three randomized trials of screening vs. no screening that reported on health outcomes, but only one, STROKESTOP, was powered for health outcomes. It found a significantly lower risk for the primary composite endpoint of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, system embolism, bleeding leading to hospitalization, and all-cause mortality with twice-daily intermittent single-lead ECG monitoring for 14 days, compared with no screening. However, there were no significant differences in any of the individual outcomes of the composite endpoint.

“Additionally, and probably the most important thing to appreciate for the STROKESTOP study is that it has several limitations,” task force member Gbenga Ogedegbe, MD, MPH, of New York University told this news organization. The intervention was not masked, and outcomes weren’t centrally adjudicated.

Further, “about 11% of patients in the trial had a history of transient ischemic attack (TIA), stroke, or embolism and the population that we’re looking at within the task force are people without symptoms or history of stroke or ischemic attack,” he said. “That’s the fundamental difference here. So those limitations make it difficult to say that STROKESTOP actually has benefit.”

Notably absent from the review was the recent LOOP study, which found no significant benefit on outcomes with continuous monitoring with an implantable loop recorder (ILR) over usual care in older adults.

While it “offers some context for this issue,” it was not eligible for inclusion because 25% of the population had a prior history of stroke, TIA, or embolism and “because this screening approach may not be feasible for primary care settings,” lead author of the Evidence Report Leila Kahwati, MD, MPH, from RTI International’s Social and Health Organizational Research and Evaluation Program and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explained in an email.

Treatment with warfarin (mean, 1.5 years) was associated with a lower risk for ischemic stroke (relative risk, 0.32) and all-cause mortality (relative risk, 0.68), while direct oral anticoagulants were associated with a lower incidence of stroke (adjusted odds ratio range, 0.32-0.44). Patients had an increased risk for major bleeding with both warfarin (pooled relative risk, 1.8) and direct-acting oral anticoagulants (odds ratio, 1.38-2.21), but confidence intervals did not exclude a null effect.

The USPSTF found no trials that reported on the benefits of anticoagulation therapy in screen-detected patients.

In an accompanying editorial Philip Greenland, MD, points out that the task force’s conclusion differs from the 2020 European Society of Cardiology AFib guideline, which endorses opportunistic screening for AFib by pulse palpation or ECG rhythm strip in patients 65 years or older (class I recommendation) and advises that clinicians consider systematic ECG screening to detect AFib in people 75 years or older, or those at high risk for stroke (class IIa).

To possibly resolve whether screening for AFib in asymptomatic patients is justified, “future trials may need to consider enrolling only higher risk patients and identifying those with AF of longer duration,” said Dr. Greenland, JAMA editor and professor of preventive medicine and medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

“One important point raised by the LOOP trial is whether there is a threshold for AF duration that is most strongly associated with stroke risk and therefore most likely to benefit from anticoagulation,” he writes. Indeed, the LOOP authors themselves questioned whether the trial’s short AFib duration of 6 minutes may have led to many low-risk patients being diagnosed and treated.

“Additionally, trials need to recognize the need for longer monitoring periods (preferably continuous), and perhaps novel wearables will allow long-term monitoring, with accurate interpretation of the ECG and long-term adherence,” Dr. Greenland said.

In a related editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine, John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health Louisville, Ky., and Andrew Foy, MD, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, point out that continuous ILR monitoring in the LOOP trial found threefold more AFib and led to 2.7-fold higher rates of oral anticoagulation use, compared with standard care. Yet, there was no statistically significant difference in stroke reduction, and the 20% relative reduction in thromboembolic complications in the screened group was offset by a 26% relative increase in major bleeding.

“Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the AF screening trials is that as the tools for screening improve, from a single 12-lead ECG to 14-day recordings and then the always-on ILR, more AF is detected and more [oral anticoagulant] is used, yet there is little demonstrable improvement in outcomes,” Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Foy write.

The editorialists also point to the potential for rhythm monitoring to lead to misdiagnosis and downstream cascades of care. “If you assume a 2% AF prevalence, even a device with 98% specificity will misdiagnose approximately 2000 individuals for every million screened.”

Dr. Mandrola told this news organization that the “greatest value” of these reports on AF screening and the critical appraisal of them is as an exercise in thinking about the limits of screening for disease. As James Maxwell Glover Wilson and Gunner Jungner wrote in their 1968 textbook, “Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease”: “in theory, screening is an admirable method of combating disease … [but] in practice, there are snags.”

“It would be good for the public to understand these snags…because they also apply to cancer, coronary calcium testing, and vascular screening as well,” Dr. Mandrola said.

Asked whether it’s possible to put the genie back in the bottle now that every other patient in clinic may have an ECG on their wrist, Dr. Ogedegbe said, “if a patient has no history of stroke or TIA and is 50 years or older, really, monitoring with these devices for AFib, there’s no evidence for or against doing that. Ultimately, the clinician has got to use their clinical judgment in talking to these patients.”

A related editorial in JAMA Cardiology suggests that, to be effective, the movement toward consumer-based screening must first show that such an approach improves outcomes and must deal with the paradox that those at highest risk for AFib and AFib-related stroke may be the least likely to own these technologies unless supported by the healthcare system.

“In addition, appropriate care pathways for confirming the diagnosis and, if necessary, initiating appropriate treatment in individuals with positive findings will need to be established,” Rod Passman, MD, Northwestern University, and Ben Freedman, MBBS, PhD, University of Sydney, Australia, say. “It will also be critical to ensure that device costs and variable technological literacy do not create barriers to making screening accessible to all those at risk.”

Finally, in a related editorial in JAMA Network Open Matthew Kalscheur, MD, and Zachary D. Goldberger, MD, both from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, say the potential benefits of early AFib detection should extend beyond stroke prevention.

“Patients identified with AF likely would benefit from targeted management of modifiable risk factors that contribute to AF, including obesity, hypertension, alcohol use, sleep apnea, smoking, and diabetes,” they write.

All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. Dr. Ogedegbe has a study included in the Evidence-based Practice Center report for this topic. Dr. Kahwati reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Greenland reported receiving research grants from the National Institutes of Health and from the American Heart Association. Dr. Mandrola is a regular contributor to this news organization. Dr. Foy, Dr. Kalscheur, and Dr. Goldberger reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new statement from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes that current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for atrial fibrillation (AFib) in asymptomatic adults.

The guidance is similar to the task force’s 2018 statement on screening for AFib with electrocardiography in asymptomatic adults 65 years or older, but lowers the inclusion age to adults 50 years or older.

“This 2021 evidence review included searching for evidence on additional screening methods such as automated blood pressure cuffs, pulse oximeters, and consumer devices such as smartwatches and smartphone apps. However, even with this expanded scope, the USPSTF did not find evidence to recommend for or against screening for AF,” the task force states.

The prevalence of increases in age from less than 0.2% in adults younger than 55 years to about 10% in those 85 years or older, the group says. The prevalence is higher in men than in women, but it is uncertain if it differs by race and ethnicity.

Although AFib substantially increases the risk for stroke, the stroke risk associated with subclinical AFib, particularly that of shorter duration lasting less than 24 hours or of lower burden, as might be detected by some screening approaches, is “uncertain,” the task force adds.

The updated recommendations were published online in JAMA, along with a separate evidence report and editorial.

The task force reviewed 26 studies in 113,784 patients, including 12 new to the update.

Studies showed that systematic screening detected significantly more AFib than no screening or pulse palpation (absolute difference, 1.0%-4.8% over up to 12 months). In two of the trials, however, only 10.7% and 44.5% of participants actually received the screening test.

The review included three randomized trials of screening vs. no screening that reported on health outcomes, but only one, STROKESTOP, was powered for health outcomes. It found a significantly lower risk for the primary composite endpoint of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, system embolism, bleeding leading to hospitalization, and all-cause mortality with twice-daily intermittent single-lead ECG monitoring for 14 days, compared with no screening. However, there were no significant differences in any of the individual outcomes of the composite endpoint.

“Additionally, and probably the most important thing to appreciate for the STROKESTOP study is that it has several limitations,” task force member Gbenga Ogedegbe, MD, MPH, of New York University told this news organization. The intervention was not masked, and outcomes weren’t centrally adjudicated.

Further, “about 11% of patients in the trial had a history of transient ischemic attack (TIA), stroke, or embolism and the population that we’re looking at within the task force are people without symptoms or history of stroke or ischemic attack,” he said. “That’s the fundamental difference here. So those limitations make it difficult to say that STROKESTOP actually has benefit.”

Notably absent from the review was the recent LOOP study, which found no significant benefit on outcomes with continuous monitoring with an implantable loop recorder (ILR) over usual care in older adults.

While it “offers some context for this issue,” it was not eligible for inclusion because 25% of the population had a prior history of stroke, TIA, or embolism and “because this screening approach may not be feasible for primary care settings,” lead author of the Evidence Report Leila Kahwati, MD, MPH, from RTI International’s Social and Health Organizational Research and Evaluation Program and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explained in an email.

Treatment with warfarin (mean, 1.5 years) was associated with a lower risk for ischemic stroke (relative risk, 0.32) and all-cause mortality (relative risk, 0.68), while direct oral anticoagulants were associated with a lower incidence of stroke (adjusted odds ratio range, 0.32-0.44). Patients had an increased risk for major bleeding with both warfarin (pooled relative risk, 1.8) and direct-acting oral anticoagulants (odds ratio, 1.38-2.21), but confidence intervals did not exclude a null effect.

The USPSTF found no trials that reported on the benefits of anticoagulation therapy in screen-detected patients.

In an accompanying editorial Philip Greenland, MD, points out that the task force’s conclusion differs from the 2020 European Society of Cardiology AFib guideline, which endorses opportunistic screening for AFib by pulse palpation or ECG rhythm strip in patients 65 years or older (class I recommendation) and advises that clinicians consider systematic ECG screening to detect AFib in people 75 years or older, or those at high risk for stroke (class IIa).

To possibly resolve whether screening for AFib in asymptomatic patients is justified, “future trials may need to consider enrolling only higher risk patients and identifying those with AF of longer duration,” said Dr. Greenland, JAMA editor and professor of preventive medicine and medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

“One important point raised by the LOOP trial is whether there is a threshold for AF duration that is most strongly associated with stroke risk and therefore most likely to benefit from anticoagulation,” he writes. Indeed, the LOOP authors themselves questioned whether the trial’s short AFib duration of 6 minutes may have led to many low-risk patients being diagnosed and treated.

“Additionally, trials need to recognize the need for longer monitoring periods (preferably continuous), and perhaps novel wearables will allow long-term monitoring, with accurate interpretation of the ECG and long-term adherence,” Dr. Greenland said.

In a related editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine, John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health Louisville, Ky., and Andrew Foy, MD, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, point out that continuous ILR monitoring in the LOOP trial found threefold more AFib and led to 2.7-fold higher rates of oral anticoagulation use, compared with standard care. Yet, there was no statistically significant difference in stroke reduction, and the 20% relative reduction in thromboembolic complications in the screened group was offset by a 26% relative increase in major bleeding.

“Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the AF screening trials is that as the tools for screening improve, from a single 12-lead ECG to 14-day recordings and then the always-on ILR, more AF is detected and more [oral anticoagulant] is used, yet there is little demonstrable improvement in outcomes,” Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Foy write.

The editorialists also point to the potential for rhythm monitoring to lead to misdiagnosis and downstream cascades of care. “If you assume a 2% AF prevalence, even a device with 98% specificity will misdiagnose approximately 2000 individuals for every million screened.”

Dr. Mandrola told this news organization that the “greatest value” of these reports on AF screening and the critical appraisal of them is as an exercise in thinking about the limits of screening for disease. As James Maxwell Glover Wilson and Gunner Jungner wrote in their 1968 textbook, “Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease”: “in theory, screening is an admirable method of combating disease … [but] in practice, there are snags.”

“It would be good for the public to understand these snags…because they also apply to cancer, coronary calcium testing, and vascular screening as well,” Dr. Mandrola said.

Asked whether it’s possible to put the genie back in the bottle now that every other patient in clinic may have an ECG on their wrist, Dr. Ogedegbe said, “if a patient has no history of stroke or TIA and is 50 years or older, really, monitoring with these devices for AFib, there’s no evidence for or against doing that. Ultimately, the clinician has got to use their clinical judgment in talking to these patients.”

A related editorial in JAMA Cardiology suggests that, to be effective, the movement toward consumer-based screening must first show that such an approach improves outcomes and must deal with the paradox that those at highest risk for AFib and AFib-related stroke may be the least likely to own these technologies unless supported by the healthcare system.

“In addition, appropriate care pathways for confirming the diagnosis and, if necessary, initiating appropriate treatment in individuals with positive findings will need to be established,” Rod Passman, MD, Northwestern University, and Ben Freedman, MBBS, PhD, University of Sydney, Australia, say. “It will also be critical to ensure that device costs and variable technological literacy do not create barriers to making screening accessible to all those at risk.”

Finally, in a related editorial in JAMA Network Open Matthew Kalscheur, MD, and Zachary D. Goldberger, MD, both from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, say the potential benefits of early AFib detection should extend beyond stroke prevention.

“Patients identified with AF likely would benefit from targeted management of modifiable risk factors that contribute to AF, including obesity, hypertension, alcohol use, sleep apnea, smoking, and diabetes,” they write.

All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. Dr. Ogedegbe has a study included in the Evidence-based Practice Center report for this topic. Dr. Kahwati reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Greenland reported receiving research grants from the National Institutes of Health and from the American Heart Association. Dr. Mandrola is a regular contributor to this news organization. Dr. Foy, Dr. Kalscheur, and Dr. Goldberger reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new statement from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes that current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for atrial fibrillation (AFib) in asymptomatic adults.

The guidance is similar to the task force’s 2018 statement on screening for AFib with electrocardiography in asymptomatic adults 65 years or older, but lowers the inclusion age to adults 50 years or older.

“This 2021 evidence review included searching for evidence on additional screening methods such as automated blood pressure cuffs, pulse oximeters, and consumer devices such as smartwatches and smartphone apps. However, even with this expanded scope, the USPSTF did not find evidence to recommend for or against screening for AF,” the task force states.

The prevalence of increases in age from less than 0.2% in adults younger than 55 years to about 10% in those 85 years or older, the group says. The prevalence is higher in men than in women, but it is uncertain if it differs by race and ethnicity.

Although AFib substantially increases the risk for stroke, the stroke risk associated with subclinical AFib, particularly that of shorter duration lasting less than 24 hours or of lower burden, as might be detected by some screening approaches, is “uncertain,” the task force adds.

The updated recommendations were published online in JAMA, along with a separate evidence report and editorial.

The task force reviewed 26 studies in 113,784 patients, including 12 new to the update.

Studies showed that systematic screening detected significantly more AFib than no screening or pulse palpation (absolute difference, 1.0%-4.8% over up to 12 months). In two of the trials, however, only 10.7% and 44.5% of participants actually received the screening test.

The review included three randomized trials of screening vs. no screening that reported on health outcomes, but only one, STROKESTOP, was powered for health outcomes. It found a significantly lower risk for the primary composite endpoint of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, system embolism, bleeding leading to hospitalization, and all-cause mortality with twice-daily intermittent single-lead ECG monitoring for 14 days, compared with no screening. However, there were no significant differences in any of the individual outcomes of the composite endpoint.

“Additionally, and probably the most important thing to appreciate for the STROKESTOP study is that it has several limitations,” task force member Gbenga Ogedegbe, MD, MPH, of New York University told this news organization. The intervention was not masked, and outcomes weren’t centrally adjudicated.

Further, “about 11% of patients in the trial had a history of transient ischemic attack (TIA), stroke, or embolism and the population that we’re looking at within the task force are people without symptoms or history of stroke or ischemic attack,” he said. “That’s the fundamental difference here. So those limitations make it difficult to say that STROKESTOP actually has benefit.”

Notably absent from the review was the recent LOOP study, which found no significant benefit on outcomes with continuous monitoring with an implantable loop recorder (ILR) over usual care in older adults.

While it “offers some context for this issue,” it was not eligible for inclusion because 25% of the population had a prior history of stroke, TIA, or embolism and “because this screening approach may not be feasible for primary care settings,” lead author of the Evidence Report Leila Kahwati, MD, MPH, from RTI International’s Social and Health Organizational Research and Evaluation Program and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explained in an email.

Treatment with warfarin (mean, 1.5 years) was associated with a lower risk for ischemic stroke (relative risk, 0.32) and all-cause mortality (relative risk, 0.68), while direct oral anticoagulants were associated with a lower incidence of stroke (adjusted odds ratio range, 0.32-0.44). Patients had an increased risk for major bleeding with both warfarin (pooled relative risk, 1.8) and direct-acting oral anticoagulants (odds ratio, 1.38-2.21), but confidence intervals did not exclude a null effect.

The USPSTF found no trials that reported on the benefits of anticoagulation therapy in screen-detected patients.

In an accompanying editorial Philip Greenland, MD, points out that the task force’s conclusion differs from the 2020 European Society of Cardiology AFib guideline, which endorses opportunistic screening for AFib by pulse palpation or ECG rhythm strip in patients 65 years or older (class I recommendation) and advises that clinicians consider systematic ECG screening to detect AFib in people 75 years or older, or those at high risk for stroke (class IIa).

To possibly resolve whether screening for AFib in asymptomatic patients is justified, “future trials may need to consider enrolling only higher risk patients and identifying those with AF of longer duration,” said Dr. Greenland, JAMA editor and professor of preventive medicine and medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

“One important point raised by the LOOP trial is whether there is a threshold for AF duration that is most strongly associated with stroke risk and therefore most likely to benefit from anticoagulation,” he writes. Indeed, the LOOP authors themselves questioned whether the trial’s short AFib duration of 6 minutes may have led to many low-risk patients being diagnosed and treated.

“Additionally, trials need to recognize the need for longer monitoring periods (preferably continuous), and perhaps novel wearables will allow long-term monitoring, with accurate interpretation of the ECG and long-term adherence,” Dr. Greenland said.

In a related editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine, John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health Louisville, Ky., and Andrew Foy, MD, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, point out that continuous ILR monitoring in the LOOP trial found threefold more AFib and led to 2.7-fold higher rates of oral anticoagulation use, compared with standard care. Yet, there was no statistically significant difference in stroke reduction, and the 20% relative reduction in thromboembolic complications in the screened group was offset by a 26% relative increase in major bleeding.

“Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the AF screening trials is that as the tools for screening improve, from a single 12-lead ECG to 14-day recordings and then the always-on ILR, more AF is detected and more [oral anticoagulant] is used, yet there is little demonstrable improvement in outcomes,” Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Foy write.

The editorialists also point to the potential for rhythm monitoring to lead to misdiagnosis and downstream cascades of care. “If you assume a 2% AF prevalence, even a device with 98% specificity will misdiagnose approximately 2000 individuals for every million screened.”

Dr. Mandrola told this news organization that the “greatest value” of these reports on AF screening and the critical appraisal of them is as an exercise in thinking about the limits of screening for disease. As James Maxwell Glover Wilson and Gunner Jungner wrote in their 1968 textbook, “Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease”: “in theory, screening is an admirable method of combating disease … [but] in practice, there are snags.”

“It would be good for the public to understand these snags…because they also apply to cancer, coronary calcium testing, and vascular screening as well,” Dr. Mandrola said.

Asked whether it’s possible to put the genie back in the bottle now that every other patient in clinic may have an ECG on their wrist, Dr. Ogedegbe said, “if a patient has no history of stroke or TIA and is 50 years or older, really, monitoring with these devices for AFib, there’s no evidence for or against doing that. Ultimately, the clinician has got to use their clinical judgment in talking to these patients.”

A related editorial in JAMA Cardiology suggests that, to be effective, the movement toward consumer-based screening must first show that such an approach improves outcomes and must deal with the paradox that those at highest risk for AFib and AFib-related stroke may be the least likely to own these technologies unless supported by the healthcare system.

“In addition, appropriate care pathways for confirming the diagnosis and, if necessary, initiating appropriate treatment in individuals with positive findings will need to be established,” Rod Passman, MD, Northwestern University, and Ben Freedman, MBBS, PhD, University of Sydney, Australia, say. “It will also be critical to ensure that device costs and variable technological literacy do not create barriers to making screening accessible to all those at risk.”

Finally, in a related editorial in JAMA Network Open Matthew Kalscheur, MD, and Zachary D. Goldberger, MD, both from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, say the potential benefits of early AFib detection should extend beyond stroke prevention.

“Patients identified with AF likely would benefit from targeted management of modifiable risk factors that contribute to AF, including obesity, hypertension, alcohol use, sleep apnea, smoking, and diabetes,” they write.

All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. Dr. Ogedegbe has a study included in the Evidence-based Practice Center report for this topic. Dr. Kahwati reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Greenland reported receiving research grants from the National Institutes of Health and from the American Heart Association. Dr. Mandrola is a regular contributor to this news organization. Dr. Foy, Dr. Kalscheur, and Dr. Goldberger reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Gender equality remains elusive for women in academic oncology, a survey of nearly 700 U.S. female oncologists suggests.

More than half of respondents in academic medicine said they believe their gender adversely affects their likelihood for promotion, and 1 in 5 said they were considering leaving academia in the next 5 years.

Given the percentage of female oncologists planning to exit academia, “gender inequality is at high risk of continuing if the culture is not addressed,” write the authors in their study, published online Dec. 30 in JAMA Network Open.

Although women currently outnumber men in U.S. medical schools – a shift that first occurred in 2019 – female representation in academic oncology dwindles at more senior levels. Women represent 45% of hematology and oncology residents, only about 36% of academic faculty, and an even smaller percentage of leadership positions in academic medicine. Women, for instance, occupy about 31% of the chair positions in medical oncology, 17.4% in radiation oncology, and 11% in surgical oncology.

A team of researchers led by Emily C. Merfeld, MD, of the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, Madison, set out to understand the factors influencing female oncologists’ decisions to pursue academic versus nonacademic career paths.

Dr. Merfeld and colleagues analyzed survey responses from 667 female oncologists between August 1 and Oct. 31, 2020 – 422 (63.2%) in academic medicine and 245 (36.8%) in nonacademic practice.

Overall, 1 in 4 oncologists said their spouse or partner and family “extremely or moderately” affected their decision to pursue academic practice.

Almost 43% of academic oncologists perceived time spent with loved ones as the biggest sacrifice related to pursuing a career in academic medicine. Approximately the same percentage (41.6%) of nonacademic oncologists perceived the pressure to achieve academic promotion as the most significant sacrifice associated with academic oncology, whereas only 22.4% perceived less time with loved ones as the biggest sacrifice.

“Although work-life balance was a concern for academic oncologists and may be a factor in female oncologists leaving academia, survey data suggested that women in nonacademic practice faced similar challenges,” the authors write.

More specifically, women in academic oncology reported working 2 more hours on the weekends compared to women not in academic medicine; however, both groups worked a similar number of hours during the week.

On the hiring front, almost 24% of academic oncologists said their gender had a “negative or somewhat negative” impact on their ability to get a job, compared with 21% of nonacademic oncologists. Conversely, nearly 28% of academic oncologists said their gender had a “positive or somewhat positive” influence on whether they were hired compared with 41.2% of nonacademic oncologists.

Respondents, however, perceived that gender strongly influenced promotion opportunities. More than half of the respondents – 54.6% of academic oncologists and 50.6% of nonacademic oncologists – believed they were less likely to be promoted than their male colleagues.

This perception aligns with findings from prior studies, which “found women were less likely than men to be promoted to associate professor, full professor, or department chair positions,” the authors write.

Overall, most respondents in each group – 71.3% in academic medicine and 68.6% in nonacademic practice – said they would choose the same career path again. But almost 22% of those in academia said they were “likely or very likely” to leave academic oncology in the next 5 years. Of these women, 28.2% said they would switch to industry employment and 25% would move to community practice.

“Contrary to popular assumptions,” the researchers note, “a spouse or partner and/or family were not a major factor in female oncologists favoring nonacademic careers, because this factor was similarly important to both academic and nonacademic oncologists.”

However, they note, “the increased financial compensation in nonacademic oncology may play a large role in some women’s career decisions.”
 

Making headway on gender equality?

In 2013, oncologist Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, MBA, now an associate at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, published a study on gender equality in oncology in which she concluded that despite “an increasingly significant presence in the oncology physician workforce” women remained “under-represented in leadership positions and at the senior levels of academic medicine.”

Since then, Dr. Reeder-Hayes says that she has seen progress but recognizes the need for more.

“To some extent, I think that representation is improving over time due to factors outside the workplace – women are entering medical school in large numbers and may have more supportive partners and more social support for pursuing a professional career in general, [compared with] a decade or two ago,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes told this news organization.

On a personal level, she noted, “I do see many midcareer women assuming key leadership roles in my own institution.” However, she added, “I think the translation of those good candidates into increased representation in leadership probably varies widely across different institutions.”

In a 2019 editorial, researchers highlighted this variation while calling attention to the “notable progress” made by the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR). Specifically, the editorialists reported that women represent 40% of AACR members, 45% of the AACR Board of Directors, and half of the last 10 association presidents.

Editorial coauthor Elizabeth Jaffee, MD, deputy director of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and former AACR president, told this news organization that she attributes this progress to “concrete measures to ensure equality throughout the organization,” which include gender balance on nominating and program committees as well as research meetings and providing opportunities for mentoring, leadership training, and networking.

Despite this positive change, the COVID-19 pandemic threatens to widen the gender imbalance. In a recent article, Julie Silver, MD, an expert in gender equity in medicine, told this news organization that she anticipates trouble ahead.

“There are many indications that women are leaving medicine in disproportionately high numbers,” said Dr. Silver, associate chair and director of cancer rehabilitation in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “A lack of fair pay and promotion opportunities that were present before COVID-19 are now combined with a host of pandemic-related challenges.”

In addition to salary and promotion disparities, the U.S. continues to suffer from “a chronic shortage of available, affordable, and high-quality childcare and a lack of federal-level policy initiatives or employer initiatives to broaden paid family leave and develop childcare infrastructure and workforce,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said. Providing extended leave for new parents and on-site childcare could go a long way to improving this problem, she said.

However, Dr. Reeder-Hayes noted that perhaps the “leaky pipeline” problem in oncology highlights the fact that women “are making good decisions that reflect balanced life priorities, [and that] if we don’t structure job responsibilities, childcare, and pacing of promotion and tenure in ways that allow people to nurture other parts of their lives, employees will feel they’re being asked to sacrifice key things.”

In other words, she said, “it’s the workplace that needs to change if we’re going to convince [women], and many men with similar values, to stay.”

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

Gender equality remains elusive for women in academic oncology, a survey of nearly 700 U.S. female oncologists suggests.

More than half of respondents in academic medicine said they believe their gender adversely affects their likelihood for promotion, and 1 in 5 said they were considering leaving academia in the next 5 years.

Given the percentage of female oncologists planning to exit academia, “gender inequality is at high risk of continuing if the culture is not addressed,” write the authors in their study, published online Dec. 30 in JAMA Network Open.

Although women currently outnumber men in U.S. medical schools – a shift that first occurred in 2019 – female representation in academic oncology dwindles at more senior levels. Women represent 45% of hematology and oncology residents, only about 36% of academic faculty, and an even smaller percentage of leadership positions in academic medicine. Women, for instance, occupy about 31% of the chair positions in medical oncology, 17.4% in radiation oncology, and 11% in surgical oncology.

A team of researchers led by Emily C. Merfeld, MD, of the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, Madison, set out to understand the factors influencing female oncologists’ decisions to pursue academic versus nonacademic career paths.

Dr. Merfeld and colleagues analyzed survey responses from 667 female oncologists between August 1 and Oct. 31, 2020 – 422 (63.2%) in academic medicine and 245 (36.8%) in nonacademic practice.

Overall, 1 in 4 oncologists said their spouse or partner and family “extremely or moderately” affected their decision to pursue academic practice.

Almost 43% of academic oncologists perceived time spent with loved ones as the biggest sacrifice related to pursuing a career in academic medicine. Approximately the same percentage (41.6%) of nonacademic oncologists perceived the pressure to achieve academic promotion as the most significant sacrifice associated with academic oncology, whereas only 22.4% perceived less time with loved ones as the biggest sacrifice.

“Although work-life balance was a concern for academic oncologists and may be a factor in female oncologists leaving academia, survey data suggested that women in nonacademic practice faced similar challenges,” the authors write.

More specifically, women in academic oncology reported working 2 more hours on the weekends compared to women not in academic medicine; however, both groups worked a similar number of hours during the week.

On the hiring front, almost 24% of academic oncologists said their gender had a “negative or somewhat negative” impact on their ability to get a job, compared with 21% of nonacademic oncologists. Conversely, nearly 28% of academic oncologists said their gender had a “positive or somewhat positive” influence on whether they were hired compared with 41.2% of nonacademic oncologists.

Respondents, however, perceived that gender strongly influenced promotion opportunities. More than half of the respondents – 54.6% of academic oncologists and 50.6% of nonacademic oncologists – believed they were less likely to be promoted than their male colleagues.

This perception aligns with findings from prior studies, which “found women were less likely than men to be promoted to associate professor, full professor, or department chair positions,” the authors write.

Overall, most respondents in each group – 71.3% in academic medicine and 68.6% in nonacademic practice – said they would choose the same career path again. But almost 22% of those in academia said they were “likely or very likely” to leave academic oncology in the next 5 years. Of these women, 28.2% said they would switch to industry employment and 25% would move to community practice.

“Contrary to popular assumptions,” the researchers note, “a spouse or partner and/or family were not a major factor in female oncologists favoring nonacademic careers, because this factor was similarly important to both academic and nonacademic oncologists.”

However, they note, “the increased financial compensation in nonacademic oncology may play a large role in some women’s career decisions.”
 

Making headway on gender equality?

In 2013, oncologist Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, MBA, now an associate at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, published a study on gender equality in oncology in which she concluded that despite “an increasingly significant presence in the oncology physician workforce” women remained “under-represented in leadership positions and at the senior levels of academic medicine.”

Since then, Dr. Reeder-Hayes says that she has seen progress but recognizes the need for more.

“To some extent, I think that representation is improving over time due to factors outside the workplace – women are entering medical school in large numbers and may have more supportive partners and more social support for pursuing a professional career in general, [compared with] a decade or two ago,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes told this news organization.

On a personal level, she noted, “I do see many midcareer women assuming key leadership roles in my own institution.” However, she added, “I think the translation of those good candidates into increased representation in leadership probably varies widely across different institutions.”

In a 2019 editorial, researchers highlighted this variation while calling attention to the “notable progress” made by the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR). Specifically, the editorialists reported that women represent 40% of AACR members, 45% of the AACR Board of Directors, and half of the last 10 association presidents.

Editorial coauthor Elizabeth Jaffee, MD, deputy director of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and former AACR president, told this news organization that she attributes this progress to “concrete measures to ensure equality throughout the organization,” which include gender balance on nominating and program committees as well as research meetings and providing opportunities for mentoring, leadership training, and networking.

Despite this positive change, the COVID-19 pandemic threatens to widen the gender imbalance. In a recent article, Julie Silver, MD, an expert in gender equity in medicine, told this news organization that she anticipates trouble ahead.

“There are many indications that women are leaving medicine in disproportionately high numbers,” said Dr. Silver, associate chair and director of cancer rehabilitation in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “A lack of fair pay and promotion opportunities that were present before COVID-19 are now combined with a host of pandemic-related challenges.”

In addition to salary and promotion disparities, the U.S. continues to suffer from “a chronic shortage of available, affordable, and high-quality childcare and a lack of federal-level policy initiatives or employer initiatives to broaden paid family leave and develop childcare infrastructure and workforce,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said. Providing extended leave for new parents and on-site childcare could go a long way to improving this problem, she said.

However, Dr. Reeder-Hayes noted that perhaps the “leaky pipeline” problem in oncology highlights the fact that women “are making good decisions that reflect balanced life priorities, [and that] if we don’t structure job responsibilities, childcare, and pacing of promotion and tenure in ways that allow people to nurture other parts of their lives, employees will feel they’re being asked to sacrifice key things.”

In other words, she said, “it’s the workplace that needs to change if we’re going to convince [women], and many men with similar values, to stay.”

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

Gender equality remains elusive for women in academic oncology, a survey of nearly 700 U.S. female oncologists suggests.

More than half of respondents in academic medicine said they believe their gender adversely affects their likelihood for promotion, and 1 in 5 said they were considering leaving academia in the next 5 years.

Given the percentage of female oncologists planning to exit academia, “gender inequality is at high risk of continuing if the culture is not addressed,” write the authors in their study, published online Dec. 30 in JAMA Network Open.

Although women currently outnumber men in U.S. medical schools – a shift that first occurred in 2019 – female representation in academic oncology dwindles at more senior levels. Women represent 45% of hematology and oncology residents, only about 36% of academic faculty, and an even smaller percentage of leadership positions in academic medicine. Women, for instance, occupy about 31% of the chair positions in medical oncology, 17.4% in radiation oncology, and 11% in surgical oncology.

A team of researchers led by Emily C. Merfeld, MD, of the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, Madison, set out to understand the factors influencing female oncologists’ decisions to pursue academic versus nonacademic career paths.

Dr. Merfeld and colleagues analyzed survey responses from 667 female oncologists between August 1 and Oct. 31, 2020 – 422 (63.2%) in academic medicine and 245 (36.8%) in nonacademic practice.

Overall, 1 in 4 oncologists said their spouse or partner and family “extremely or moderately” affected their decision to pursue academic practice.

Almost 43% of academic oncologists perceived time spent with loved ones as the biggest sacrifice related to pursuing a career in academic medicine. Approximately the same percentage (41.6%) of nonacademic oncologists perceived the pressure to achieve academic promotion as the most significant sacrifice associated with academic oncology, whereas only 22.4% perceived less time with loved ones as the biggest sacrifice.

“Although work-life balance was a concern for academic oncologists and may be a factor in female oncologists leaving academia, survey data suggested that women in nonacademic practice faced similar challenges,” the authors write.

More specifically, women in academic oncology reported working 2 more hours on the weekends compared to women not in academic medicine; however, both groups worked a similar number of hours during the week.

On the hiring front, almost 24% of academic oncologists said their gender had a “negative or somewhat negative” impact on their ability to get a job, compared with 21% of nonacademic oncologists. Conversely, nearly 28% of academic oncologists said their gender had a “positive or somewhat positive” influence on whether they were hired compared with 41.2% of nonacademic oncologists.

Respondents, however, perceived that gender strongly influenced promotion opportunities. More than half of the respondents – 54.6% of academic oncologists and 50.6% of nonacademic oncologists – believed they were less likely to be promoted than their male colleagues.

This perception aligns with findings from prior studies, which “found women were less likely than men to be promoted to associate professor, full professor, or department chair positions,” the authors write.

Overall, most respondents in each group – 71.3% in academic medicine and 68.6% in nonacademic practice – said they would choose the same career path again. But almost 22% of those in academia said they were “likely or very likely” to leave academic oncology in the next 5 years. Of these women, 28.2% said they would switch to industry employment and 25% would move to community practice.

“Contrary to popular assumptions,” the researchers note, “a spouse or partner and/or family were not a major factor in female oncologists favoring nonacademic careers, because this factor was similarly important to both academic and nonacademic oncologists.”

However, they note, “the increased financial compensation in nonacademic oncology may play a large role in some women’s career decisions.”
 

Making headway on gender equality?

In 2013, oncologist Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, MBA, now an associate at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, published a study on gender equality in oncology in which she concluded that despite “an increasingly significant presence in the oncology physician workforce” women remained “under-represented in leadership positions and at the senior levels of academic medicine.”

Since then, Dr. Reeder-Hayes says that she has seen progress but recognizes the need for more.

“To some extent, I think that representation is improving over time due to factors outside the workplace – women are entering medical school in large numbers and may have more supportive partners and more social support for pursuing a professional career in general, [compared with] a decade or two ago,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes told this news organization.

On a personal level, she noted, “I do see many midcareer women assuming key leadership roles in my own institution.” However, she added, “I think the translation of those good candidates into increased representation in leadership probably varies widely across different institutions.”

In a 2019 editorial, researchers highlighted this variation while calling attention to the “notable progress” made by the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR). Specifically, the editorialists reported that women represent 40% of AACR members, 45% of the AACR Board of Directors, and half of the last 10 association presidents.

Editorial coauthor Elizabeth Jaffee, MD, deputy director of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, and former AACR president, told this news organization that she attributes this progress to “concrete measures to ensure equality throughout the organization,” which include gender balance on nominating and program committees as well as research meetings and providing opportunities for mentoring, leadership training, and networking.

Despite this positive change, the COVID-19 pandemic threatens to widen the gender imbalance. In a recent article, Julie Silver, MD, an expert in gender equity in medicine, told this news organization that she anticipates trouble ahead.

“There are many indications that women are leaving medicine in disproportionately high numbers,” said Dr. Silver, associate chair and director of cancer rehabilitation in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “A lack of fair pay and promotion opportunities that were present before COVID-19 are now combined with a host of pandemic-related challenges.”

In addition to salary and promotion disparities, the U.S. continues to suffer from “a chronic shortage of available, affordable, and high-quality childcare and a lack of federal-level policy initiatives or employer initiatives to broaden paid family leave and develop childcare infrastructure and workforce,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said. Providing extended leave for new parents and on-site childcare could go a long way to improving this problem, she said.

However, Dr. Reeder-Hayes noted that perhaps the “leaky pipeline” problem in oncology highlights the fact that women “are making good decisions that reflect balanced life priorities, [and that] if we don’t structure job responsibilities, childcare, and pacing of promotion and tenure in ways that allow people to nurture other parts of their lives, employees will feel they’re being asked to sacrifice key things.”

In other words, she said, “it’s the workplace that needs to change if we’re going to convince [women], and many men with similar values, to stay.”

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