Children with cystic fibrosis have inadequate sleep even during times of normal lung function, according to results from a new study.

Children aged 6-12 years had more sleep issues compared with preschoolers or teenagers, researchers also found, and the quality of sleep among caregivers was seen strongly linked to that of their children with CF.

For research published in the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, Kelly C. Byars, PsyD, and colleagues at Cincinnati Children’s Medical Center and the University of Cincinnati surveyed parents of 91 medically stable patients with cystic fibrosis aged 18 and younger at a single CF treatment center between 2016 and 2017.

Fifty-four percent of the children in the study were female, the mean age was 9 years, and 90% of the caregivers were mothers. In addition to the sleep questionnaires, the researchers looked at the children’s available lung function data from around the time of the survey. Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) measures showed the vast majority had no obstructive lung disease (73% of the cohort) or only mild symptoms (18%) at the time their caregivers were surveyed.

Overall, some 40% of caregivers said they had concerns about their own sleep, while 29% said they were concerned for their children’s sleep. Parents reported night waking, daytime sleepiness, and difficulty falling asleep as their main problems, and difficulty falling asleep as the top issue for their children, along with daytime sleepiness, night waking, and mouth breathing.

Sleep issues were most pronounced for children aged 6-12 and their caregivers, a group for which 44% of caregivers said they were concerned for their children’s sleep and 55% for their own sleep. For this same group only 8% of parents reported their children having nocturnal cough, and just 5% reported gastrointestinal problems at night.

Overall, the caregivers in the study reported inadequate sleep, with more than half saying they got less than 7 hours per night. Similarly, more than half of the school-age and adolescent patients with CF were getting less than the nightly minimum recommended by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

The researchers noted “large effects for parent and child associations for insomnia symptoms that may be amenable to treatment,” especially trouble returning to sleep and daytime sleepiness.

The study “is the first to examine parent reported sleep disturbances and sleep duration in both parents and their children with CF spanning a broad age range and including patients who were medically stable and predominantly free of lung dysfunction,” Dr. Byars and colleagues wrote in their analysis, adding that sleep health should be integrated into care protocols for CF patients and their families, and families of children with other chronic illnesses.

In a comment on Dr. Byars and colleagues’ study, Hovig Artinian, MD, a pediatric pulmonary and sleep medicine specialist at Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich., said the findings “highlight for all of us that we must regularly assess and address sleep disturbances in our children with CF specifically, but also in all children with chronic conditions.”

Children with CF “carry a heavy burden,” Dr. Artinian said, “balancing living their lives with daily interruptions to their typical day to complete multiple treatments. As a result, sleep can be impacted even when there are no other clinical or objective signs of illness, so that was not an entirely surprising finding.” Difficulties with sleep onset and maintenance can be prevalent in the absence of changes in children’s daytime behavior or any other psychological signs, Dr. Artinian said, noting that in his practice he routinely asks families whether children snore (something recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for all well-child checks) and whether they have any other concerns about their sleep.

“Even if the answer is ‘no’ the first time, the act of asking plants a seed in their minds to keep an eye open and to know they can discuss it with us at a future visit if concerns come up,” Dr. Artinian said.

Dr. Byars and colleagues noted several limitations to their study including its cross-sectional, single-center design, potential participant selection bias, reliance on parent reports of child sleep, and use of a novel, nonvalidated survey instrument.

The researchers received funding from the Boomer Esiason Foundation for their study and disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Artinian had no relevant disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Byars K et al. J Cyst Fibros. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2020.04.003.

Children with cystic fibrosis have inadequate sleep even during times of normal lung function, according to results from a new study.

Children aged 6-12 years had more sleep issues compared with preschoolers or teenagers, researchers also found, and the quality of sleep among caregivers was seen strongly linked to that of their children with CF.

For research published in the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, Kelly C. Byars, PsyD, and colleagues at Cincinnati Children’s Medical Center and the University of Cincinnati surveyed parents of 91 medically stable patients with cystic fibrosis aged 18 and younger at a single CF treatment center between 2016 and 2017.

Fifty-four percent of the children in the study were female, the mean age was 9 years, and 90% of the caregivers were mothers. In addition to the sleep questionnaires, the researchers looked at the children’s available lung function data from around the time of the survey. Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) measures showed the vast majority had no obstructive lung disease (73% of the cohort) or only mild symptoms (18%) at the time their caregivers were surveyed.

Overall, some 40% of caregivers said they had concerns about their own sleep, while 29% said they were concerned for their children’s sleep. Parents reported night waking, daytime sleepiness, and difficulty falling asleep as their main problems, and difficulty falling asleep as the top issue for their children, along with daytime sleepiness, night waking, and mouth breathing.

Sleep issues were most pronounced for children aged 6-12 and their caregivers, a group for which 44% of caregivers said they were concerned for their children’s sleep and 55% for their own sleep. For this same group only 8% of parents reported their children having nocturnal cough, and just 5% reported gastrointestinal problems at night.

Overall, the caregivers in the study reported inadequate sleep, with more than half saying they got less than 7 hours per night. Similarly, more than half of the school-age and adolescent patients with CF were getting less than the nightly minimum recommended by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

The researchers noted “large effects for parent and child associations for insomnia symptoms that may be amenable to treatment,” especially trouble returning to sleep and daytime sleepiness.

The study “is the first to examine parent reported sleep disturbances and sleep duration in both parents and their children with CF spanning a broad age range and including patients who were medically stable and predominantly free of lung dysfunction,” Dr. Byars and colleagues wrote in their analysis, adding that sleep health should be integrated into care protocols for CF patients and their families, and families of children with other chronic illnesses.

In a comment on Dr. Byars and colleagues’ study, Hovig Artinian, MD, a pediatric pulmonary and sleep medicine specialist at Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich., said the findings “highlight for all of us that we must regularly assess and address sleep disturbances in our children with CF specifically, but also in all children with chronic conditions.”

Children with CF “carry a heavy burden,” Dr. Artinian said, “balancing living their lives with daily interruptions to their typical day to complete multiple treatments. As a result, sleep can be impacted even when there are no other clinical or objective signs of illness, so that was not an entirely surprising finding.” Difficulties with sleep onset and maintenance can be prevalent in the absence of changes in children’s daytime behavior or any other psychological signs, Dr. Artinian said, noting that in his practice he routinely asks families whether children snore (something recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for all well-child checks) and whether they have any other concerns about their sleep.

“Even if the answer is ‘no’ the first time, the act of asking plants a seed in their minds to keep an eye open and to know they can discuss it with us at a future visit if concerns come up,” Dr. Artinian said.

Dr. Byars and colleagues noted several limitations to their study including its cross-sectional, single-center design, potential participant selection bias, reliance on parent reports of child sleep, and use of a novel, nonvalidated survey instrument.

The researchers received funding from the Boomer Esiason Foundation for their study and disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Artinian had no relevant disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Byars K et al. J Cyst Fibros. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2020.04.003.

Children with cystic fibrosis have inadequate sleep even during times of normal lung function, according to results from a new study.

Children aged 6-12 years had more sleep issues compared with preschoolers or teenagers, researchers also found, and the quality of sleep among caregivers was seen strongly linked to that of their children with CF.

For research published in the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, Kelly C. Byars, PsyD, and colleagues at Cincinnati Children’s Medical Center and the University of Cincinnati surveyed parents of 91 medically stable patients with cystic fibrosis aged 18 and younger at a single CF treatment center between 2016 and 2017.

Fifty-four percent of the children in the study were female, the mean age was 9 years, and 90% of the caregivers were mothers. In addition to the sleep questionnaires, the researchers looked at the children’s available lung function data from around the time of the survey. Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) measures showed the vast majority had no obstructive lung disease (73% of the cohort) or only mild symptoms (18%) at the time their caregivers were surveyed.

Overall, some 40% of caregivers said they had concerns about their own sleep, while 29% said they were concerned for their children’s sleep. Parents reported night waking, daytime sleepiness, and difficulty falling asleep as their main problems, and difficulty falling asleep as the top issue for their children, along with daytime sleepiness, night waking, and mouth breathing.

Sleep issues were most pronounced for children aged 6-12 and their caregivers, a group for which 44% of caregivers said they were concerned for their children’s sleep and 55% for their own sleep. For this same group only 8% of parents reported their children having nocturnal cough, and just 5% reported gastrointestinal problems at night.

Overall, the caregivers in the study reported inadequate sleep, with more than half saying they got less than 7 hours per night. Similarly, more than half of the school-age and adolescent patients with CF were getting less than the nightly minimum recommended by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

The researchers noted “large effects for parent and child associations for insomnia symptoms that may be amenable to treatment,” especially trouble returning to sleep and daytime sleepiness.

The study “is the first to examine parent reported sleep disturbances and sleep duration in both parents and their children with CF spanning a broad age range and including patients who were medically stable and predominantly free of lung dysfunction,” Dr. Byars and colleagues wrote in their analysis, adding that sleep health should be integrated into care protocols for CF patients and their families, and families of children with other chronic illnesses.

In a comment on Dr. Byars and colleagues’ study, Hovig Artinian, MD, a pediatric pulmonary and sleep medicine specialist at Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich., said the findings “highlight for all of us that we must regularly assess and address sleep disturbances in our children with CF specifically, but also in all children with chronic conditions.”

Children with CF “carry a heavy burden,” Dr. Artinian said, “balancing living their lives with daily interruptions to their typical day to complete multiple treatments. As a result, sleep can be impacted even when there are no other clinical or objective signs of illness, so that was not an entirely surprising finding.” Difficulties with sleep onset and maintenance can be prevalent in the absence of changes in children’s daytime behavior or any other psychological signs, Dr. Artinian said, noting that in his practice he routinely asks families whether children snore (something recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for all well-child checks) and whether they have any other concerns about their sleep.

“Even if the answer is ‘no’ the first time, the act of asking plants a seed in their minds to keep an eye open and to know they can discuss it with us at a future visit if concerns come up,” Dr. Artinian said.

Dr. Byars and colleagues noted several limitations to their study including its cross-sectional, single-center design, potential participant selection bias, reliance on parent reports of child sleep, and use of a novel, nonvalidated survey instrument.

The researchers received funding from the Boomer Esiason Foundation for their study and disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Artinian had no relevant disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Byars K et al. J Cyst Fibros. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2020.04.003.

This supplement to Neurology Reviews summarizes summarize findings from English-only, peer-reviewed original articles and meta-analyses of specified cannabinoids’ effect on cognition in preclinical and clinical literature, where known, to guide practitioners with proper evidence and highlighting gaps in knowledge for future research.

Click here to read the supplement. 

Authors

Francesca Filbey, PhD
Bert Moore Chair and Professor
of Cognition and Neuroscience
The University of Texas at Dallas

Chris Hauser, PhD
Medical Science Liaison
Greenwich Biosciences, Inc.

Karthik Rajasekaran, PhD
Sr. Medical Science Liaison
Greenwich Biosciences, Inc.

1. Mead A. Front Plant Sci. 2019;10:697.

This supplement to Neurology Reviews summarizes summarize findings from English-only, peer-reviewed original articles and meta-analyses of specified cannabinoids’ effect on cognition in preclinical and clinical literature, where known, to guide practitioners with proper evidence and highlighting gaps in knowledge for future research.

Click here to read the supplement. 

Authors

Francesca Filbey, PhD
Bert Moore Chair and Professor
of Cognition and Neuroscience
The University of Texas at Dallas

Chris Hauser, PhD
Medical Science Liaison
Greenwich Biosciences, Inc.

Karthik Rajasekaran, PhD
Sr. Medical Science Liaison
Greenwich Biosciences, Inc.

1. Mead A. Front Plant Sci. 2019;10:697.

This supplement to Neurology Reviews summarizes summarize findings from English-only, peer-reviewed original articles and meta-analyses of specified cannabinoids’ effect on cognition in preclinical and clinical literature, where known, to guide practitioners with proper evidence and highlighting gaps in knowledge for future research.

Click here to read the supplement. 

Authors

Francesca Filbey, PhD
Bert Moore Chair and Professor
of Cognition and Neuroscience
The University of Texas at Dallas

Chris Hauser, PhD
Medical Science Liaison
Greenwich Biosciences, Inc.

Karthik Rajasekaran, PhD
Sr. Medical Science Liaison
Greenwich Biosciences, Inc.

1. Mead A. Front Plant Sci. 2019;10:697.

Federal health officials are encouraging clinicians to use the free CURE ID mobile app and web platform as a tool to collect cases on the treatment of patients with COVID-19, in conjunction with ongoing clinical trial efforts.

“By utilizing the CURE ID platform now for COVID-19 case collection – in conjunction with data gathered from other registries, EHR systems, and clinical trials – data collected during an outbreak can be improved and coordinated,” Heather A. Stone, MPH, said during a June 9 webinar sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration. “This may allow us to find possible treatments to help ease this pandemic, and prepare us better to fight the next one.”

During the hour-long webinar, Ms. Stone, a health science policy analyst in the office of medical policy at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, demonstrated CURE ID, an Internet-based data repository first developed in 2013 as a collaboration between the FDA and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, a part of the National Institutes of Health (NCATS/NIH). It provides licensed clinicians worldwide with an opportunity to report novel uses of existing drugs for patients with difficult-to-treat infectious diseases, including COVID-19, through a website, a smartphone, or other mobile device. The app can be downloaded for free at http://cure.ncats.io. It can also be downloaded from the Apple app store or the Google Play store by searching “CURE ID.”

According to Ms. Stone, the platform’s three main goals are to enhance the understanding of new uses of approved medical products, to facilitate clinical trials and drug development, and to serve as a resource for physicians to share information where no FDA-approved product (which has been proven to be safe and effective) exists for the new use. CURE ID enables users to report their own cases as well as read cases of neglected infectious diseases with no sufficient approved therapies from other clinicians around the world. “It also enables clinicians to engage directly with communities of disease experts around the world, breaking down geographic and specialty silos,” Ms. Stone said. “It also enables them to access information on approved therapies for each disease and as well on active clinical trials.”

To date, CURE-ID contains information on 325 infectious diseases, including 1,580 case reports and 18,907 clinical trials. Initial pilot priority diseases include COVID-19, mycetoma, atypical mycobacteria, drug-resistant gonorrhea, rare and resistant fungal infections, as well as multidrug resistant gram-negative bacteria.

As of June 9, COVID-19-related data on the platform includes 151 case reports that have been extracted from the published literature or entered by clinician users, 80 discussion posts, and links to 694 clinical trials, 303 journal articles, 212 news articles, and 34 events. A total of 65 repurposed drugs have been identified as potential treatments for the virus, including 15 drugs with 10 or more cases.

“This facilitates clinicians reporting their real-world experiences treating COVID-19 patients, when patients are unable to be enrolled in a clinical trial,” Ms. Stone said. “It includes an updated case report form tailored to COVID-19 and data fields that have been harmonized with other real-world data and clinical trial platforms.” She pointed out that voluntary submission of cases to CURE ID is not a substitute for filing information with regulatory and public health authorities, where required. The platform also enables data to be entered and adverse events to be automatically shared with the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Reporting System.

Ms. Stone concluded the webinar by announcing the formation of a new private-public partnership between the Critical Path Institute and the FDA and NCATS/NIH known as the CURE Drug Repurposing Collaboratory. The effort will begin with a pilot project focused on furthering drug development for COVID-19 through use of the CURE ID platform. “The Collaboratory will demonstrate how data shared from clinicians in real-time can be used to inform ongoing and future clinical trials, and potentially drug labeling,” Ms. Stone said. She reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Federal health officials are encouraging clinicians to use the free CURE ID mobile app and web platform as a tool to collect cases on the treatment of patients with COVID-19, in conjunction with ongoing clinical trial efforts.

“By utilizing the CURE ID platform now for COVID-19 case collection – in conjunction with data gathered from other registries, EHR systems, and clinical trials – data collected during an outbreak can be improved and coordinated,” Heather A. Stone, MPH, said during a June 9 webinar sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration. “This may allow us to find possible treatments to help ease this pandemic, and prepare us better to fight the next one.”

During the hour-long webinar, Ms. Stone, a health science policy analyst in the office of medical policy at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, demonstrated CURE ID, an Internet-based data repository first developed in 2013 as a collaboration between the FDA and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, a part of the National Institutes of Health (NCATS/NIH). It provides licensed clinicians worldwide with an opportunity to report novel uses of existing drugs for patients with difficult-to-treat infectious diseases, including COVID-19, through a website, a smartphone, or other mobile device. The app can be downloaded for free at http://cure.ncats.io. It can also be downloaded from the Apple app store or the Google Play store by searching “CURE ID.”

According to Ms. Stone, the platform’s three main goals are to enhance the understanding of new uses of approved medical products, to facilitate clinical trials and drug development, and to serve as a resource for physicians to share information where no FDA-approved product (which has been proven to be safe and effective) exists for the new use. CURE ID enables users to report their own cases as well as read cases of neglected infectious diseases with no sufficient approved therapies from other clinicians around the world. “It also enables clinicians to engage directly with communities of disease experts around the world, breaking down geographic and specialty silos,” Ms. Stone said. “It also enables them to access information on approved therapies for each disease and as well on active clinical trials.”

To date, CURE-ID contains information on 325 infectious diseases, including 1,580 case reports and 18,907 clinical trials. Initial pilot priority diseases include COVID-19, mycetoma, atypical mycobacteria, drug-resistant gonorrhea, rare and resistant fungal infections, as well as multidrug resistant gram-negative bacteria.

As of June 9, COVID-19-related data on the platform includes 151 case reports that have been extracted from the published literature or entered by clinician users, 80 discussion posts, and links to 694 clinical trials, 303 journal articles, 212 news articles, and 34 events. A total of 65 repurposed drugs have been identified as potential treatments for the virus, including 15 drugs with 10 or more cases.

“This facilitates clinicians reporting their real-world experiences treating COVID-19 patients, when patients are unable to be enrolled in a clinical trial,” Ms. Stone said. “It includes an updated case report form tailored to COVID-19 and data fields that have been harmonized with other real-world data and clinical trial platforms.” She pointed out that voluntary submission of cases to CURE ID is not a substitute for filing information with regulatory and public health authorities, where required. The platform also enables data to be entered and adverse events to be automatically shared with the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Reporting System.

Ms. Stone concluded the webinar by announcing the formation of a new private-public partnership between the Critical Path Institute and the FDA and NCATS/NIH known as the CURE Drug Repurposing Collaboratory. The effort will begin with a pilot project focused on furthering drug development for COVID-19 through use of the CURE ID platform. “The Collaboratory will demonstrate how data shared from clinicians in real-time can be used to inform ongoing and future clinical trials, and potentially drug labeling,” Ms. Stone said. She reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Federal health officials are encouraging clinicians to use the free CURE ID mobile app and web platform as a tool to collect cases on the treatment of patients with COVID-19, in conjunction with ongoing clinical trial efforts.

“By utilizing the CURE ID platform now for COVID-19 case collection – in conjunction with data gathered from other registries, EHR systems, and clinical trials – data collected during an outbreak can be improved and coordinated,” Heather A. Stone, MPH, said during a June 9 webinar sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration. “This may allow us to find possible treatments to help ease this pandemic, and prepare us better to fight the next one.”

During the hour-long webinar, Ms. Stone, a health science policy analyst in the office of medical policy at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, demonstrated CURE ID, an Internet-based data repository first developed in 2013 as a collaboration between the FDA and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, a part of the National Institutes of Health (NCATS/NIH). It provides licensed clinicians worldwide with an opportunity to report novel uses of existing drugs for patients with difficult-to-treat infectious diseases, including COVID-19, through a website, a smartphone, or other mobile device. The app can be downloaded for free at http://cure.ncats.io. It can also be downloaded from the Apple app store or the Google Play store by searching “CURE ID.”

According to Ms. Stone, the platform’s three main goals are to enhance the understanding of new uses of approved medical products, to facilitate clinical trials and drug development, and to serve as a resource for physicians to share information where no FDA-approved product (which has been proven to be safe and effective) exists for the new use. CURE ID enables users to report their own cases as well as read cases of neglected infectious diseases with no sufficient approved therapies from other clinicians around the world. “It also enables clinicians to engage directly with communities of disease experts around the world, breaking down geographic and specialty silos,” Ms. Stone said. “It also enables them to access information on approved therapies for each disease and as well on active clinical trials.”

To date, CURE-ID contains information on 325 infectious diseases, including 1,580 case reports and 18,907 clinical trials. Initial pilot priority diseases include COVID-19, mycetoma, atypical mycobacteria, drug-resistant gonorrhea, rare and resistant fungal infections, as well as multidrug resistant gram-negative bacteria.

As of June 9, COVID-19-related data on the platform includes 151 case reports that have been extracted from the published literature or entered by clinician users, 80 discussion posts, and links to 694 clinical trials, 303 journal articles, 212 news articles, and 34 events. A total of 65 repurposed drugs have been identified as potential treatments for the virus, including 15 drugs with 10 or more cases.

“This facilitates clinicians reporting their real-world experiences treating COVID-19 patients, when patients are unable to be enrolled in a clinical trial,” Ms. Stone said. “It includes an updated case report form tailored to COVID-19 and data fields that have been harmonized with other real-world data and clinical trial platforms.” She pointed out that voluntary submission of cases to CURE ID is not a substitute for filing information with regulatory and public health authorities, where required. The platform also enables data to be entered and adverse events to be automatically shared with the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Reporting System.

Ms. Stone concluded the webinar by announcing the formation of a new private-public partnership between the Critical Path Institute and the FDA and NCATS/NIH known as the CURE Drug Repurposing Collaboratory. The effort will begin with a pilot project focused on furthering drug development for COVID-19 through use of the CURE ID platform. “The Collaboratory will demonstrate how data shared from clinicians in real-time can be used to inform ongoing and future clinical trials, and potentially drug labeling,” Ms. Stone said. She reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for use in certain patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

The checkpoint inhibitor is now approved to treat patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC who previously received fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Researchers tested nivolumab in this population in the ATTRACTION-3 trial (NCT02569242). The trial enrolled 419 patients.

The patients were randomized to receive nivolumab at 240 mg via intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks (n = 210) or investigator’s choice of taxane chemotherapy (n = 209), which consisted of docetaxel (75 mg/m² intravenously every 3 weeks) or paclitaxel (100 mg/m² intravenously once a week for 6 weeks followed by 1 week off).

Nivolumab significantly improved overall survival but not progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 1.7 months in the nivolumab arm and 3.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 1.1).

The median overall survival was 10.9 months in the nivolumab arm and 8.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .0189). The overall survival benefit was observed regardless of tumor programmed death–ligand 1 expression.

Response rates were similar between the treatment arms, but responses were more durable with nivolumab. The overall responses rate was 19.3% in the nivolumab arm and 21.5% in the chemotherapy arm. The median duration of response was 6.9 months and 3.9 months, respectively.

Serious adverse events were reported in 38% of patients in the nivolumab arm. Serious adverse events occurring in at least 2% of patients were pneumonia, esophageal fistula, interstitial lung disease, and pyrexia.

Adverse events prompted 13% of patients to discontinue nivolumab and 27% to delay nivolumab treatment.

Fatal adverse events in patients on nivolumab included interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis (1.4%), pneumonia (1.0%), septic shock (0.5%), esophageal fistula (0.5%), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (0.5%), pulmonary embolism (0.5%), and sudden death (0.5%).

The recommended dose of nivolumab for ESCC is 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks. For more details, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for use in certain patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

The checkpoint inhibitor is now approved to treat patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC who previously received fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Researchers tested nivolumab in this population in the ATTRACTION-3 trial (NCT02569242). The trial enrolled 419 patients.

The patients were randomized to receive nivolumab at 240 mg via intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks (n = 210) or investigator’s choice of taxane chemotherapy (n = 209), which consisted of docetaxel (75 mg/m² intravenously every 3 weeks) or paclitaxel (100 mg/m² intravenously once a week for 6 weeks followed by 1 week off).

Nivolumab significantly improved overall survival but not progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 1.7 months in the nivolumab arm and 3.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 1.1).

The median overall survival was 10.9 months in the nivolumab arm and 8.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .0189). The overall survival benefit was observed regardless of tumor programmed death–ligand 1 expression.

Response rates were similar between the treatment arms, but responses were more durable with nivolumab. The overall responses rate was 19.3% in the nivolumab arm and 21.5% in the chemotherapy arm. The median duration of response was 6.9 months and 3.9 months, respectively.

Serious adverse events were reported in 38% of patients in the nivolumab arm. Serious adverse events occurring in at least 2% of patients were pneumonia, esophageal fistula, interstitial lung disease, and pyrexia.

Adverse events prompted 13% of patients to discontinue nivolumab and 27% to delay nivolumab treatment.

Fatal adverse events in patients on nivolumab included interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis (1.4%), pneumonia (1.0%), septic shock (0.5%), esophageal fistula (0.5%), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (0.5%), pulmonary embolism (0.5%), and sudden death (0.5%).

The recommended dose of nivolumab for ESCC is 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks. For more details, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab (Opdivo) for use in certain patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

The checkpoint inhibitor is now approved to treat patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC who previously received fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Researchers tested nivolumab in this population in the ATTRACTION-3 trial (NCT02569242). The trial enrolled 419 patients.

The patients were randomized to receive nivolumab at 240 mg via intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks (n = 210) or investigator’s choice of taxane chemotherapy (n = 209), which consisted of docetaxel (75 mg/m² intravenously every 3 weeks) or paclitaxel (100 mg/m² intravenously once a week for 6 weeks followed by 1 week off).

Nivolumab significantly improved overall survival but not progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 1.7 months in the nivolumab arm and 3.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 1.1).

The median overall survival was 10.9 months in the nivolumab arm and 8.4 months in the chemotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .0189). The overall survival benefit was observed regardless of tumor programmed death–ligand 1 expression.

Response rates were similar between the treatment arms, but responses were more durable with nivolumab. The overall responses rate was 19.3% in the nivolumab arm and 21.5% in the chemotherapy arm. The median duration of response was 6.9 months and 3.9 months, respectively.

Serious adverse events were reported in 38% of patients in the nivolumab arm. Serious adverse events occurring in at least 2% of patients were pneumonia, esophageal fistula, interstitial lung disease, and pyrexia.

Adverse events prompted 13% of patients to discontinue nivolumab and 27% to delay nivolumab treatment.

Fatal adverse events in patients on nivolumab included interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis (1.4%), pneumonia (1.0%), septic shock (0.5%), esophageal fistula (0.5%), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (0.5%), pulmonary embolism (0.5%), and sudden death (0.5%).

The recommended dose of nivolumab for ESCC is 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks. For more details, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

Grandma Exie used to tell a story about her grandmother on her father’s side, who lived in northeastern Arkansas. Towards the end of the Civil War, Northern and Southern troops were expected to “live off the land,” and both sides had torn through her poor dirt farm and carried off all the livestock and crops. The only thing they didn’t take was her bull mastiff, who was a pretty fair hunting and guard dog. Starving, she had no other option than to pack up and head east for Tennessee, where her husband was stationed with Joseph Hooker’s army. Many thousands of destitute women and children, most of whom were related to one of the troops, followed the army, where some of the army’s rations could be shared with them.

She headed out on foot and all went well until day 3 or so, when a panther attacked them, but she, armed with a branch, and her loyal dog were able to drive it off. The panther followed them for 3 days while she hid in a tree at night with her dog at the foot of a tree. Eventually, the panther gave up and she made it to Tennessee to safety.

Grandma Exie said her grandmother had “grit” and used this story whenever any of us would complain about how hard times were or how we were mistreated.

It is time for all of us to buck up and show a little grit in the face of a viral pandemic and social unrest. The answers are not easy or clear, but our health care system and our nation have faced much greater challenges. The 1918 flu pandemic was much more devastating, killing millions worldwide, and recall, 620,000 died in the Civil War, more than all other American wars combined. There is a deep seam of grit and resilience in Americans. We don’t always get it right immediately, but we usually do in the end.

The protests are justifiable outrage over police brutality, fueled by a high unemployment rate, both of which are a cause for frustration. The looting and destruction appears to be opportunistic thievery and some organized vandalization in my opinion. Most of the damage caused by riots and looting is not covered by insurance, and this will be a death blow to many small businesses already facing major financial setbacks as customers have stayed home for months and laying off staff has become necessary.

As for the impact on our practices, most physicians have been lucky and not been looted or burned out. Most of us have resumed practice, at least in a limited fashion, wearing masks; keeping the waiting room mostly empty; using social distancing and hand, air, and surface disinfection. In most of the country, the disease incidence has become lower, and the risk of not seeing the doctor is now greater than catching COVID-19.

So show grit, be careful, be vigilant, and practice your profession. Support your local small businesses, particularly if they have been the victims of senseless violence. We will work our way through these times.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. He had no disclosures related to this column. Write to him at [email protected].

Grandma Exie used to tell a story about her grandmother on her father’s side, who lived in northeastern Arkansas. Towards the end of the Civil War, Northern and Southern troops were expected to “live off the land,” and both sides had torn through her poor dirt farm and carried off all the livestock and crops. The only thing they didn’t take was her bull mastiff, who was a pretty fair hunting and guard dog. Starving, she had no other option than to pack up and head east for Tennessee, where her husband was stationed with Joseph Hooker’s army. Many thousands of destitute women and children, most of whom were related to one of the troops, followed the army, where some of the army’s rations could be shared with them.

She headed out on foot and all went well until day 3 or so, when a panther attacked them, but she, armed with a branch, and her loyal dog were able to drive it off. The panther followed them for 3 days while she hid in a tree at night with her dog at the foot of a tree. Eventually, the panther gave up and she made it to Tennessee to safety.

Grandma Exie said her grandmother had “grit” and used this story whenever any of us would complain about how hard times were or how we were mistreated.

It is time for all of us to buck up and show a little grit in the face of a viral pandemic and social unrest. The answers are not easy or clear, but our health care system and our nation have faced much greater challenges. The 1918 flu pandemic was much more devastating, killing millions worldwide, and recall, 620,000 died in the Civil War, more than all other American wars combined. There is a deep seam of grit and resilience in Americans. We don’t always get it right immediately, but we usually do in the end.

The protests are justifiable outrage over police brutality, fueled by a high unemployment rate, both of which are a cause for frustration. The looting and destruction appears to be opportunistic thievery and some organized vandalization in my opinion. Most of the damage caused by riots and looting is not covered by insurance, and this will be a death blow to many small businesses already facing major financial setbacks as customers have stayed home for months and laying off staff has become necessary.

As for the impact on our practices, most physicians have been lucky and not been looted or burned out. Most of us have resumed practice, at least in a limited fashion, wearing masks; keeping the waiting room mostly empty; using social distancing and hand, air, and surface disinfection. In most of the country, the disease incidence has become lower, and the risk of not seeing the doctor is now greater than catching COVID-19.

So show grit, be careful, be vigilant, and practice your profession. Support your local small businesses, particularly if they have been the victims of senseless violence. We will work our way through these times.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. He had no disclosures related to this column. Write to him at [email protected].

Grandma Exie used to tell a story about her grandmother on her father’s side, who lived in northeastern Arkansas. Towards the end of the Civil War, Northern and Southern troops were expected to “live off the land,” and both sides had torn through her poor dirt farm and carried off all the livestock and crops. The only thing they didn’t take was her bull mastiff, who was a pretty fair hunting and guard dog. Starving, she had no other option than to pack up and head east for Tennessee, where her husband was stationed with Joseph Hooker’s army. Many thousands of destitute women and children, most of whom were related to one of the troops, followed the army, where some of the army’s rations could be shared with them.

She headed out on foot and all went well until day 3 or so, when a panther attacked them, but she, armed with a branch, and her loyal dog were able to drive it off. The panther followed them for 3 days while she hid in a tree at night with her dog at the foot of a tree. Eventually, the panther gave up and she made it to Tennessee to safety.

Grandma Exie said her grandmother had “grit” and used this story whenever any of us would complain about how hard times were or how we were mistreated.

It is time for all of us to buck up and show a little grit in the face of a viral pandemic and social unrest. The answers are not easy or clear, but our health care system and our nation have faced much greater challenges. The 1918 flu pandemic was much more devastating, killing millions worldwide, and recall, 620,000 died in the Civil War, more than all other American wars combined. There is a deep seam of grit and resilience in Americans. We don’t always get it right immediately, but we usually do in the end.

The protests are justifiable outrage over police brutality, fueled by a high unemployment rate, both of which are a cause for frustration. The looting and destruction appears to be opportunistic thievery and some organized vandalization in my opinion. Most of the damage caused by riots and looting is not covered by insurance, and this will be a death blow to many small businesses already facing major financial setbacks as customers have stayed home for months and laying off staff has become necessary.

As for the impact on our practices, most physicians have been lucky and not been looted or burned out. Most of us have resumed practice, at least in a limited fashion, wearing masks; keeping the waiting room mostly empty; using social distancing and hand, air, and surface disinfection. In most of the country, the disease incidence has become lower, and the risk of not seeing the doctor is now greater than catching COVID-19.

So show grit, be careful, be vigilant, and practice your profession. Support your local small businesses, particularly if they have been the victims of senseless violence. We will work our way through these times.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. He had no disclosures related to this column. Write to him at [email protected].

Melissa R. Arbuckle, MD: Hi. I’m Dr. Melissa Arbuckle, vice chair for education and training in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. I’m reporting on behalf of Medscape and our Columbia Psychiatry partnership. Today we’ll be discussing biomarkers with Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman. Welcome.

Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD: Thanks, Melissa. Great to be here to talk about a subject that is near and dear to my heart.



Dr. Arbuckle: Dr. Lieberman is chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia and is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Tell us about biomarkers and psychiatry, Dr Lieberman.

Dr. Lieberman: It would be nice if we had some! But first let me tell you what a biomarker is and what it would do for us. A biomarker is a biologic measure, a biologic feature, whether it’s blood pressure, pulse rate, an analyte in blood or cerebrospinal fluid, or a feature of an MRI or PET scan image of the brain that has diagnostic, prognostic, or theragnostic significance. A biomarker identifies an individual with symptoms of a specific disorder, indicates that they have this disorder, and can suggest a particular prognosis – less severe, more severe – or specify which treatment a person would likely respond to. For the entire history of our discipline, as long as physicians have studied mental illness, we have not had a diagnostic test for it. It’s a clinical diagnosis.

All illnesses in medicine began with clinical diagnosis: seizure disorder, epilepsy, was falling sickness; congestive heart failure was dropsy; for diabetes you tasted the urine to see if it was sweet or watery. But when we began to measure glucose and hemoglobin A1c, or when we developed the electrocardiogram to measure heart rhythms, and the electroencephalogram to measure brain activity, those were diagnostic tests based on biomarkers. We just don’t have them yet in psychiatry. The day we do have our first diagnostic tests, courtesy of a validated biomarker, will be a real milestone in the history of our profession.



Dr. Arbuckle: How far off might that be for psychiatry?

Dr. Lieberman: I’ve been in this profession for more than 30 years, and I’ve been saying for a while that it is coming soon. But we’re still waiting. Let me just add a cautionary note. Ever since psychiatry became scientifically minded and used scientific methodology and technology to understand the underpinnings of mental illness, there’s been an effort to identify biomarkers. It began in the 1960s with a series of false leads. There was something called the pink spot, as well as other metabolites, which were indicators on chromatographs linked to schizophrenia. This turned out to be wrong.

There was also the dexamethasone suppression test, to identify people who hypersecreted cortisol, which was believed to be diagnostic of depression. That turned out to be inadequate also.

There was the identification of genes beginning in the late 1980s. But the specific genes that indicated manic depressive illness and schizophrenia were not replicated. And now we know that the genetics of these disorders is polygenic and very complex.

So we cannot overpromise. I don’t want to say exactly when, but I will say that this is an area of intense research. There are a variety of different technologies that could yield this holy grail of diagnostic measures, including imaging measures such as MRI, PET, and nuclear medicine imaging, the use of genetics to create a polygenic risk score, and serologic analyses of blood to develop a panel of measures that may predict a specific condition or specific subtype of a condition.

It’s very likely, though, that we’ll not have a single pathognomonic test. I suspect that we’ll have several measures that, in combination, will be diagnostic or prognostic, in the same way that with cancer you have nomograms that give a prognosis. Or in the case of cardiovascular disease, where you have a lipid panel that takes into account a variety of lipid analytes to give you a risk score. I do believe that certainly within my professional lifetime, and hopefully sooner rather than later, we will see a diagnostic test.



Dr. Arbuckle: Given the different tests that did not pan out, what guidance can we offer clinicians as data come out and new potential biomarkers hit the media? How can we sift through what may or may not hold real promise?

Dr. Lieberman: I can tell practicing clinicians what not to do. Do not do what some of the charlatans in our field do. There are self-promoting psychiatrists out there who use SPECT scans to get a picture of the brain that is little more than pseudo color phrenology, and then they tell patients, “See this? This indicates that you have (this condition or that condition).” You can’t do that. Nothing we have now has that kind of validity or specificity.

However, even though a standard workup for an illness like schizophrenia does not require specific diagnostic tests, other than to rule out other conditions, imaging procedures can be useful additional information. For example, if you have an individual who presents with symptoms that meet criteria for schizophrenia and you obtain an MRI to rule out other possibilities, and the patient turns out to have dilated lateral ventricles or specific reductions in the size or distortions in the shape of certain temporal cortical structures, particularly in the hippocampus, that adds substance to your clinical diagnosis. So those kinds of things are useful. Similarly, with genetic testing, some institutions are now doing exome sequencing or whole genome sequencing that can provide a risk score. It adds something beyond a family history. These are not diagnostic, but they can add to your understanding.

Finally, with respect to schizophrenia and MRI in particular, if it does show structural abnormalities that are among the ones that have been reported for schizophrenia, this can be informative prognostically; such an individual may have a greater likelihood of having a chronic course with progression of the illness. And if that were my patient, I would be thinking that greater effort needs to be taken to ensure that the patient remains on treatment and does not suffer relapse.



Dr. Arbuckle: How do we prepare our trainees for a future of psychiatry with more biomarkers?

Dr. Lieberman: In medical school and postgraduate training, apart from understanding the method of diagnosis and the criteria for diagnoses, it’s important to understand the ancillary measures that are used in clinical medicine: blood testing, electrophysiologic measures, imaging procedures, neurocognitive testing, etc. This is a standard in terms of general medical training.

In terms of then applying it to mental illness and psychiatry, it’s a matter of knowing that these will be relevant at some point, staying apprised of the research literature that is generating data that pertain to the use of these measures for diagnostic, prognostic, or treatment-specific purposes, and then gauging how useful these will be. Right now, these measures are not required for diagnosis. They’re not validated sufficiently so that third-party payers will uniformly reimburse for them, but at some point they will be. Even before that time occurs, there are some measures that can be informative and enhance confidence in the diagnosis or add information about treatment response and outcome.



Dr. Arbuckle: We’re hearing about biotypes and how biotypes may not map to our current diagnostic systems. What are your thoughts about that?

Dr. Lieberman: You know, psychiatry has always been kind of the stepchild of medicine. And related to that, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the punching bag of the critics of psychiatry and the purported reason it hasn’t progressed faster. Sitting here at Columbia, the home of Robert Spitzer, who was the pioneer of the modern method of nosology that we still use in the DSM, it’s disappointing that we continue to lob tomatoes at this system, which is the best. It took psychiatry out of what was a dark age of clinical methodology and put it on solid scientific footing. That was in the late 1970s with [the development of] DSM-III.

And as much as we would like to have further progress, which would allow for not using a list of criteria in a menu-driven fashion to establish diagnoses, we’d like to have it be like a glucose tolerance test or an angiogram.

We’d like to do that, but we can’t yet. So there’s this aspirational desire to have something better, and this is permeating and motivating a lot of the research, which is good. But to claim that these don’t map to the current DSM and therefore invalidate the DSM-defined diagnoses is wrong and self-defeating. If the biotypes were validated, we would be using them. So if they don’t map to the current DSM diagnosis, is the diagnosis wrong or are the biotypes wrong? I believe it’s wishful thinking; individuals are trying to project their desires onto clinical practice, and it’s not desirable to do that. If there was anything that was an improvement on the DSM, it would have been incorporated into our practice.

The question about the limitations of DSM and the improved methods of neuroscientifically informed diagnostic systems was an issue that brought me into a confrontation with our former director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in 2013.

After 5 years of the DSM task force laboring to revise the fifth edition of the DSM, as it was about to be launched, our former director, Tom Insel, disavowed it and proposed as a preferable alternative the research domains criteria (RDoC) system that was in development at the NIMH, which I believe epitomized this kind of sour grapes at what psychiatry didn’t have – an aspiration to have a more neuroscientifically informed diagnostic system. And as soon as he made the statement publicly, he had to walk it back because the RDoC system or any other system was not ready for prime time. It would have been a catastrophe if it would have been the one that informed clinical psychiatry. There was nothing that was superior to the DSM to be used at the time. This shows how frustration sometimes impels people to make rash statements.

We’re on the right track. Our field is progressing enormously, and one has to remember that everything that’s relevant in terms of being scientifically based and validated through empirical research in clinical psychiatry and mental illness has happened since the last half of the 20th century.

It is a very short period of time. We’ve made tremendous progress, and we’re continuing to make progress toward the milestone we’re all hoping for, where we have diagnostic tests. But we shouldn’t shortchange ourselves or underestimate the progress we have made in the meantime.
 

Dr. Arbuckle: This has been a great conversation. Signing off for Medscape and Columbia Psychiatry. Thank you.

Dr. Lieberman is chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. He is a former president of the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Arbuckle is vice chair for education and director of resident education in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. She is particularly interested in the role of medical education in translating research into the practice of psychiatry.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Melissa R. Arbuckle, MD: Hi. I’m Dr. Melissa Arbuckle, vice chair for education and training in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. I’m reporting on behalf of Medscape and our Columbia Psychiatry partnership. Today we’ll be discussing biomarkers with Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman. Welcome.

Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD: Thanks, Melissa. Great to be here to talk about a subject that is near and dear to my heart.



Dr. Arbuckle: Dr. Lieberman is chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia and is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Tell us about biomarkers and psychiatry, Dr Lieberman.

Dr. Lieberman: It would be nice if we had some! But first let me tell you what a biomarker is and what it would do for us. A biomarker is a biologic measure, a biologic feature, whether it’s blood pressure, pulse rate, an analyte in blood or cerebrospinal fluid, or a feature of an MRI or PET scan image of the brain that has diagnostic, prognostic, or theragnostic significance. A biomarker identifies an individual with symptoms of a specific disorder, indicates that they have this disorder, and can suggest a particular prognosis – less severe, more severe – or specify which treatment a person would likely respond to. For the entire history of our discipline, as long as physicians have studied mental illness, we have not had a diagnostic test for it. It’s a clinical diagnosis.

All illnesses in medicine began with clinical diagnosis: seizure disorder, epilepsy, was falling sickness; congestive heart failure was dropsy; for diabetes you tasted the urine to see if it was sweet or watery. But when we began to measure glucose and hemoglobin A1c, or when we developed the electrocardiogram to measure heart rhythms, and the electroencephalogram to measure brain activity, those were diagnostic tests based on biomarkers. We just don’t have them yet in psychiatry. The day we do have our first diagnostic tests, courtesy of a validated biomarker, will be a real milestone in the history of our profession.



Dr. Arbuckle: How far off might that be for psychiatry?

Dr. Lieberman: I’ve been in this profession for more than 30 years, and I’ve been saying for a while that it is coming soon. But we’re still waiting. Let me just add a cautionary note. Ever since psychiatry became scientifically minded and used scientific methodology and technology to understand the underpinnings of mental illness, there’s been an effort to identify biomarkers. It began in the 1960s with a series of false leads. There was something called the pink spot, as well as other metabolites, which were indicators on chromatographs linked to schizophrenia. This turned out to be wrong.

There was also the dexamethasone suppression test, to identify people who hypersecreted cortisol, which was believed to be diagnostic of depression. That turned out to be inadequate also.

There was the identification of genes beginning in the late 1980s. But the specific genes that indicated manic depressive illness and schizophrenia were not replicated. And now we know that the genetics of these disorders is polygenic and very complex.

So we cannot overpromise. I don’t want to say exactly when, but I will say that this is an area of intense research. There are a variety of different technologies that could yield this holy grail of diagnostic measures, including imaging measures such as MRI, PET, and nuclear medicine imaging, the use of genetics to create a polygenic risk score, and serologic analyses of blood to develop a panel of measures that may predict a specific condition or specific subtype of a condition.

It’s very likely, though, that we’ll not have a single pathognomonic test. I suspect that we’ll have several measures that, in combination, will be diagnostic or prognostic, in the same way that with cancer you have nomograms that give a prognosis. Or in the case of cardiovascular disease, where you have a lipid panel that takes into account a variety of lipid analytes to give you a risk score. I do believe that certainly within my professional lifetime, and hopefully sooner rather than later, we will see a diagnostic test.



Dr. Arbuckle: Given the different tests that did not pan out, what guidance can we offer clinicians as data come out and new potential biomarkers hit the media? How can we sift through what may or may not hold real promise?

Dr. Lieberman: I can tell practicing clinicians what not to do. Do not do what some of the charlatans in our field do. There are self-promoting psychiatrists out there who use SPECT scans to get a picture of the brain that is little more than pseudo color phrenology, and then they tell patients, “See this? This indicates that you have (this condition or that condition).” You can’t do that. Nothing we have now has that kind of validity or specificity.

However, even though a standard workup for an illness like schizophrenia does not require specific diagnostic tests, other than to rule out other conditions, imaging procedures can be useful additional information. For example, if you have an individual who presents with symptoms that meet criteria for schizophrenia and you obtain an MRI to rule out other possibilities, and the patient turns out to have dilated lateral ventricles or specific reductions in the size or distortions in the shape of certain temporal cortical structures, particularly in the hippocampus, that adds substance to your clinical diagnosis. So those kinds of things are useful. Similarly, with genetic testing, some institutions are now doing exome sequencing or whole genome sequencing that can provide a risk score. It adds something beyond a family history. These are not diagnostic, but they can add to your understanding.

Finally, with respect to schizophrenia and MRI in particular, if it does show structural abnormalities that are among the ones that have been reported for schizophrenia, this can be informative prognostically; such an individual may have a greater likelihood of having a chronic course with progression of the illness. And if that were my patient, I would be thinking that greater effort needs to be taken to ensure that the patient remains on treatment and does not suffer relapse.



Dr. Arbuckle: How do we prepare our trainees for a future of psychiatry with more biomarkers?

Dr. Lieberman: In medical school and postgraduate training, apart from understanding the method of diagnosis and the criteria for diagnoses, it’s important to understand the ancillary measures that are used in clinical medicine: blood testing, electrophysiologic measures, imaging procedures, neurocognitive testing, etc. This is a standard in terms of general medical training.

In terms of then applying it to mental illness and psychiatry, it’s a matter of knowing that these will be relevant at some point, staying apprised of the research literature that is generating data that pertain to the use of these measures for diagnostic, prognostic, or treatment-specific purposes, and then gauging how useful these will be. Right now, these measures are not required for diagnosis. They’re not validated sufficiently so that third-party payers will uniformly reimburse for them, but at some point they will be. Even before that time occurs, there are some measures that can be informative and enhance confidence in the diagnosis or add information about treatment response and outcome.



Dr. Arbuckle: We’re hearing about biotypes and how biotypes may not map to our current diagnostic systems. What are your thoughts about that?

Dr. Lieberman: You know, psychiatry has always been kind of the stepchild of medicine. And related to that, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the punching bag of the critics of psychiatry and the purported reason it hasn’t progressed faster. Sitting here at Columbia, the home of Robert Spitzer, who was the pioneer of the modern method of nosology that we still use in the DSM, it’s disappointing that we continue to lob tomatoes at this system, which is the best. It took psychiatry out of what was a dark age of clinical methodology and put it on solid scientific footing. That was in the late 1970s with [the development of] DSM-III.

And as much as we would like to have further progress, which would allow for not using a list of criteria in a menu-driven fashion to establish diagnoses, we’d like to have it be like a glucose tolerance test or an angiogram.

We’d like to do that, but we can’t yet. So there’s this aspirational desire to have something better, and this is permeating and motivating a lot of the research, which is good. But to claim that these don’t map to the current DSM and therefore invalidate the DSM-defined diagnoses is wrong and self-defeating. If the biotypes were validated, we would be using them. So if they don’t map to the current DSM diagnosis, is the diagnosis wrong or are the biotypes wrong? I believe it’s wishful thinking; individuals are trying to project their desires onto clinical practice, and it’s not desirable to do that. If there was anything that was an improvement on the DSM, it would have been incorporated into our practice.

The question about the limitations of DSM and the improved methods of neuroscientifically informed diagnostic systems was an issue that brought me into a confrontation with our former director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in 2013.

After 5 years of the DSM task force laboring to revise the fifth edition of the DSM, as it was about to be launched, our former director, Tom Insel, disavowed it and proposed as a preferable alternative the research domains criteria (RDoC) system that was in development at the NIMH, which I believe epitomized this kind of sour grapes at what psychiatry didn’t have – an aspiration to have a more neuroscientifically informed diagnostic system. And as soon as he made the statement publicly, he had to walk it back because the RDoC system or any other system was not ready for prime time. It would have been a catastrophe if it would have been the one that informed clinical psychiatry. There was nothing that was superior to the DSM to be used at the time. This shows how frustration sometimes impels people to make rash statements.

We’re on the right track. Our field is progressing enormously, and one has to remember that everything that’s relevant in terms of being scientifically based and validated through empirical research in clinical psychiatry and mental illness has happened since the last half of the 20th century.

It is a very short period of time. We’ve made tremendous progress, and we’re continuing to make progress toward the milestone we’re all hoping for, where we have diagnostic tests. But we shouldn’t shortchange ourselves or underestimate the progress we have made in the meantime.
 

Dr. Arbuckle: This has been a great conversation. Signing off for Medscape and Columbia Psychiatry. Thank you.

Dr. Lieberman is chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. He is a former president of the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Arbuckle is vice chair for education and director of resident education in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. She is particularly interested in the role of medical education in translating research into the practice of psychiatry.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Melissa R. Arbuckle, MD: Hi. I’m Dr. Melissa Arbuckle, vice chair for education and training in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. I’m reporting on behalf of Medscape and our Columbia Psychiatry partnership. Today we’ll be discussing biomarkers with Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman. Welcome.

Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD: Thanks, Melissa. Great to be here to talk about a subject that is near and dear to my heart.



Dr. Arbuckle: Dr. Lieberman is chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia and is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Tell us about biomarkers and psychiatry, Dr Lieberman.

Dr. Lieberman: It would be nice if we had some! But first let me tell you what a biomarker is and what it would do for us. A biomarker is a biologic measure, a biologic feature, whether it’s blood pressure, pulse rate, an analyte in blood or cerebrospinal fluid, or a feature of an MRI or PET scan image of the brain that has diagnostic, prognostic, or theragnostic significance. A biomarker identifies an individual with symptoms of a specific disorder, indicates that they have this disorder, and can suggest a particular prognosis – less severe, more severe – or specify which treatment a person would likely respond to. For the entire history of our discipline, as long as physicians have studied mental illness, we have not had a diagnostic test for it. It’s a clinical diagnosis.

All illnesses in medicine began with clinical diagnosis: seizure disorder, epilepsy, was falling sickness; congestive heart failure was dropsy; for diabetes you tasted the urine to see if it was sweet or watery. But when we began to measure glucose and hemoglobin A1c, or when we developed the electrocardiogram to measure heart rhythms, and the electroencephalogram to measure brain activity, those were diagnostic tests based on biomarkers. We just don’t have them yet in psychiatry. The day we do have our first diagnostic tests, courtesy of a validated biomarker, will be a real milestone in the history of our profession.



Dr. Arbuckle: How far off might that be for psychiatry?

Dr. Lieberman: I’ve been in this profession for more than 30 years, and I’ve been saying for a while that it is coming soon. But we’re still waiting. Let me just add a cautionary note. Ever since psychiatry became scientifically minded and used scientific methodology and technology to understand the underpinnings of mental illness, there’s been an effort to identify biomarkers. It began in the 1960s with a series of false leads. There was something called the pink spot, as well as other metabolites, which were indicators on chromatographs linked to schizophrenia. This turned out to be wrong.

There was also the dexamethasone suppression test, to identify people who hypersecreted cortisol, which was believed to be diagnostic of depression. That turned out to be inadequate also.

There was the identification of genes beginning in the late 1980s. But the specific genes that indicated manic depressive illness and schizophrenia were not replicated. And now we know that the genetics of these disorders is polygenic and very complex.

So we cannot overpromise. I don’t want to say exactly when, but I will say that this is an area of intense research. There are a variety of different technologies that could yield this holy grail of diagnostic measures, including imaging measures such as MRI, PET, and nuclear medicine imaging, the use of genetics to create a polygenic risk score, and serologic analyses of blood to develop a panel of measures that may predict a specific condition or specific subtype of a condition.

It’s very likely, though, that we’ll not have a single pathognomonic test. I suspect that we’ll have several measures that, in combination, will be diagnostic or prognostic, in the same way that with cancer you have nomograms that give a prognosis. Or in the case of cardiovascular disease, where you have a lipid panel that takes into account a variety of lipid analytes to give you a risk score. I do believe that certainly within my professional lifetime, and hopefully sooner rather than later, we will see a diagnostic test.



Dr. Arbuckle: Given the different tests that did not pan out, what guidance can we offer clinicians as data come out and new potential biomarkers hit the media? How can we sift through what may or may not hold real promise?

Dr. Lieberman: I can tell practicing clinicians what not to do. Do not do what some of the charlatans in our field do. There are self-promoting psychiatrists out there who use SPECT scans to get a picture of the brain that is little more than pseudo color phrenology, and then they tell patients, “See this? This indicates that you have (this condition or that condition).” You can’t do that. Nothing we have now has that kind of validity or specificity.

However, even though a standard workup for an illness like schizophrenia does not require specific diagnostic tests, other than to rule out other conditions, imaging procedures can be useful additional information. For example, if you have an individual who presents with symptoms that meet criteria for schizophrenia and you obtain an MRI to rule out other possibilities, and the patient turns out to have dilated lateral ventricles or specific reductions in the size or distortions in the shape of certain temporal cortical structures, particularly in the hippocampus, that adds substance to your clinical diagnosis. So those kinds of things are useful. Similarly, with genetic testing, some institutions are now doing exome sequencing or whole genome sequencing that can provide a risk score. It adds something beyond a family history. These are not diagnostic, but they can add to your understanding.

Finally, with respect to schizophrenia and MRI in particular, if it does show structural abnormalities that are among the ones that have been reported for schizophrenia, this can be informative prognostically; such an individual may have a greater likelihood of having a chronic course with progression of the illness. And if that were my patient, I would be thinking that greater effort needs to be taken to ensure that the patient remains on treatment and does not suffer relapse.



Dr. Arbuckle: How do we prepare our trainees for a future of psychiatry with more biomarkers?

Dr. Lieberman: In medical school and postgraduate training, apart from understanding the method of diagnosis and the criteria for diagnoses, it’s important to understand the ancillary measures that are used in clinical medicine: blood testing, electrophysiologic measures, imaging procedures, neurocognitive testing, etc. This is a standard in terms of general medical training.

In terms of then applying it to mental illness and psychiatry, it’s a matter of knowing that these will be relevant at some point, staying apprised of the research literature that is generating data that pertain to the use of these measures for diagnostic, prognostic, or treatment-specific purposes, and then gauging how useful these will be. Right now, these measures are not required for diagnosis. They’re not validated sufficiently so that third-party payers will uniformly reimburse for them, but at some point they will be. Even before that time occurs, there are some measures that can be informative and enhance confidence in the diagnosis or add information about treatment response and outcome.



Dr. Arbuckle: We’re hearing about biotypes and how biotypes may not map to our current diagnostic systems. What are your thoughts about that?

Dr. Lieberman: You know, psychiatry has always been kind of the stepchild of medicine. And related to that, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the punching bag of the critics of psychiatry and the purported reason it hasn’t progressed faster. Sitting here at Columbia, the home of Robert Spitzer, who was the pioneer of the modern method of nosology that we still use in the DSM, it’s disappointing that we continue to lob tomatoes at this system, which is the best. It took psychiatry out of what was a dark age of clinical methodology and put it on solid scientific footing. That was in the late 1970s with [the development of] DSM-III.

And as much as we would like to have further progress, which would allow for not using a list of criteria in a menu-driven fashion to establish diagnoses, we’d like to have it be like a glucose tolerance test or an angiogram.

We’d like to do that, but we can’t yet. So there’s this aspirational desire to have something better, and this is permeating and motivating a lot of the research, which is good. But to claim that these don’t map to the current DSM and therefore invalidate the DSM-defined diagnoses is wrong and self-defeating. If the biotypes were validated, we would be using them. So if they don’t map to the current DSM diagnosis, is the diagnosis wrong or are the biotypes wrong? I believe it’s wishful thinking; individuals are trying to project their desires onto clinical practice, and it’s not desirable to do that. If there was anything that was an improvement on the DSM, it would have been incorporated into our practice.

The question about the limitations of DSM and the improved methods of neuroscientifically informed diagnostic systems was an issue that brought me into a confrontation with our former director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in 2013.

After 5 years of the DSM task force laboring to revise the fifth edition of the DSM, as it was about to be launched, our former director, Tom Insel, disavowed it and proposed as a preferable alternative the research domains criteria (RDoC) system that was in development at the NIMH, which I believe epitomized this kind of sour grapes at what psychiatry didn’t have – an aspiration to have a more neuroscientifically informed diagnostic system. And as soon as he made the statement publicly, he had to walk it back because the RDoC system or any other system was not ready for prime time. It would have been a catastrophe if it would have been the one that informed clinical psychiatry. There was nothing that was superior to the DSM to be used at the time. This shows how frustration sometimes impels people to make rash statements.

We’re on the right track. Our field is progressing enormously, and one has to remember that everything that’s relevant in terms of being scientifically based and validated through empirical research in clinical psychiatry and mental illness has happened since the last half of the 20th century.

It is a very short period of time. We’ve made tremendous progress, and we’re continuing to make progress toward the milestone we’re all hoping for, where we have diagnostic tests. But we shouldn’t shortchange ourselves or underestimate the progress we have made in the meantime.
 

Dr. Arbuckle: This has been a great conversation. Signing off for Medscape and Columbia Psychiatry. Thank you.

Dr. Lieberman is chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. He is a former president of the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Arbuckle is vice chair for education and director of resident education in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. She is particularly interested in the role of medical education in translating research into the practice of psychiatry.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As might be expected, the “EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] provisional recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases [RMDs] in the context of SARS-CoV-2” concur with much of the guidance already released on how best to manage patients during the current pandemic.

Highlights of the five overarching principles are that, contrary to earlier expectations, “there is no indication that patients with RMDs have an additional, or have a higher, risk of contracting the virus, or that they fare a worse course” than the general population, said the task force convener Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam.

“The second pertinent highlight is that, when it comes to managerial discussions, whether or not to stop or to start treatment for RMDs, rheumatologists should definitely be involved,” Dr. Landewé said during a live session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “In practice, something that happens very often is that immunosuppressive drugs are stopped by medical specialists involved in the care of COVID but without any expertise in treating patients with rheumatic diseases. We should try to avoid that situation.”

The third highlight, something many rheumatologists may already be well aware of, is that rheumatology drugs are being used to treat COVID-19 patients without RMDs and a shortage of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) agents is a real possibility. As such, the fifth overarching highlight states that the availability of both synthetic and biologic DMARDs is “a delicate societal responsibility” and that “the off-label use of DMARDs in COVID-19 outside the context of clinical trials should be discouraged.”

The EULAR recommendation are now published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and they are “what you could call an unprecedented set of recommendations,” Dr. Landewé said. “We have never done this before,” he added, referring to the speed and way in which they had to be put together, remotely, and with little scientific evidence currently available. “Three months ago we hadn’t even heard about the virus.”

From the first patient being identified in the Hubei province of China in November 2019, to the first U.S. patient in the state of Washington on Jan. 20, 2020, and to the first European patient identified a little over 10 days later, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm. It was only declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, however, and Dr. Landewé noted that the response to the pandemic had been very variable – some countries locking down their borders early, while others took their time to make an appropriate response, if at all.

The rheumatology community was particularly concerned, Dr. Landewé said, because people with autoimmune diseases who were taking immunosuppressant drugs might be at higher risk for becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, and may be at higher risk than others for a worse disease course. Thankfully, that seems not to be the case according to data that are emerging from new registries that have been set up, including EULAR’s own COVID-19 registry.

There are 13 recommendations that cover 4 themes: general measures and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection; the management of RMD patients during the pandemic; the management of RMD patients who have COVID-19; and the prevention of other pulmonary infections in RMD patients.

Highlighting the first three general recommendations, Dr. Landewé said: “Follow the regular guidelines in your country; if a patient with RMD does not have symptoms of COVID-19, simply continue RMD treatments,” albeit with a couple of exceptions.

The next four recommendation highlights are to avoid visits to the hospital or to the office; use remote monitoring via the telephone, for example; and if visits cannot be avoided, then take appropriate precautions. Finally, if you suspect a patient has COVID-19, do a test.

If patients test positive, then the next four recommendations cover what to do, such as continuing use of RMD treatments, but in the case of glucocorticoids this should be the lowest possible dose necessary. There is no consensus on what to do in cases of mild symptoms; the recommendation is to “decide on a case-by-case basis,” said Dr. Landewé. If a patient’s symptoms worsen, then “seek expert advice immediately and follow local treatment recommendations. The rheumatologist is not the expert to treat COVID-19,” he added. That responsibility lies with the pulmonologist, infectious disease specialist, or maybe the intensive care specialist, depending on local situations.

On the whole, the EULAR recommendations are pretty similar to those already released by the American College of Rheumatology, said Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. The ACR recommendations are “slightly more prescriptive”, he suggested, with 25 final guidance statements. For example, general statements focused not only on the use of glucocorticoids, but also other medicines, such as antihypertensives.

“There’s really not a [lot of], I would say, major differences in the two efforts and that’s ... somewhat reassuring that we’re approaching the unknown from very different parts of the world, and driving in a very similar place,” commented Dr. Mikuls, who is a member of the ACR COVID-19 recommendations task force.

“I think one of the very important similarities that I would highlight is that, in the absence of known exposure, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, our panel felt very strongly about the importance of continuing rheumatic disease treatments,” Dr. Mikuls observed. The ACR guidelines also touch upon societal perspectives, including “some statements that were made very specific to lupus, and the use of antimalarials, given supply chain issues that we have encountered.”

Dr. Mikuls also said that the American recommendations emphasized that “you really have to manage active inflammatory rheumatic disease. Even in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, given what we saw as the potential risk of unchecked inflammation and unchecked rheumatic disease.”

One notable difference, however, is that the European recommendations advise on immunizations and pneumonia prophylaxis, saying that all patients without COVID-19 symptoms should make sure they are up to date with any recommended vaccinations, “with a particular focus on pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations,” Dr. Landewé said.

Another difference is that the ACR recommendations are a living document and could potentially be updated monthly if the evidence arrives to allow that. In that sense, the American guidance is more agile, with EULAR expecting to update its recommendations every 3 months.

“The current evidence is extremely sparse and fragmented,” Dr. Landewé said. “We, as a task force are essentially flying blindly. We also have to cover many jurisdictions within Europe, with many conflicting opinions. So the last word to say is that updates are truly necessary, but we have to wait a while.”

SOURCE: Landewé RB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217877.

As might be expected, the “EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] provisional recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases [RMDs] in the context of SARS-CoV-2” concur with much of the guidance already released on how best to manage patients during the current pandemic.

Highlights of the five overarching principles are that, contrary to earlier expectations, “there is no indication that patients with RMDs have an additional, or have a higher, risk of contracting the virus, or that they fare a worse course” than the general population, said the task force convener Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam.

“The second pertinent highlight is that, when it comes to managerial discussions, whether or not to stop or to start treatment for RMDs, rheumatologists should definitely be involved,” Dr. Landewé said during a live session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “In practice, something that happens very often is that immunosuppressive drugs are stopped by medical specialists involved in the care of COVID but without any expertise in treating patients with rheumatic diseases. We should try to avoid that situation.”

The third highlight, something many rheumatologists may already be well aware of, is that rheumatology drugs are being used to treat COVID-19 patients without RMDs and a shortage of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) agents is a real possibility. As such, the fifth overarching highlight states that the availability of both synthetic and biologic DMARDs is “a delicate societal responsibility” and that “the off-label use of DMARDs in COVID-19 outside the context of clinical trials should be discouraged.”

The EULAR recommendation are now published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and they are “what you could call an unprecedented set of recommendations,” Dr. Landewé said. “We have never done this before,” he added, referring to the speed and way in which they had to be put together, remotely, and with little scientific evidence currently available. “Three months ago we hadn’t even heard about the virus.”

From the first patient being identified in the Hubei province of China in November 2019, to the first U.S. patient in the state of Washington on Jan. 20, 2020, and to the first European patient identified a little over 10 days later, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm. It was only declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, however, and Dr. Landewé noted that the response to the pandemic had been very variable – some countries locking down their borders early, while others took their time to make an appropriate response, if at all.

The rheumatology community was particularly concerned, Dr. Landewé said, because people with autoimmune diseases who were taking immunosuppressant drugs might be at higher risk for becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, and may be at higher risk than others for a worse disease course. Thankfully, that seems not to be the case according to data that are emerging from new registries that have been set up, including EULAR’s own COVID-19 registry.

There are 13 recommendations that cover 4 themes: general measures and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection; the management of RMD patients during the pandemic; the management of RMD patients who have COVID-19; and the prevention of other pulmonary infections in RMD patients.

Highlighting the first three general recommendations, Dr. Landewé said: “Follow the regular guidelines in your country; if a patient with RMD does not have symptoms of COVID-19, simply continue RMD treatments,” albeit with a couple of exceptions.

The next four recommendation highlights are to avoid visits to the hospital or to the office; use remote monitoring via the telephone, for example; and if visits cannot be avoided, then take appropriate precautions. Finally, if you suspect a patient has COVID-19, do a test.

If patients test positive, then the next four recommendations cover what to do, such as continuing use of RMD treatments, but in the case of glucocorticoids this should be the lowest possible dose necessary. There is no consensus on what to do in cases of mild symptoms; the recommendation is to “decide on a case-by-case basis,” said Dr. Landewé. If a patient’s symptoms worsen, then “seek expert advice immediately and follow local treatment recommendations. The rheumatologist is not the expert to treat COVID-19,” he added. That responsibility lies with the pulmonologist, infectious disease specialist, or maybe the intensive care specialist, depending on local situations.

On the whole, the EULAR recommendations are pretty similar to those already released by the American College of Rheumatology, said Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. The ACR recommendations are “slightly more prescriptive”, he suggested, with 25 final guidance statements. For example, general statements focused not only on the use of glucocorticoids, but also other medicines, such as antihypertensives.

“There’s really not a [lot of], I would say, major differences in the two efforts and that’s ... somewhat reassuring that we’re approaching the unknown from very different parts of the world, and driving in a very similar place,” commented Dr. Mikuls, who is a member of the ACR COVID-19 recommendations task force.

“I think one of the very important similarities that I would highlight is that, in the absence of known exposure, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, our panel felt very strongly about the importance of continuing rheumatic disease treatments,” Dr. Mikuls observed. The ACR guidelines also touch upon societal perspectives, including “some statements that were made very specific to lupus, and the use of antimalarials, given supply chain issues that we have encountered.”

Dr. Mikuls also said that the American recommendations emphasized that “you really have to manage active inflammatory rheumatic disease. Even in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, given what we saw as the potential risk of unchecked inflammation and unchecked rheumatic disease.”

One notable difference, however, is that the European recommendations advise on immunizations and pneumonia prophylaxis, saying that all patients without COVID-19 symptoms should make sure they are up to date with any recommended vaccinations, “with a particular focus on pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations,” Dr. Landewé said.

Another difference is that the ACR recommendations are a living document and could potentially be updated monthly if the evidence arrives to allow that. In that sense, the American guidance is more agile, with EULAR expecting to update its recommendations every 3 months.

“The current evidence is extremely sparse and fragmented,” Dr. Landewé said. “We, as a task force are essentially flying blindly. We also have to cover many jurisdictions within Europe, with many conflicting opinions. So the last word to say is that updates are truly necessary, but we have to wait a while.”

SOURCE: Landewé RB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217877.

As might be expected, the “EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] provisional recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases [RMDs] in the context of SARS-CoV-2” concur with much of the guidance already released on how best to manage patients during the current pandemic.

Highlights of the five overarching principles are that, contrary to earlier expectations, “there is no indication that patients with RMDs have an additional, or have a higher, risk of contracting the virus, or that they fare a worse course” than the general population, said the task force convener Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam.

“The second pertinent highlight is that, when it comes to managerial discussions, whether or not to stop or to start treatment for RMDs, rheumatologists should definitely be involved,” Dr. Landewé said during a live session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “In practice, something that happens very often is that immunosuppressive drugs are stopped by medical specialists involved in the care of COVID but without any expertise in treating patients with rheumatic diseases. We should try to avoid that situation.”

The third highlight, something many rheumatologists may already be well aware of, is that rheumatology drugs are being used to treat COVID-19 patients without RMDs and a shortage of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) agents is a real possibility. As such, the fifth overarching highlight states that the availability of both synthetic and biologic DMARDs is “a delicate societal responsibility” and that “the off-label use of DMARDs in COVID-19 outside the context of clinical trials should be discouraged.”

The EULAR recommendation are now published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and they are “what you could call an unprecedented set of recommendations,” Dr. Landewé said. “We have never done this before,” he added, referring to the speed and way in which they had to be put together, remotely, and with little scientific evidence currently available. “Three months ago we hadn’t even heard about the virus.”

From the first patient being identified in the Hubei province of China in November 2019, to the first U.S. patient in the state of Washington on Jan. 20, 2020, and to the first European patient identified a little over 10 days later, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm. It was only declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, however, and Dr. Landewé noted that the response to the pandemic had been very variable – some countries locking down their borders early, while others took their time to make an appropriate response, if at all.

The rheumatology community was particularly concerned, Dr. Landewé said, because people with autoimmune diseases who were taking immunosuppressant drugs might be at higher risk for becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, and may be at higher risk than others for a worse disease course. Thankfully, that seems not to be the case according to data that are emerging from new registries that have been set up, including EULAR’s own COVID-19 registry.

There are 13 recommendations that cover 4 themes: general measures and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection; the management of RMD patients during the pandemic; the management of RMD patients who have COVID-19; and the prevention of other pulmonary infections in RMD patients.

Highlighting the first three general recommendations, Dr. Landewé said: “Follow the regular guidelines in your country; if a patient with RMD does not have symptoms of COVID-19, simply continue RMD treatments,” albeit with a couple of exceptions.

The next four recommendation highlights are to avoid visits to the hospital or to the office; use remote monitoring via the telephone, for example; and if visits cannot be avoided, then take appropriate precautions. Finally, if you suspect a patient has COVID-19, do a test.

If patients test positive, then the next four recommendations cover what to do, such as continuing use of RMD treatments, but in the case of glucocorticoids this should be the lowest possible dose necessary. There is no consensus on what to do in cases of mild symptoms; the recommendation is to “decide on a case-by-case basis,” said Dr. Landewé. If a patient’s symptoms worsen, then “seek expert advice immediately and follow local treatment recommendations. The rheumatologist is not the expert to treat COVID-19,” he added. That responsibility lies with the pulmonologist, infectious disease specialist, or maybe the intensive care specialist, depending on local situations.

On the whole, the EULAR recommendations are pretty similar to those already released by the American College of Rheumatology, said Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. The ACR recommendations are “slightly more prescriptive”, he suggested, with 25 final guidance statements. For example, general statements focused not only on the use of glucocorticoids, but also other medicines, such as antihypertensives.

“There’s really not a [lot of], I would say, major differences in the two efforts and that’s ... somewhat reassuring that we’re approaching the unknown from very different parts of the world, and driving in a very similar place,” commented Dr. Mikuls, who is a member of the ACR COVID-19 recommendations task force.

“I think one of the very important similarities that I would highlight is that, in the absence of known exposure, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, our panel felt very strongly about the importance of continuing rheumatic disease treatments,” Dr. Mikuls observed. The ACR guidelines also touch upon societal perspectives, including “some statements that were made very specific to lupus, and the use of antimalarials, given supply chain issues that we have encountered.”

Dr. Mikuls also said that the American recommendations emphasized that “you really have to manage active inflammatory rheumatic disease. Even in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, given what we saw as the potential risk of unchecked inflammation and unchecked rheumatic disease.”

One notable difference, however, is that the European recommendations advise on immunizations and pneumonia prophylaxis, saying that all patients without COVID-19 symptoms should make sure they are up to date with any recommended vaccinations, “with a particular focus on pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations,” Dr. Landewé said.

Another difference is that the ACR recommendations are a living document and could potentially be updated monthly if the evidence arrives to allow that. In that sense, the American guidance is more agile, with EULAR expecting to update its recommendations every 3 months.

“The current evidence is extremely sparse and fragmented,” Dr. Landewé said. “We, as a task force are essentially flying blindly. We also have to cover many jurisdictions within Europe, with many conflicting opinions. So the last word to say is that updates are truly necessary, but we have to wait a while.”

SOURCE: Landewé RB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217877.

The rapid increase in thyroid cancer incidence that has occurred since the 1990s – considered an “epidemic of overdiagnosis,” has extended beyond high-income countries to less affluent settings, where unnecessary – and sometimes opportunistic – screening could continue to thrive.

“The impact of overdiagnosis on the increasing incidence of thyroid cancer highlighted in our report is a warning sign for countries with growing economies, where diagnostic technologies are increasingly and routinely offered, usually in exchange for payment, despite evidence that the harms far outweigh benefits,” the authors say.

“Overdiagnosis could turn healthy people into patients, and expose them to unnecessary harms and lifelong treatments,” say Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and colleagues in their article published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

With their previous research showing high rates of overdiagnosis in high-income countries, for this new analysis, they sought to evaluate whether similar patterns were occurring in less affluent settings.

They examined data from population-based cancer registries in 26 countries on four continents, looking at all cases of thyroid cancer reported between 1998 and 2012 in men and women aged 15 to 84 years.
 

A global public health problem

The results showed that while the incidence of thyroid cancer steadily increased from 1998 to 2002 and from 2008 to 2012 in all high-income countries, similar trends were also seen in less affluent nations, particularly in Belarus, China, Colombia, and Lithuania.

The increases were consistently greater among middle-aged women aged 35-64 years in all countries.

To determine what proportion of the higher incidence was overdiagnosis, the authors turned to historic age-specific thyroid cancer incidence data prior to the introduction of ultrasound and then looked at the progressive departure from that pattern, likely the result of the increased detection by ultrasound of thyroid nodules in middle-aged adults.

The results showed the proportion of thyroid cancer cases in women estimated to be attributable to overdiagnosis between 2008 and 2012 was as much as 93% in South Korea, 91% in Belarus, 87% in China, 84% in Italy and Croatia, and 83% in Slovakia and France.

Proportions attributable to overdiagnosis were lower in Denmark (66%), Norway (65%), Ireland (63%), United Kingdom (58%), Japan (55%), and Thailand (44%).

Women were much more likely to be overdiagnosed than men, with an approximate ratio of 3:1 in all countries; however, mortality and prevalence of thyroid cancer in autopsies were similar between genders.

Although researchers only looked at data up until 2012, Dr. Li said that, even in that year, “the amplitude of the phenomenon” was “already large and is increasing rapidly over time.”

Figures for periods subsequent to those assessed in the study “are likely to be higher.”

And the overdiagnosis is particularly remarkable in the context of the true risk of thyroid cancer, senior author Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, told this news organization.

“What is surprising is the magnitude of this. Without overdiagnosis, thyroid cancer would probably still be a relatively rare cancer,” he said.

“Currently, it is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in women of all ages and is third in women under 50 years of age. And the rates are still rising fast.”

“Overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer is still rapidly expanding in many high-income countries, and for the first time, we document and quantify the phenomenon also for several middle-income socioeconomically transitioning countries,” he observed. “In short, it is a global public health problem.”

Guidelines, physicians: No symptoms should mean no screening

With the implications of overdiagnosis ranging from physical, psychological in terms of the patient, and significant personal as well as societal costs, most international guidelines explicitly recommend against screening asymptomatic individuals and call for active surveillance of microcarcinomas that are detected.

The messaging appears to be making a difference.

As reported in research by American authors discussing the thyroid cancer epidemic from a 2017 perspective, the overdiagnosis situation in South Korea prompted a group of physicians there to make a high-profile public appeal in print and on television recommending against thyroid screening with ultrasound.

The result was a 35% reduction in the number of thyroidectomies performed in the subsequent year.

“This seems to be a striking example that the issue of overdiagnosis and overtreatment resonates with patients, and that public awareness can lead to changes in behavior,” say the U.S. authors of that article.

Senior author Louise Davies, MD, of the VA Outcomes Group, in White River Junction, Vt., said in an interview that the new study sheds more light on this issue.

“Even though the data only go through 2012, I think they give a nice snapshot of what’s happening across the globe with thyroid cancer incidence in countries of different levels of development,” she said.

The findings underscore that “it’s important that people are educated about the limits of medical testing and that sometimes when we see abnormalities we are truly catching a cancer early, but sometimes we’re seeing things that have been there a long time and may not change or become a problem in the future,” Dr. Davies remarked.
 

Important to know what size of cancers are being detected

One particular concern about overdiagnosis in middle-income countries is that the common approach of active monitoring may be more difficult in these settings, Dr. Davies added.

“In order to manage overdiagnosis, the health care systems in those countries have to think about whether they have the infrastructure for active monitoring and whether the patients will show up for the monitoring – so that’s a challenge.”

Also, she noted that the new study does not detail the size of cancers detected.

“We don’t know much about the size of the cancers being detected and whether these are truly the small asymptomatic cancers that we are worried about being overdiagnosed.”

“Probably, at least some of what we’re seeing is appropriate detection of cancers that, before there was economic development, were in fact being missed and people were dying of,” she said.

“So while overdiagnosis can be occurring, some of this represents better detection of disease overall, and that’s a good thing actually.”

The authors and Dr. Davies have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The rapid increase in thyroid cancer incidence that has occurred since the 1990s – considered an “epidemic of overdiagnosis,” has extended beyond high-income countries to less affluent settings, where unnecessary – and sometimes opportunistic – screening could continue to thrive.

“The impact of overdiagnosis on the increasing incidence of thyroid cancer highlighted in our report is a warning sign for countries with growing economies, where diagnostic technologies are increasingly and routinely offered, usually in exchange for payment, despite evidence that the harms far outweigh benefits,” the authors say.

“Overdiagnosis could turn healthy people into patients, and expose them to unnecessary harms and lifelong treatments,” say Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and colleagues in their article published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

With their previous research showing high rates of overdiagnosis in high-income countries, for this new analysis, they sought to evaluate whether similar patterns were occurring in less affluent settings.

They examined data from population-based cancer registries in 26 countries on four continents, looking at all cases of thyroid cancer reported between 1998 and 2012 in men and women aged 15 to 84 years.
 

A global public health problem

The results showed that while the incidence of thyroid cancer steadily increased from 1998 to 2002 and from 2008 to 2012 in all high-income countries, similar trends were also seen in less affluent nations, particularly in Belarus, China, Colombia, and Lithuania.

The increases were consistently greater among middle-aged women aged 35-64 years in all countries.

To determine what proportion of the higher incidence was overdiagnosis, the authors turned to historic age-specific thyroid cancer incidence data prior to the introduction of ultrasound and then looked at the progressive departure from that pattern, likely the result of the increased detection by ultrasound of thyroid nodules in middle-aged adults.

The results showed the proportion of thyroid cancer cases in women estimated to be attributable to overdiagnosis between 2008 and 2012 was as much as 93% in South Korea, 91% in Belarus, 87% in China, 84% in Italy and Croatia, and 83% in Slovakia and France.

Proportions attributable to overdiagnosis were lower in Denmark (66%), Norway (65%), Ireland (63%), United Kingdom (58%), Japan (55%), and Thailand (44%).

Women were much more likely to be overdiagnosed than men, with an approximate ratio of 3:1 in all countries; however, mortality and prevalence of thyroid cancer in autopsies were similar between genders.

Although researchers only looked at data up until 2012, Dr. Li said that, even in that year, “the amplitude of the phenomenon” was “already large and is increasing rapidly over time.”

Figures for periods subsequent to those assessed in the study “are likely to be higher.”

And the overdiagnosis is particularly remarkable in the context of the true risk of thyroid cancer, senior author Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, told this news organization.

“What is surprising is the magnitude of this. Without overdiagnosis, thyroid cancer would probably still be a relatively rare cancer,” he said.

“Currently, it is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in women of all ages and is third in women under 50 years of age. And the rates are still rising fast.”

“Overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer is still rapidly expanding in many high-income countries, and for the first time, we document and quantify the phenomenon also for several middle-income socioeconomically transitioning countries,” he observed. “In short, it is a global public health problem.”

Guidelines, physicians: No symptoms should mean no screening

With the implications of overdiagnosis ranging from physical, psychological in terms of the patient, and significant personal as well as societal costs, most international guidelines explicitly recommend against screening asymptomatic individuals and call for active surveillance of microcarcinomas that are detected.

The messaging appears to be making a difference.

As reported in research by American authors discussing the thyroid cancer epidemic from a 2017 perspective, the overdiagnosis situation in South Korea prompted a group of physicians there to make a high-profile public appeal in print and on television recommending against thyroid screening with ultrasound.

The result was a 35% reduction in the number of thyroidectomies performed in the subsequent year.

“This seems to be a striking example that the issue of overdiagnosis and overtreatment resonates with patients, and that public awareness can lead to changes in behavior,” say the U.S. authors of that article.

Senior author Louise Davies, MD, of the VA Outcomes Group, in White River Junction, Vt., said in an interview that the new study sheds more light on this issue.

“Even though the data only go through 2012, I think they give a nice snapshot of what’s happening across the globe with thyroid cancer incidence in countries of different levels of development,” she said.

The findings underscore that “it’s important that people are educated about the limits of medical testing and that sometimes when we see abnormalities we are truly catching a cancer early, but sometimes we’re seeing things that have been there a long time and may not change or become a problem in the future,” Dr. Davies remarked.
 

Important to know what size of cancers are being detected

One particular concern about overdiagnosis in middle-income countries is that the common approach of active monitoring may be more difficult in these settings, Dr. Davies added.

“In order to manage overdiagnosis, the health care systems in those countries have to think about whether they have the infrastructure for active monitoring and whether the patients will show up for the monitoring – so that’s a challenge.”

Also, she noted that the new study does not detail the size of cancers detected.

“We don’t know much about the size of the cancers being detected and whether these are truly the small asymptomatic cancers that we are worried about being overdiagnosed.”

“Probably, at least some of what we’re seeing is appropriate detection of cancers that, before there was economic development, were in fact being missed and people were dying of,” she said.

“So while overdiagnosis can be occurring, some of this represents better detection of disease overall, and that’s a good thing actually.”

The authors and Dr. Davies have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The rapid increase in thyroid cancer incidence that has occurred since the 1990s – considered an “epidemic of overdiagnosis,” has extended beyond high-income countries to less affluent settings, where unnecessary – and sometimes opportunistic – screening could continue to thrive.

“The impact of overdiagnosis on the increasing incidence of thyroid cancer highlighted in our report is a warning sign for countries with growing economies, where diagnostic technologies are increasingly and routinely offered, usually in exchange for payment, despite evidence that the harms far outweigh benefits,” the authors say.

“Overdiagnosis could turn healthy people into patients, and expose them to unnecessary harms and lifelong treatments,” say Mengmeng Li, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and colleagues in their article published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

With their previous research showing high rates of overdiagnosis in high-income countries, for this new analysis, they sought to evaluate whether similar patterns were occurring in less affluent settings.

They examined data from population-based cancer registries in 26 countries on four continents, looking at all cases of thyroid cancer reported between 1998 and 2012 in men and women aged 15 to 84 years.
 

A global public health problem

The results showed that while the incidence of thyroid cancer steadily increased from 1998 to 2002 and from 2008 to 2012 in all high-income countries, similar trends were also seen in less affluent nations, particularly in Belarus, China, Colombia, and Lithuania.

The increases were consistently greater among middle-aged women aged 35-64 years in all countries.

To determine what proportion of the higher incidence was overdiagnosis, the authors turned to historic age-specific thyroid cancer incidence data prior to the introduction of ultrasound and then looked at the progressive departure from that pattern, likely the result of the increased detection by ultrasound of thyroid nodules in middle-aged adults.

The results showed the proportion of thyroid cancer cases in women estimated to be attributable to overdiagnosis between 2008 and 2012 was as much as 93% in South Korea, 91% in Belarus, 87% in China, 84% in Italy and Croatia, and 83% in Slovakia and France.

Proportions attributable to overdiagnosis were lower in Denmark (66%), Norway (65%), Ireland (63%), United Kingdom (58%), Japan (55%), and Thailand (44%).

Women were much more likely to be overdiagnosed than men, with an approximate ratio of 3:1 in all countries; however, mortality and prevalence of thyroid cancer in autopsies were similar between genders.

Although researchers only looked at data up until 2012, Dr. Li said that, even in that year, “the amplitude of the phenomenon” was “already large and is increasing rapidly over time.”

Figures for periods subsequent to those assessed in the study “are likely to be higher.”

And the overdiagnosis is particularly remarkable in the context of the true risk of thyroid cancer, senior author Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, told this news organization.

“What is surprising is the magnitude of this. Without overdiagnosis, thyroid cancer would probably still be a relatively rare cancer,” he said.

“Currently, it is the fifth most commonly diagnosed cancer in women of all ages and is third in women under 50 years of age. And the rates are still rising fast.”

“Overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer is still rapidly expanding in many high-income countries, and for the first time, we document and quantify the phenomenon also for several middle-income socioeconomically transitioning countries,” he observed. “In short, it is a global public health problem.”

Guidelines, physicians: No symptoms should mean no screening

With the implications of overdiagnosis ranging from physical, psychological in terms of the patient, and significant personal as well as societal costs, most international guidelines explicitly recommend against screening asymptomatic individuals and call for active surveillance of microcarcinomas that are detected.

The messaging appears to be making a difference.

As reported in research by American authors discussing the thyroid cancer epidemic from a 2017 perspective, the overdiagnosis situation in South Korea prompted a group of physicians there to make a high-profile public appeal in print and on television recommending against thyroid screening with ultrasound.

The result was a 35% reduction in the number of thyroidectomies performed in the subsequent year.

“This seems to be a striking example that the issue of overdiagnosis and overtreatment resonates with patients, and that public awareness can lead to changes in behavior,” say the U.S. authors of that article.

Senior author Louise Davies, MD, of the VA Outcomes Group, in White River Junction, Vt., said in an interview that the new study sheds more light on this issue.

“Even though the data only go through 2012, I think they give a nice snapshot of what’s happening across the globe with thyroid cancer incidence in countries of different levels of development,” she said.

The findings underscore that “it’s important that people are educated about the limits of medical testing and that sometimes when we see abnormalities we are truly catching a cancer early, but sometimes we’re seeing things that have been there a long time and may not change or become a problem in the future,” Dr. Davies remarked.
 

Important to know what size of cancers are being detected

One particular concern about overdiagnosis in middle-income countries is that the common approach of active monitoring may be more difficult in these settings, Dr. Davies added.

“In order to manage overdiagnosis, the health care systems in those countries have to think about whether they have the infrastructure for active monitoring and whether the patients will show up for the monitoring – so that’s a challenge.”

Also, she noted that the new study does not detail the size of cancers detected.

“We don’t know much about the size of the cancers being detected and whether these are truly the small asymptomatic cancers that we are worried about being overdiagnosed.”

“Probably, at least some of what we’re seeing is appropriate detection of cancers that, before there was economic development, were in fact being missed and people were dying of,” she said.

“So while overdiagnosis can be occurring, some of this represents better detection of disease overall, and that’s a good thing actually.”

The authors and Dr. Davies have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A treat-to-target strategy for managing patients with axial spondyloarthritis failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint but still showed several suggestive indications of benefit compared with usual care in a multicenter, randomized study with 160 patients.

The treat-to-target management strategy tested aimed to get patients to an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1, as recommended for patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) by an international task force. Also notable about the study was its primary endpoint, at least a 30% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Health Index (ASAS HI), a measure of health-related quality-of-life that the study organizers selected in part because of its distinction from the treatment target.

“For the first time in rheumatology, we targeted inflammation to have an impact on another domain of the disease. Despite not reaching statistical significance, we see a difference between the groups,” Anna Moltó, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

After 12 months in the study, the 80 axSpA patients assigned to the treat-to-target regimen had a 47% rate of attainment of the primary endpoint, compared with 36% of the 80 patients assigned to usual care, an 11% absolute between-group difference with a P value that came close to but failed to achieve the conventional standard of statistical significance after adjustment for potential confounders (P = .09). Six secondary outcomes showed statistically significant improvements compared with the control patients, including the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), the ASAS 20, and ASAS 40. Five additional metrics showed nominal between-group improvements with the treat-to-target strategy that were not statistically significant, including various forms of the ASDAS.

One additional notable finding came from a cost-efficacy analysis run by Dr. Moltó and associates, which showed that the treat-to-target strategy was “dominant” over usual care by producing both better outcomes as well as a lower total cost, compared with control patients, even though twice as many patients on the treat-to-target strategy received a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) compared with patients in the usual care group. The incremental cost utility ratio for treat-to-target was 19,430 euros (about $22,000) per quality-adjusted life-year gained, putting the strategy into the range of a “cost effective” approach, and the two treatment arms also had comparable safety, said Dr. Moltó, a rheumatologist at Cochin Hospital in Paris.

The 11% increase in treat-to-target patients achieving at least a 30% improvement in their ASAS HI score “is potentially clinically relevant” because the comparator arm in the study received “very active” usual care and was not by any measure a true placebo control group, noted Maxime Dougados, MD, a rheumatologist and professor or medicine at Cochin Hospital and senior investigator for the study. In general, in treatment studies of rheumatologic diseases a 10% or greater absolute increase in the incidence of a beneficial outcome is considered clinically meaningful when compared with an actively-treated control arm, he noted.

“Using the ASAS HI score was very ambitious for the study, and it’s a very relevant outcome,” said Sofia Ramiro, MD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center who was not associated with the study and chaired the session where Dr. Moltó gave her report. “We have had treat-to-target trials that showed benefit when disease activity was the endpoint.” But when a study “targets treatment to [reducing] disease activity and then uses disease activity as the outcome measure you expect to see an effect, but it is circular reasoning and we are left with challenges in interpreting the results. Now we have a trial that is formally [neutral] but with a different, more ambitious endpoint. All the indications are for benefit from treat-to-target for both the primary endpoint and for all the other endpoints.”

“We were in a difficult situation when choosing the outcome. We didn’t know whether a 30% improvement in the ASAS HI was really relevant, but it seems to be,” said Désirée van der Heijde, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at Leiden University Medical Center and a collaborator on Dr. Moltó’s study. “I’d choose ASAS HI again as a primary endpoint” for a treat-to-target study in patients with axSpA, she said, but added that a 30% improvement in this score as the response threshold may warrant reconsideration. Both Dr. van der Heijde and Dr. Dougados agreed that at least one additional study with a somewhat similar design is needed to better document and confirm a role for a treat-to-target strategy in axSpA patients.

The Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis (TICOSPA) study ran at 10 French centers and 4 centers each in Belgium and the Netherlands. The study enrolled adults with rheumatologist-diagnosed axSpA with an ASDAS score greater than 2.1 who had not yet received a bDMARD, had not yet maxed out on their dosage of NSAIDs, and had certain baseline immunologic and imaging findings available. The researchers randomized 160 patients to either treat-to-target or usual care management by the center they attended to prevent cross contamination of management strategies. The treat-to-target regimen involved office examinations and consultations every 4 weeks rather than every 3 months with usual care, and also required a predefined management strategy with treatment prompts based on the strategy sent to the treating clinicians via the EMR. The average age of the patients was 38 years, they had been diagnosed with axSpA for an average of just under 4 years, and their mean ASDAS score at entry was 3. During the 12 months of management, 56% of the patients in the treat-to-target arm initiated treatment with a bDMARD, compared with 28% among the controls. Use of NSAIDs was similar between the two study subgroups.

TICOSPA was sponsored by UCB. Dr. Moltó has been a consultant to and received research funding from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Dougados has had financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. van der Heijde has had financial relationships with more than 20 companies including UCB. Dr. Ramiro had been a consultant to or received research funding from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sanofi.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moltó A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:413.

A treat-to-target strategy for managing patients with axial spondyloarthritis failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint but still showed several suggestive indications of benefit compared with usual care in a multicenter, randomized study with 160 patients.

The treat-to-target management strategy tested aimed to get patients to an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1, as recommended for patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) by an international task force. Also notable about the study was its primary endpoint, at least a 30% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Health Index (ASAS HI), a measure of health-related quality-of-life that the study organizers selected in part because of its distinction from the treatment target.

“For the first time in rheumatology, we targeted inflammation to have an impact on another domain of the disease. Despite not reaching statistical significance, we see a difference between the groups,” Anna Moltó, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

After 12 months in the study, the 80 axSpA patients assigned to the treat-to-target regimen had a 47% rate of attainment of the primary endpoint, compared with 36% of the 80 patients assigned to usual care, an 11% absolute between-group difference with a P value that came close to but failed to achieve the conventional standard of statistical significance after adjustment for potential confounders (P = .09). Six secondary outcomes showed statistically significant improvements compared with the control patients, including the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), the ASAS 20, and ASAS 40. Five additional metrics showed nominal between-group improvements with the treat-to-target strategy that were not statistically significant, including various forms of the ASDAS.

One additional notable finding came from a cost-efficacy analysis run by Dr. Moltó and associates, which showed that the treat-to-target strategy was “dominant” over usual care by producing both better outcomes as well as a lower total cost, compared with control patients, even though twice as many patients on the treat-to-target strategy received a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) compared with patients in the usual care group. The incremental cost utility ratio for treat-to-target was 19,430 euros (about $22,000) per quality-adjusted life-year gained, putting the strategy into the range of a “cost effective” approach, and the two treatment arms also had comparable safety, said Dr. Moltó, a rheumatologist at Cochin Hospital in Paris.

The 11% increase in treat-to-target patients achieving at least a 30% improvement in their ASAS HI score “is potentially clinically relevant” because the comparator arm in the study received “very active” usual care and was not by any measure a true placebo control group, noted Maxime Dougados, MD, a rheumatologist and professor or medicine at Cochin Hospital and senior investigator for the study. In general, in treatment studies of rheumatologic diseases a 10% or greater absolute increase in the incidence of a beneficial outcome is considered clinically meaningful when compared with an actively-treated control arm, he noted.

“Using the ASAS HI score was very ambitious for the study, and it’s a very relevant outcome,” said Sofia Ramiro, MD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center who was not associated with the study and chaired the session where Dr. Moltó gave her report. “We have had treat-to-target trials that showed benefit when disease activity was the endpoint.” But when a study “targets treatment to [reducing] disease activity and then uses disease activity as the outcome measure you expect to see an effect, but it is circular reasoning and we are left with challenges in interpreting the results. Now we have a trial that is formally [neutral] but with a different, more ambitious endpoint. All the indications are for benefit from treat-to-target for both the primary endpoint and for all the other endpoints.”

“We were in a difficult situation when choosing the outcome. We didn’t know whether a 30% improvement in the ASAS HI was really relevant, but it seems to be,” said Désirée van der Heijde, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at Leiden University Medical Center and a collaborator on Dr. Moltó’s study. “I’d choose ASAS HI again as a primary endpoint” for a treat-to-target study in patients with axSpA, she said, but added that a 30% improvement in this score as the response threshold may warrant reconsideration. Both Dr. van der Heijde and Dr. Dougados agreed that at least one additional study with a somewhat similar design is needed to better document and confirm a role for a treat-to-target strategy in axSpA patients.

The Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis (TICOSPA) study ran at 10 French centers and 4 centers each in Belgium and the Netherlands. The study enrolled adults with rheumatologist-diagnosed axSpA with an ASDAS score greater than 2.1 who had not yet received a bDMARD, had not yet maxed out on their dosage of NSAIDs, and had certain baseline immunologic and imaging findings available. The researchers randomized 160 patients to either treat-to-target or usual care management by the center they attended to prevent cross contamination of management strategies. The treat-to-target regimen involved office examinations and consultations every 4 weeks rather than every 3 months with usual care, and also required a predefined management strategy with treatment prompts based on the strategy sent to the treating clinicians via the EMR. The average age of the patients was 38 years, they had been diagnosed with axSpA for an average of just under 4 years, and their mean ASDAS score at entry was 3. During the 12 months of management, 56% of the patients in the treat-to-target arm initiated treatment with a bDMARD, compared with 28% among the controls. Use of NSAIDs was similar between the two study subgroups.

TICOSPA was sponsored by UCB. Dr. Moltó has been a consultant to and received research funding from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Dougados has had financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. van der Heijde has had financial relationships with more than 20 companies including UCB. Dr. Ramiro had been a consultant to or received research funding from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sanofi.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moltó A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:413.

A treat-to-target strategy for managing patients with axial spondyloarthritis failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint but still showed several suggestive indications of benefit compared with usual care in a multicenter, randomized study with 160 patients.

The treat-to-target management strategy tested aimed to get patients to an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1, as recommended for patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) by an international task force. Also notable about the study was its primary endpoint, at least a 30% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Health Index (ASAS HI), a measure of health-related quality-of-life that the study organizers selected in part because of its distinction from the treatment target.

“For the first time in rheumatology, we targeted inflammation to have an impact on another domain of the disease. Despite not reaching statistical significance, we see a difference between the groups,” Anna Moltó, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

After 12 months in the study, the 80 axSpA patients assigned to the treat-to-target regimen had a 47% rate of attainment of the primary endpoint, compared with 36% of the 80 patients assigned to usual care, an 11% absolute between-group difference with a P value that came close to but failed to achieve the conventional standard of statistical significance after adjustment for potential confounders (P = .09). Six secondary outcomes showed statistically significant improvements compared with the control patients, including the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), the ASAS 20, and ASAS 40. Five additional metrics showed nominal between-group improvements with the treat-to-target strategy that were not statistically significant, including various forms of the ASDAS.

One additional notable finding came from a cost-efficacy analysis run by Dr. Moltó and associates, which showed that the treat-to-target strategy was “dominant” over usual care by producing both better outcomes as well as a lower total cost, compared with control patients, even though twice as many patients on the treat-to-target strategy received a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) compared with patients in the usual care group. The incremental cost utility ratio for treat-to-target was 19,430 euros (about $22,000) per quality-adjusted life-year gained, putting the strategy into the range of a “cost effective” approach, and the two treatment arms also had comparable safety, said Dr. Moltó, a rheumatologist at Cochin Hospital in Paris.

The 11% increase in treat-to-target patients achieving at least a 30% improvement in their ASAS HI score “is potentially clinically relevant” because the comparator arm in the study received “very active” usual care and was not by any measure a true placebo control group, noted Maxime Dougados, MD, a rheumatologist and professor or medicine at Cochin Hospital and senior investigator for the study. In general, in treatment studies of rheumatologic diseases a 10% or greater absolute increase in the incidence of a beneficial outcome is considered clinically meaningful when compared with an actively-treated control arm, he noted.

“Using the ASAS HI score was very ambitious for the study, and it’s a very relevant outcome,” said Sofia Ramiro, MD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center who was not associated with the study and chaired the session where Dr. Moltó gave her report. “We have had treat-to-target trials that showed benefit when disease activity was the endpoint.” But when a study “targets treatment to [reducing] disease activity and then uses disease activity as the outcome measure you expect to see an effect, but it is circular reasoning and we are left with challenges in interpreting the results. Now we have a trial that is formally [neutral] but with a different, more ambitious endpoint. All the indications are for benefit from treat-to-target for both the primary endpoint and for all the other endpoints.”

“We were in a difficult situation when choosing the outcome. We didn’t know whether a 30% improvement in the ASAS HI was really relevant, but it seems to be,” said Désirée van der Heijde, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at Leiden University Medical Center and a collaborator on Dr. Moltó’s study. “I’d choose ASAS HI again as a primary endpoint” for a treat-to-target study in patients with axSpA, she said, but added that a 30% improvement in this score as the response threshold may warrant reconsideration. Both Dr. van der Heijde and Dr. Dougados agreed that at least one additional study with a somewhat similar design is needed to better document and confirm a role for a treat-to-target strategy in axSpA patients.

The Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis (TICOSPA) study ran at 10 French centers and 4 centers each in Belgium and the Netherlands. The study enrolled adults with rheumatologist-diagnosed axSpA with an ASDAS score greater than 2.1 who had not yet received a bDMARD, had not yet maxed out on their dosage of NSAIDs, and had certain baseline immunologic and imaging findings available. The researchers randomized 160 patients to either treat-to-target or usual care management by the center they attended to prevent cross contamination of management strategies. The treat-to-target regimen involved office examinations and consultations every 4 weeks rather than every 3 months with usual care, and also required a predefined management strategy with treatment prompts based on the strategy sent to the treating clinicians via the EMR. The average age of the patients was 38 years, they had been diagnosed with axSpA for an average of just under 4 years, and their mean ASDAS score at entry was 3. During the 12 months of management, 56% of the patients in the treat-to-target arm initiated treatment with a bDMARD, compared with 28% among the controls. Use of NSAIDs was similar between the two study subgroups.

TICOSPA was sponsored by UCB. Dr. Moltó has been a consultant to and received research funding from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Dougados has had financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. van der Heijde has had financial relationships with more than 20 companies including UCB. Dr. Ramiro had been a consultant to or received research funding from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sanofi.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moltó A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:413.

For patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor–induced colitis, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection may increase risks of steroid-refractory disease and ulcers that contribute to colonic perforation, according to investigators.

Pending further research, routine monitoring of EBV status may be needed for patients undergoing checkpoint inhibitor therapy, reported lead author Matthew R. Pugh, FRCPath, of University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, and colleagues.

“Few studies have investigated the role of viruses in the pathogenesis of immune-related colitis,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. While cytomegalovirus has been linked with worse disease, no studies to date have evaluated the role of EBV, they noted, despite theoretical concerns.

“A spectrum of EBV-positive lymphoproliferations shows a predilection for the GI tract, ranging from indolent lesions to aggressive lymphomas,” the investigators wrote. “One such proliferation, EBV-positive mucocutaneous ulcer (EBVMCU), is an indolent, ulcerating process associated with immunosuppression,” they added, referring to studies involving patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

To determine if EBV could be playing a similar role in cancer immunotherapy, the investigators retrospectively analyzed colon tissue samples from 16 patients who developed colitis after undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy between 2010 and 2018. Thirteen patients received an anti-CTLA-4 agent, three were treated with a PD-1 inhibitor, and four received both types of therapy. Most patients had advanced-stage melanoma (n = 14), while the remaining two patients had prostate and renal carcinoma, respectively. Ten samples were biopsies, whereas four specimens were collected from surgical repair of colon perforation.

EBV status was determined by chromogenic in situ hybridization for EBV-encoded small RNA, with positive samples further characterized by immunohistochemistry for CD3, CD15, CD20, CD30, CD138, MUM1, and PAX5. In addition, all samples were immunostained for cytomegalovirus, and PCR was used to assess B cell and T cell clonality.

The median time from induction of therapy to colitis onset was approximately 1 month (32.5 days), with symptoms typically lasting 3 weeks (22.5 days). Macroscopically, 10 patients had ulceration, and 6 displayed signs of hemorrhage.

EBVMCUs were found in four patients, of whom three had received anti-CTLA-4 therapy, one had received both anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 therapy, and all had undergone colonic resection. One case also tested positive for cytomegalovirus.

Immunostaining showed that EBVMCUs had underlying B cell and linear plasma cell infiltrates, with “a rim of small T lymphocytes at the base.” EBV-encoded small RNA expression was found in both plasma cells and small B cells.

The presence of EBVMCUs was significantly associated with more severe colitis.

All four EBV-positive patients had steroid-refractory colitis, compared with only two (12.5%) of the EBV-negative patients (P = .008), a difference that was echoed by the rate of colonic resection (100% vs. 12.5%; P .008). Furthermore, colon perforation occurred in all EBV-positive patients, versus none of the EBV-negative patients (P = .001).

For three EBV-positive patients, preresection biopsy samples were available, allowing for temporal analysis of EBV-encoded small RNA. Earlier samples had reduced or absent EBV-positive lymphoid cells, which offered some etiologic insight.

“The apparent absence or paucity of EBV-positive lymphoid cells in biopsies taken before resection suggests that EBVMCU is arising within preexisting immune-mediated inflammation rather than EBV driving the initial inflammatory insult,” the investigators wrote.

They suggested that EBVMCUs “likely contribute directly to colonic perforation,” since lesions are characterized by a form of localized tissue destruction that has been previously associated with colonic perforation in Crohn’s disease and intestinal perforation in rheumatoid arthritis.

Still, mechanisms of action remain unknown. “It is unclear why EBVMCUs should arise in the context of immune checkpoint regulator therapy, which, in contrast to conventional immunosuppressants, results in immune activation,” the investigators wrote. “It is possible that these patients may harbor residual immunosuppression resulting from their disease burden, advanced age, and prior immunosuppression.”

While more work is needed, Dr. Pugh and colleagues suggested that EBV testing may be valuable for some patients.

“The findings support the need for further studies investigating the role of EBV monitoring in immune checkpoint regulator therapy, which is not currently part of routine protocols.”

The study was funded by All Wales Lymphoma Panel. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Pugh et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.09.031.

For patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor–induced colitis, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection may increase risks of steroid-refractory disease and ulcers that contribute to colonic perforation, according to investigators.

Pending further research, routine monitoring of EBV status may be needed for patients undergoing checkpoint inhibitor therapy, reported lead author Matthew R. Pugh, FRCPath, of University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, and colleagues.

“Few studies have investigated the role of viruses in the pathogenesis of immune-related colitis,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. While cytomegalovirus has been linked with worse disease, no studies to date have evaluated the role of EBV, they noted, despite theoretical concerns.

“A spectrum of EBV-positive lymphoproliferations shows a predilection for the GI tract, ranging from indolent lesions to aggressive lymphomas,” the investigators wrote. “One such proliferation, EBV-positive mucocutaneous ulcer (EBVMCU), is an indolent, ulcerating process associated with immunosuppression,” they added, referring to studies involving patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

To determine if EBV could be playing a similar role in cancer immunotherapy, the investigators retrospectively analyzed colon tissue samples from 16 patients who developed colitis after undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy between 2010 and 2018. Thirteen patients received an anti-CTLA-4 agent, three were treated with a PD-1 inhibitor, and four received both types of therapy. Most patients had advanced-stage melanoma (n = 14), while the remaining two patients had prostate and renal carcinoma, respectively. Ten samples were biopsies, whereas four specimens were collected from surgical repair of colon perforation.

EBV status was determined by chromogenic in situ hybridization for EBV-encoded small RNA, with positive samples further characterized by immunohistochemistry for CD3, CD15, CD20, CD30, CD138, MUM1, and PAX5. In addition, all samples were immunostained for cytomegalovirus, and PCR was used to assess B cell and T cell clonality.

The median time from induction of therapy to colitis onset was approximately 1 month (32.5 days), with symptoms typically lasting 3 weeks (22.5 days). Macroscopically, 10 patients had ulceration, and 6 displayed signs of hemorrhage.

EBVMCUs were found in four patients, of whom three had received anti-CTLA-4 therapy, one had received both anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 therapy, and all had undergone colonic resection. One case also tested positive for cytomegalovirus.

Immunostaining showed that EBVMCUs had underlying B cell and linear plasma cell infiltrates, with “a rim of small T lymphocytes at the base.” EBV-encoded small RNA expression was found in both plasma cells and small B cells.

The presence of EBVMCUs was significantly associated with more severe colitis.

All four EBV-positive patients had steroid-refractory colitis, compared with only two (12.5%) of the EBV-negative patients (P = .008), a difference that was echoed by the rate of colonic resection (100% vs. 12.5%; P .008). Furthermore, colon perforation occurred in all EBV-positive patients, versus none of the EBV-negative patients (P = .001).

For three EBV-positive patients, preresection biopsy samples were available, allowing for temporal analysis of EBV-encoded small RNA. Earlier samples had reduced or absent EBV-positive lymphoid cells, which offered some etiologic insight.

“The apparent absence or paucity of EBV-positive lymphoid cells in biopsies taken before resection suggests that EBVMCU is arising within preexisting immune-mediated inflammation rather than EBV driving the initial inflammatory insult,” the investigators wrote.

They suggested that EBVMCUs “likely contribute directly to colonic perforation,” since lesions are characterized by a form of localized tissue destruction that has been previously associated with colonic perforation in Crohn’s disease and intestinal perforation in rheumatoid arthritis.

Still, mechanisms of action remain unknown. “It is unclear why EBVMCUs should arise in the context of immune checkpoint regulator therapy, which, in contrast to conventional immunosuppressants, results in immune activation,” the investigators wrote. “It is possible that these patients may harbor residual immunosuppression resulting from their disease burden, advanced age, and prior immunosuppression.”

While more work is needed, Dr. Pugh and colleagues suggested that EBV testing may be valuable for some patients.

“The findings support the need for further studies investigating the role of EBV monitoring in immune checkpoint regulator therapy, which is not currently part of routine protocols.”

The study was funded by All Wales Lymphoma Panel. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Pugh et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.09.031.

For patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor–induced colitis, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection may increase risks of steroid-refractory disease and ulcers that contribute to colonic perforation, according to investigators.

Pending further research, routine monitoring of EBV status may be needed for patients undergoing checkpoint inhibitor therapy, reported lead author Matthew R. Pugh, FRCPath, of University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, and colleagues.

“Few studies have investigated the role of viruses in the pathogenesis of immune-related colitis,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. While cytomegalovirus has been linked with worse disease, no studies to date have evaluated the role of EBV, they noted, despite theoretical concerns.

“A spectrum of EBV-positive lymphoproliferations shows a predilection for the GI tract, ranging from indolent lesions to aggressive lymphomas,” the investigators wrote. “One such proliferation, EBV-positive mucocutaneous ulcer (EBVMCU), is an indolent, ulcerating process associated with immunosuppression,” they added, referring to studies involving patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

To determine if EBV could be playing a similar role in cancer immunotherapy, the investigators retrospectively analyzed colon tissue samples from 16 patients who developed colitis after undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy between 2010 and 2018. Thirteen patients received an anti-CTLA-4 agent, three were treated with a PD-1 inhibitor, and four received both types of therapy. Most patients had advanced-stage melanoma (n = 14), while the remaining two patients had prostate and renal carcinoma, respectively. Ten samples were biopsies, whereas four specimens were collected from surgical repair of colon perforation.

EBV status was determined by chromogenic in situ hybridization for EBV-encoded small RNA, with positive samples further characterized by immunohistochemistry for CD3, CD15, CD20, CD30, CD138, MUM1, and PAX5. In addition, all samples were immunostained for cytomegalovirus, and PCR was used to assess B cell and T cell clonality.

The median time from induction of therapy to colitis onset was approximately 1 month (32.5 days), with symptoms typically lasting 3 weeks (22.5 days). Macroscopically, 10 patients had ulceration, and 6 displayed signs of hemorrhage.

EBVMCUs were found in four patients, of whom three had received anti-CTLA-4 therapy, one had received both anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 therapy, and all had undergone colonic resection. One case also tested positive for cytomegalovirus.

Immunostaining showed that EBVMCUs had underlying B cell and linear plasma cell infiltrates, with “a rim of small T lymphocytes at the base.” EBV-encoded small RNA expression was found in both plasma cells and small B cells.

The presence of EBVMCUs was significantly associated with more severe colitis.

All four EBV-positive patients had steroid-refractory colitis, compared with only two (12.5%) of the EBV-negative patients (P = .008), a difference that was echoed by the rate of colonic resection (100% vs. 12.5%; P .008). Furthermore, colon perforation occurred in all EBV-positive patients, versus none of the EBV-negative patients (P = .001).

For three EBV-positive patients, preresection biopsy samples were available, allowing for temporal analysis of EBV-encoded small RNA. Earlier samples had reduced or absent EBV-positive lymphoid cells, which offered some etiologic insight.

“The apparent absence or paucity of EBV-positive lymphoid cells in biopsies taken before resection suggests that EBVMCU is arising within preexisting immune-mediated inflammation rather than EBV driving the initial inflammatory insult,” the investigators wrote.

They suggested that EBVMCUs “likely contribute directly to colonic perforation,” since lesions are characterized by a form of localized tissue destruction that has been previously associated with colonic perforation in Crohn’s disease and intestinal perforation in rheumatoid arthritis.

Still, mechanisms of action remain unknown. “It is unclear why EBVMCUs should arise in the context of immune checkpoint regulator therapy, which, in contrast to conventional immunosuppressants, results in immune activation,” the investigators wrote. “It is possible that these patients may harbor residual immunosuppression resulting from their disease burden, advanced age, and prior immunosuppression.”

While more work is needed, Dr. Pugh and colleagues suggested that EBV testing may be valuable for some patients.

“The findings support the need for further studies investigating the role of EBV monitoring in immune checkpoint regulator therapy, which is not currently part of routine protocols.”

The study was funded by All Wales Lymphoma Panel. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Pugh et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.09.031.