Underlying cardiac disease, airway anomalies, and younger age each independently boosted the risk of severe perioperative respiratory adverse events (PRAE) in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy to treat obstructive sleep apnea, in a review of 374 patients treated at a single Canadian tertiary-referral center.

In contrast, the analysis failed to show independent, significant effects from any assessed polysomnography or oximetry parameters on the rate of postoperative respiratory complications. The utility of preoperative polysomnography or oximetry for risk stratification is questionable for pediatric patients scheduled to adenotonsillectomy to treat obstructive sleep apnea, wrote Sherri L. Katz, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and associates in a recent report published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, although they also added that making these assessments may be “unavoidable” because of their need for diagnosing obstructive sleep apnea and determining the need for surgery.

Despite this caveat, “overall our study results highlight the need to better define the complex interaction between comorbidities, age, nocturnal respiratory events, and gas exchange abnormalities in predicting risk for PRAE” after adenotonsillectomy, the researchers wrote. These findings “are consistent with existing clinical care guidelines,” and “cardiac and craniofacial conditions have been associated with risk of postoperative complications in other studies.”

The analysis used data collected from all children aged 0-18 years who underwent polysomnography assessment followed by adenotonsillectomy at one Canadian tertiary-referral center, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa, during 2010-2016. Their median age was just over 6 years, and 39 patients (10%) were younger than 3 years at the time of their surgery. More than three-quarters of the patients, 286, had at least one identified comorbidity, and nearly half had at least two comorbidities. Polysomnography identified sleep-disordered breathing in 344 of the children (92%), and diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea in 256 (68%), including 148 (43% of the full cohort) with a severe apnea-hypopnea index.

Sixty-six of the children (18%) had at least one severe PRAE that required intervention. Specifically these were either oxygen desaturations requiring intervention or need for airway or ventilatory support with interventions such as jaw thrust, oral or nasal airway placement, bag and mask ventilation, or endotracheal intubation.

A multivariate regression analysis of the measured comorbidity, polysomnography, and oximetry parameters, as well as age, identified three factors that independently linked with a statistically significant increase in the rate of severe PRAE: airway anomaly, underlying cardiac disease, and young age. Patients with an airway anomaly had a 219% increased rate of PRAE, compared with those with no anomaly; patients with underlying cardiac disease had a 109% increased rate, compared with those without cardiac disease; and patients aged younger than 3 years had a 310% higher rate of PRAE, compared with the children aged 6 years or older, while children aged 3-5 years had a 121% higher rate of PRAE, compared with older children.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Katz has received honoraria for speaking from Biogen that had no relevance to the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Katz SL et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020 Jan 15;16(1):41-8.

Underlying cardiac disease, airway anomalies, and younger age each independently boosted the risk of severe perioperative respiratory adverse events (PRAE) in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy to treat obstructive sleep apnea, in a review of 374 patients treated at a single Canadian tertiary-referral center.

In contrast, the analysis failed to show independent, significant effects from any assessed polysomnography or oximetry parameters on the rate of postoperative respiratory complications. The utility of preoperative polysomnography or oximetry for risk stratification is questionable for pediatric patients scheduled to adenotonsillectomy to treat obstructive sleep apnea, wrote Sherri L. Katz, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and associates in a recent report published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, although they also added that making these assessments may be “unavoidable” because of their need for diagnosing obstructive sleep apnea and determining the need for surgery.

Despite this caveat, “overall our study results highlight the need to better define the complex interaction between comorbidities, age, nocturnal respiratory events, and gas exchange abnormalities in predicting risk for PRAE” after adenotonsillectomy, the researchers wrote. These findings “are consistent with existing clinical care guidelines,” and “cardiac and craniofacial conditions have been associated with risk of postoperative complications in other studies.”

The analysis used data collected from all children aged 0-18 years who underwent polysomnography assessment followed by adenotonsillectomy at one Canadian tertiary-referral center, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa, during 2010-2016. Their median age was just over 6 years, and 39 patients (10%) were younger than 3 years at the time of their surgery. More than three-quarters of the patients, 286, had at least one identified comorbidity, and nearly half had at least two comorbidities. Polysomnography identified sleep-disordered breathing in 344 of the children (92%), and diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea in 256 (68%), including 148 (43% of the full cohort) with a severe apnea-hypopnea index.

Sixty-six of the children (18%) had at least one severe PRAE that required intervention. Specifically these were either oxygen desaturations requiring intervention or need for airway or ventilatory support with interventions such as jaw thrust, oral or nasal airway placement, bag and mask ventilation, or endotracheal intubation.

A multivariate regression analysis of the measured comorbidity, polysomnography, and oximetry parameters, as well as age, identified three factors that independently linked with a statistically significant increase in the rate of severe PRAE: airway anomaly, underlying cardiac disease, and young age. Patients with an airway anomaly had a 219% increased rate of PRAE, compared with those with no anomaly; patients with underlying cardiac disease had a 109% increased rate, compared with those without cardiac disease; and patients aged younger than 3 years had a 310% higher rate of PRAE, compared with the children aged 6 years or older, while children aged 3-5 years had a 121% higher rate of PRAE, compared with older children.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Katz has received honoraria for speaking from Biogen that had no relevance to the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Katz SL et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020 Jan 15;16(1):41-8.

Underlying cardiac disease, airway anomalies, and younger age each independently boosted the risk of severe perioperative respiratory adverse events (PRAE) in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy to treat obstructive sleep apnea, in a review of 374 patients treated at a single Canadian tertiary-referral center.

In contrast, the analysis failed to show independent, significant effects from any assessed polysomnography or oximetry parameters on the rate of postoperative respiratory complications. The utility of preoperative polysomnography or oximetry for risk stratification is questionable for pediatric patients scheduled to adenotonsillectomy to treat obstructive sleep apnea, wrote Sherri L. Katz, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and associates in a recent report published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, although they also added that making these assessments may be “unavoidable” because of their need for diagnosing obstructive sleep apnea and determining the need for surgery.

Despite this caveat, “overall our study results highlight the need to better define the complex interaction between comorbidities, age, nocturnal respiratory events, and gas exchange abnormalities in predicting risk for PRAE” after adenotonsillectomy, the researchers wrote. These findings “are consistent with existing clinical care guidelines,” and “cardiac and craniofacial conditions have been associated with risk of postoperative complications in other studies.”

The analysis used data collected from all children aged 0-18 years who underwent polysomnography assessment followed by adenotonsillectomy at one Canadian tertiary-referral center, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa, during 2010-2016. Their median age was just over 6 years, and 39 patients (10%) were younger than 3 years at the time of their surgery. More than three-quarters of the patients, 286, had at least one identified comorbidity, and nearly half had at least two comorbidities. Polysomnography identified sleep-disordered breathing in 344 of the children (92%), and diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea in 256 (68%), including 148 (43% of the full cohort) with a severe apnea-hypopnea index.

Sixty-six of the children (18%) had at least one severe PRAE that required intervention. Specifically these were either oxygen desaturations requiring intervention or need for airway or ventilatory support with interventions such as jaw thrust, oral or nasal airway placement, bag and mask ventilation, or endotracheal intubation.

A multivariate regression analysis of the measured comorbidity, polysomnography, and oximetry parameters, as well as age, identified three factors that independently linked with a statistically significant increase in the rate of severe PRAE: airway anomaly, underlying cardiac disease, and young age. Patients with an airway anomaly had a 219% increased rate of PRAE, compared with those with no anomaly; patients with underlying cardiac disease had a 109% increased rate, compared with those without cardiac disease; and patients aged younger than 3 years had a 310% higher rate of PRAE, compared with the children aged 6 years or older, while children aged 3-5 years had a 121% higher rate of PRAE, compared with older children.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Katz has received honoraria for speaking from Biogen that had no relevance to the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Katz SL et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020 Jan 15;16(1):41-8.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I review “guidelines for today” and speculate about “guidelines for tomorrow,” highlighting recommendations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology about hereditary cancer testing in epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) and data that support a reexamination of the age at which screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) should begin.

ASCO guidelines on genetic testing in epithelial ovarian cancer

After reviewing 19 studies, including 6 meta-analyses; 11 randomized, controlled trials; and 2 observational studies, an ASCO panel recommended germline genetic testing for BRCA1, BRCA2, and other ovarian cancer susceptibility genes for all women with newly diagnosed epithelial OC, regardless of family history (J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02960).

For OC patients with a germline mutation, cascade testing of first- and second-degree relatives was strongly urged. For patients without a germline mutation, the guidelines recommended offering somatic tumor testing for BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants at disease recurrence or after initial therapy and for mismatch repair deficiency (MMRD) in patients with clear cell, endometrioid, or mucinous and potentially other histologic types of OC. The authors cautioned that the discussion of testing results should involve professionals with expertise in the surveillance and management of hereditary cancer syndromes.

The panel said the discovery of germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants should lead to considering treatment with Food and Drug Administration–approved poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, including niraparib, olaparib, and rucaparib. Identification of MMRD in a patient with recurrent OC should trigger consideration of treatment with pembrolizumab, consistent with its labeled indications, and surveillance for other malignancies.

The guidelines cautioned that, when patients have variants of uncertain significance on germline testing, “clinical features and family history should inform clinical decision making.” Similarly, the panel made no recommendation regarding testing for or making treatment decisions based on tests for homologous recombination deficiency.
 

How these results influence practice

Every oncologist recognizes that better understanding of cancer biology can guide personalized diagnostic, predictive, prognostic, and therapeutic strategies for patients and their family members.

It is estimated that approximately 25% of all OC is caused by a heritable genetic condition. Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are identified in 13%-15% of patients with OC, and somatic mutations are found in an additional 7%. Perhaps 6% of all ovarian/fallopian tube/peritoneal cancers are caused by mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2. For that reason, germline sequencing should be performed via multigene panels that assess BRCA1/2 and other relevant mutations.

MMDR has been found in 10%-12% of unselected epithelial OC, with increased representation in nonserous histologies. That frequency is high enough to justify testing for it routinely.

Unfortunately, only about 30% of women undergo genetic testing. Given the frequency of molecular abnormalities in OC, this is problematic in every conceivable domain of clinical care for patients and family members. ASCO’s comprehensive, educational guidelines provide a template for shared decision making and utilize resources that are available in almost all clinical settings. For those clinicians who have recommended genetic testing for all epithelial OC patients, these guidelines are practice reaffirming. For the rest of us, they are practice changing.
 

Colorectal cancer cases spike after start of routine screening

Instead of examining CRC incidence by the usual 5- or 10-year age ranges, a group of researchers looked at CRC incidence in 1-year intervals for adults aged 30-60 years in the SEER-18 registry from 2000 to 2015 (JAMA Network Open. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20407). The researchers focused their attention on the transition between age 49 and 50 years, which is when routine screening generally begins and case-finding based on symptoms and signs of CRC alone ideally ends.

The group’s hypothesis was that steep increases in CRC incidence between ages 49 and 50 would be consistent with a high, undetected preclinical case burden in patients aged younger than 50 years and that this “real-world” registry data could help estimate outcomes of screening at younger ages. The researchers found that CRC incidence increased by 46.1% in the transition period from age 49 to 50 years. A majority (93%) of these cases were invasive and, therefore, likely to be clinically relevant. The increase in cancer rates occurred across geographical regions, gender, and race, and likely reflected the impact of screening. The states with the steepest increases in CRC between ages 49 and 50 (Connecticut and Utah) were the states with the first and third highest CRC screening rates for individuals 50 years of age and older.

Stage stratification showed steep increases in incidence in the target age range for localized and regional CRC and for colon and rectal tumors. In the transition between age 49 and 50, the researchers found a significant increase in 5-year relative survival (6.9% absolute increase, 10% relative increase), suggesting that earlier screening had a survival impact, apart from the effects of treatment in cases diagnosed after symptoms occurred.

The authors concluded that their analysis of the transition from age 49 to 50 years provides registry-based data regarding CRC risk among individuals younger than 50, which can add to existing modeling studies to help inform guidelines about the age at which to initiate screening.
 

How these results influence practice

Early-onset CRC (EOCRC) incidence is increasing, with controversy regarding whether average-risk screening should begin before age 50 years. The justification for starting screening at age 50 is that there is a near doubling of incidence from patients aged 45-49 years (34 per 100,000) to those aged 50-54 years (60.2 per 100,000).

However, the increase in CRC incidence beyond age 50 may not be because rates are truly lower among younger individuals but rather because of uneven screening between the two populations. Doubling times for CRCs have been estimated to be perhaps as long as 1,000 days. Because many CRCs are asymptomatic, observed incidence rates of EOCRC in SEER registries do not reflect preclinical CRC case burdens in younger patients.

The current interrogation of SEER-18 data to identify preexisting CRC that was clinically silent in the 1-year interval between age 49 and 50 is highly supportive of a large undiagnosed number of EOCRC cases. In SEER-18, CRC rates increased 46.1% in this 1-year age transition, more than in earlier 1-year age transitions. With almost 93% of cases being invasive, these data suggest a high case burden of preclinical, undetected, clinically relevant EOCRC in younger patients that is not reflected in observed SEER incidence rates examining wider age group intervals.

The dual goals of screening for CRC are to prevent malignant neoplasms by the removal of precancerous polyps and improve cancer-specific survival. The data presented suggest that, by starting average-risk screening at age 50 years, we may be “missing the window.” The 6.9% absolute and 10.1% relative survival increase in the target transition period suggest the authors’ hypothesis is correct.

As in any real-world database survey, the analysis is limited by a lack of specific outcomes data, the inability to determine when the cancers developed, and how long they germinated. Because of those limitations and others, more detailed studies are needed to determine the ideal age at which to begin CRC screening.

Modeling studies incorporating the steep incidence inflection point at 49-50 years can be conducted to estimate the incidence rate increase at, for example, 45 years; the cost-benefit ratio; quality-adjusted life-years gained; and other important endpoints. However, this review of over 170,000 cases of CRC, with a data-completeness rate of over 98%, over the 15-year time frame when CRC screening became common, supports a fresh look at whether it is within our power to improve outcomes for EOCRC patients by using existing technology but applying it earlier.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I review “guidelines for today” and speculate about “guidelines for tomorrow,” highlighting recommendations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology about hereditary cancer testing in epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) and data that support a reexamination of the age at which screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) should begin.

ASCO guidelines on genetic testing in epithelial ovarian cancer

After reviewing 19 studies, including 6 meta-analyses; 11 randomized, controlled trials; and 2 observational studies, an ASCO panel recommended germline genetic testing for BRCA1, BRCA2, and other ovarian cancer susceptibility genes for all women with newly diagnosed epithelial OC, regardless of family history (J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02960).

For OC patients with a germline mutation, cascade testing of first- and second-degree relatives was strongly urged. For patients without a germline mutation, the guidelines recommended offering somatic tumor testing for BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants at disease recurrence or after initial therapy and for mismatch repair deficiency (MMRD) in patients with clear cell, endometrioid, or mucinous and potentially other histologic types of OC. The authors cautioned that the discussion of testing results should involve professionals with expertise in the surveillance and management of hereditary cancer syndromes.

The panel said the discovery of germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants should lead to considering treatment with Food and Drug Administration–approved poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, including niraparib, olaparib, and rucaparib. Identification of MMRD in a patient with recurrent OC should trigger consideration of treatment with pembrolizumab, consistent with its labeled indications, and surveillance for other malignancies.

The guidelines cautioned that, when patients have variants of uncertain significance on germline testing, “clinical features and family history should inform clinical decision making.” Similarly, the panel made no recommendation regarding testing for or making treatment decisions based on tests for homologous recombination deficiency.
 

How these results influence practice

Every oncologist recognizes that better understanding of cancer biology can guide personalized diagnostic, predictive, prognostic, and therapeutic strategies for patients and their family members.

It is estimated that approximately 25% of all OC is caused by a heritable genetic condition. Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are identified in 13%-15% of patients with OC, and somatic mutations are found in an additional 7%. Perhaps 6% of all ovarian/fallopian tube/peritoneal cancers are caused by mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2. For that reason, germline sequencing should be performed via multigene panels that assess BRCA1/2 and other relevant mutations.

MMDR has been found in 10%-12% of unselected epithelial OC, with increased representation in nonserous histologies. That frequency is high enough to justify testing for it routinely.

Unfortunately, only about 30% of women undergo genetic testing. Given the frequency of molecular abnormalities in OC, this is problematic in every conceivable domain of clinical care for patients and family members. ASCO’s comprehensive, educational guidelines provide a template for shared decision making and utilize resources that are available in almost all clinical settings. For those clinicians who have recommended genetic testing for all epithelial OC patients, these guidelines are practice reaffirming. For the rest of us, they are practice changing.
 

Colorectal cancer cases spike after start of routine screening

Instead of examining CRC incidence by the usual 5- or 10-year age ranges, a group of researchers looked at CRC incidence in 1-year intervals for adults aged 30-60 years in the SEER-18 registry from 2000 to 2015 (JAMA Network Open. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20407). The researchers focused their attention on the transition between age 49 and 50 years, which is when routine screening generally begins and case-finding based on symptoms and signs of CRC alone ideally ends.

The group’s hypothesis was that steep increases in CRC incidence between ages 49 and 50 would be consistent with a high, undetected preclinical case burden in patients aged younger than 50 years and that this “real-world” registry data could help estimate outcomes of screening at younger ages. The researchers found that CRC incidence increased by 46.1% in the transition period from age 49 to 50 years. A majority (93%) of these cases were invasive and, therefore, likely to be clinically relevant. The increase in cancer rates occurred across geographical regions, gender, and race, and likely reflected the impact of screening. The states with the steepest increases in CRC between ages 49 and 50 (Connecticut and Utah) were the states with the first and third highest CRC screening rates for individuals 50 years of age and older.

Stage stratification showed steep increases in incidence in the target age range for localized and regional CRC and for colon and rectal tumors. In the transition between age 49 and 50, the researchers found a significant increase in 5-year relative survival (6.9% absolute increase, 10% relative increase), suggesting that earlier screening had a survival impact, apart from the effects of treatment in cases diagnosed after symptoms occurred.

The authors concluded that their analysis of the transition from age 49 to 50 years provides registry-based data regarding CRC risk among individuals younger than 50, which can add to existing modeling studies to help inform guidelines about the age at which to initiate screening.
 

How these results influence practice

Early-onset CRC (EOCRC) incidence is increasing, with controversy regarding whether average-risk screening should begin before age 50 years. The justification for starting screening at age 50 is that there is a near doubling of incidence from patients aged 45-49 years (34 per 100,000) to those aged 50-54 years (60.2 per 100,000).

However, the increase in CRC incidence beyond age 50 may not be because rates are truly lower among younger individuals but rather because of uneven screening between the two populations. Doubling times for CRCs have been estimated to be perhaps as long as 1,000 days. Because many CRCs are asymptomatic, observed incidence rates of EOCRC in SEER registries do not reflect preclinical CRC case burdens in younger patients.

The current interrogation of SEER-18 data to identify preexisting CRC that was clinically silent in the 1-year interval between age 49 and 50 is highly supportive of a large undiagnosed number of EOCRC cases. In SEER-18, CRC rates increased 46.1% in this 1-year age transition, more than in earlier 1-year age transitions. With almost 93% of cases being invasive, these data suggest a high case burden of preclinical, undetected, clinically relevant EOCRC in younger patients that is not reflected in observed SEER incidence rates examining wider age group intervals.

The dual goals of screening for CRC are to prevent malignant neoplasms by the removal of precancerous polyps and improve cancer-specific survival. The data presented suggest that, by starting average-risk screening at age 50 years, we may be “missing the window.” The 6.9% absolute and 10.1% relative survival increase in the target transition period suggest the authors’ hypothesis is correct.

As in any real-world database survey, the analysis is limited by a lack of specific outcomes data, the inability to determine when the cancers developed, and how long they germinated. Because of those limitations and others, more detailed studies are needed to determine the ideal age at which to begin CRC screening.

Modeling studies incorporating the steep incidence inflection point at 49-50 years can be conducted to estimate the incidence rate increase at, for example, 45 years; the cost-benefit ratio; quality-adjusted life-years gained; and other important endpoints. However, this review of over 170,000 cases of CRC, with a data-completeness rate of over 98%, over the 15-year time frame when CRC screening became common, supports a fresh look at whether it is within our power to improve outcomes for EOCRC patients by using existing technology but applying it earlier.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I review “guidelines for today” and speculate about “guidelines for tomorrow,” highlighting recommendations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology about hereditary cancer testing in epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) and data that support a reexamination of the age at which screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) should begin.

ASCO guidelines on genetic testing in epithelial ovarian cancer

After reviewing 19 studies, including 6 meta-analyses; 11 randomized, controlled trials; and 2 observational studies, an ASCO panel recommended germline genetic testing for BRCA1, BRCA2, and other ovarian cancer susceptibility genes for all women with newly diagnosed epithelial OC, regardless of family history (J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02960).

For OC patients with a germline mutation, cascade testing of first- and second-degree relatives was strongly urged. For patients without a germline mutation, the guidelines recommended offering somatic tumor testing for BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants at disease recurrence or after initial therapy and for mismatch repair deficiency (MMRD) in patients with clear cell, endometrioid, or mucinous and potentially other histologic types of OC. The authors cautioned that the discussion of testing results should involve professionals with expertise in the surveillance and management of hereditary cancer syndromes.

The panel said the discovery of germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants should lead to considering treatment with Food and Drug Administration–approved poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, including niraparib, olaparib, and rucaparib. Identification of MMRD in a patient with recurrent OC should trigger consideration of treatment with pembrolizumab, consistent with its labeled indications, and surveillance for other malignancies.

The guidelines cautioned that, when patients have variants of uncertain significance on germline testing, “clinical features and family history should inform clinical decision making.” Similarly, the panel made no recommendation regarding testing for or making treatment decisions based on tests for homologous recombination deficiency.
 

How these results influence practice

Every oncologist recognizes that better understanding of cancer biology can guide personalized diagnostic, predictive, prognostic, and therapeutic strategies for patients and their family members.

It is estimated that approximately 25% of all OC is caused by a heritable genetic condition. Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are identified in 13%-15% of patients with OC, and somatic mutations are found in an additional 7%. Perhaps 6% of all ovarian/fallopian tube/peritoneal cancers are caused by mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2. For that reason, germline sequencing should be performed via multigene panels that assess BRCA1/2 and other relevant mutations.

MMDR has been found in 10%-12% of unselected epithelial OC, with increased representation in nonserous histologies. That frequency is high enough to justify testing for it routinely.

Unfortunately, only about 30% of women undergo genetic testing. Given the frequency of molecular abnormalities in OC, this is problematic in every conceivable domain of clinical care for patients and family members. ASCO’s comprehensive, educational guidelines provide a template for shared decision making and utilize resources that are available in almost all clinical settings. For those clinicians who have recommended genetic testing for all epithelial OC patients, these guidelines are practice reaffirming. For the rest of us, they are practice changing.
 

Colorectal cancer cases spike after start of routine screening

Instead of examining CRC incidence by the usual 5- or 10-year age ranges, a group of researchers looked at CRC incidence in 1-year intervals for adults aged 30-60 years in the SEER-18 registry from 2000 to 2015 (JAMA Network Open. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20407). The researchers focused their attention on the transition between age 49 and 50 years, which is when routine screening generally begins and case-finding based on symptoms and signs of CRC alone ideally ends.

The group’s hypothesis was that steep increases in CRC incidence between ages 49 and 50 would be consistent with a high, undetected preclinical case burden in patients aged younger than 50 years and that this “real-world” registry data could help estimate outcomes of screening at younger ages. The researchers found that CRC incidence increased by 46.1% in the transition period from age 49 to 50 years. A majority (93%) of these cases were invasive and, therefore, likely to be clinically relevant. The increase in cancer rates occurred across geographical regions, gender, and race, and likely reflected the impact of screening. The states with the steepest increases in CRC between ages 49 and 50 (Connecticut and Utah) were the states with the first and third highest CRC screening rates for individuals 50 years of age and older.

Stage stratification showed steep increases in incidence in the target age range for localized and regional CRC and for colon and rectal tumors. In the transition between age 49 and 50, the researchers found a significant increase in 5-year relative survival (6.9% absolute increase, 10% relative increase), suggesting that earlier screening had a survival impact, apart from the effects of treatment in cases diagnosed after symptoms occurred.

The authors concluded that their analysis of the transition from age 49 to 50 years provides registry-based data regarding CRC risk among individuals younger than 50, which can add to existing modeling studies to help inform guidelines about the age at which to initiate screening.
 

How these results influence practice

Early-onset CRC (EOCRC) incidence is increasing, with controversy regarding whether average-risk screening should begin before age 50 years. The justification for starting screening at age 50 is that there is a near doubling of incidence from patients aged 45-49 years (34 per 100,000) to those aged 50-54 years (60.2 per 100,000).

However, the increase in CRC incidence beyond age 50 may not be because rates are truly lower among younger individuals but rather because of uneven screening between the two populations. Doubling times for CRCs have been estimated to be perhaps as long as 1,000 days. Because many CRCs are asymptomatic, observed incidence rates of EOCRC in SEER registries do not reflect preclinical CRC case burdens in younger patients.

The current interrogation of SEER-18 data to identify preexisting CRC that was clinically silent in the 1-year interval between age 49 and 50 is highly supportive of a large undiagnosed number of EOCRC cases. In SEER-18, CRC rates increased 46.1% in this 1-year age transition, more than in earlier 1-year age transitions. With almost 93% of cases being invasive, these data suggest a high case burden of preclinical, undetected, clinically relevant EOCRC in younger patients that is not reflected in observed SEER incidence rates examining wider age group intervals.

The dual goals of screening for CRC are to prevent malignant neoplasms by the removal of precancerous polyps and improve cancer-specific survival. The data presented suggest that, by starting average-risk screening at age 50 years, we may be “missing the window.” The 6.9% absolute and 10.1% relative survival increase in the target transition period suggest the authors’ hypothesis is correct.

As in any real-world database survey, the analysis is limited by a lack of specific outcomes data, the inability to determine when the cancers developed, and how long they germinated. Because of those limitations and others, more detailed studies are needed to determine the ideal age at which to begin CRC screening.

Modeling studies incorporating the steep incidence inflection point at 49-50 years can be conducted to estimate the incidence rate increase at, for example, 45 years; the cost-benefit ratio; quality-adjusted life-years gained; and other important endpoints. However, this review of over 170,000 cases of CRC, with a data-completeness rate of over 98%, over the 15-year time frame when CRC screening became common, supports a fresh look at whether it is within our power to improve outcomes for EOCRC patients by using existing technology but applying it earlier.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

At a follow-up visit, a biopsy of the skin on the fingertips was performed, which showed lichenoid lymphocytic inflammatory infiltrate with associated hyperkeratosis, hypergranulosis, and acanthosis.

No fungal elements were seen. The findings were consistent with lichen planus.

Courtesy Dr. Catalina Matiz

Nail lichen planus (NLP) in children is not a common condition.¹ In a recent series from Chiheb et al., NLP was reported in 90 patients, of which 40% were children; a quarter of the patients reported having extracutaneous involvement as well.² In another childhood LP series,14 % of the children presented with nail disease.³ It can be a severe disease that, if not treated aggressively, may lead to destruction of the nail bed. This condition seems to be more prevalent in boys than girls and more prevalent in African American children.³ Unfortunately, in this patient’s case, the mother was hesitant to use systemic therapy and aggressive treatment was delayed.

Possible but not clear associations with autoimmune conditions such as vitiligo, autoimmune thyroiditis, myasthenia gravis, alopecia areata, thymoma, autoimmune polyendocrinopathy, atopic dermatitis, and lichen nitidus have been described in children with LP.

The clinical characteristics of NLP include nail plate thinning with longitudinal ridging and fissuring, with or without pterygium; trachyonychia; and erythema of the lunula when the nail matrix is involved. When the nail bed is affected, the patient can present with onycholysis with or without subungual hyperkeratosis and violaceous hue of the nail bed.⁴ NLP can have three different clinical presentations described by Tosti et al., which include typical NLP, 20‐nail dystrophy (trachyonychia), and idiopathic nail atrophy. Idiopathic nail atrophy is described solely in children as an acute and rapid progression that leads to destruction of the nail within months, which appears to be the clinical presentation in our patient.

The differential diagnosis of nail dystrophy in children includes infectious processes such as onychomycosis, especially when children present with onycholysis and subungual hyperkeratosis. Because of this, it is recommended to perform a nail culture or submit a sample of nail clippings for microscopic evaluation to confirm the diagnosis of onychomycosis prior to starting systemic therapy in children. Fingernail involvement without toenail involvement is an unusual presentation of onychomycosis.

Twenty-nail dystrophy – also known as trachyonychia – can be caused by several inflammatory skin conditions such as lichen planus, psoriasis, eczema, pemphigus vulgaris, and alopecia areata. Clinically, there is uniformly monomorphic thinning of the nail plate with longitudinal ridging without splitting or pterygium.¹ This is a benign condition and should not cause scarring. About 10% of the cases of 20-nail dystrophy are caused by lichen planus.

Nail psoriasis is characterized by nail pitting, oil spots on the nail plate, leukonychia, subungual hyperkeratosis, and onycholysis, as well as nail crumbling, which were not seen in our patient. Although her initial presentation was of 20-nail dystrophy, which also can be a presentation of nail psoriasis, its rapid evolution with associated nail atrophy and pterygium make it unlikely to be psoriasis in this particular patient.

Patients with pachyonychia congenita – which is a genetic disorder or keratinization caused by mutations on several genes encoding keratin such as K6a, K16, K17, K6b, and possibly K6c – present with nail thickening (pachyonychia) and discoloration of the nails, as well as pincer nails. These patients also present with oral leukokeratosis and focal palmoplantar keratoderma.

The main treatment of lichen planus is potent topical corticosteroids.

For nail disease, topical treatment may not be effective and systemic treatment may be necessary. Systemic corticosteroids have been used in several pediatric series varying from a short course given at a dose of 1- 2 mg/kg per day for 2 weeks to a longer 3-month course followed by tapering.³ There are several protocols of intramuscular triamcinolone at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg in children in once a month injections for about 3 months that have been reported successful with minimal side effects.¹ Other medications reported useful in patients with NLP include dapsone and acitretin. Other treatment options include narrow-band UVB and PUVA.³

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Arch Dermatol. 2001 Aug;137(8):1027-32.

2. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2015 Jan;142(1):21-5.

3. Pediatr Dermatol. 2014 Jan-Feb;31(1):59-67.

4. Dermatological diseases, in “Nails: Diagnosis, Therapy, and Surgery,” 3rd ed. (Oxford: Elsevier Saunders, 2005, p. 105).

At a follow-up visit, a biopsy of the skin on the fingertips was performed, which showed lichenoid lymphocytic inflammatory infiltrate with associated hyperkeratosis, hypergranulosis, and acanthosis.

No fungal elements were seen. The findings were consistent with lichen planus.

Courtesy Dr. Catalina Matiz

Nail lichen planus (NLP) in children is not a common condition.¹ In a recent series from Chiheb et al., NLP was reported in 90 patients, of which 40% were children; a quarter of the patients reported having extracutaneous involvement as well.² In another childhood LP series,14 % of the children presented with nail disease.³ It can be a severe disease that, if not treated aggressively, may lead to destruction of the nail bed. This condition seems to be more prevalent in boys than girls and more prevalent in African American children.³ Unfortunately, in this patient’s case, the mother was hesitant to use systemic therapy and aggressive treatment was delayed.

Possible but not clear associations with autoimmune conditions such as vitiligo, autoimmune thyroiditis, myasthenia gravis, alopecia areata, thymoma, autoimmune polyendocrinopathy, atopic dermatitis, and lichen nitidus have been described in children with LP.

The clinical characteristics of NLP include nail plate thinning with longitudinal ridging and fissuring, with or without pterygium; trachyonychia; and erythema of the lunula when the nail matrix is involved. When the nail bed is affected, the patient can present with onycholysis with or without subungual hyperkeratosis and violaceous hue of the nail bed.⁴ NLP can have three different clinical presentations described by Tosti et al., which include typical NLP, 20‐nail dystrophy (trachyonychia), and idiopathic nail atrophy. Idiopathic nail atrophy is described solely in children as an acute and rapid progression that leads to destruction of the nail within months, which appears to be the clinical presentation in our patient.

The differential diagnosis of nail dystrophy in children includes infectious processes such as onychomycosis, especially when children present with onycholysis and subungual hyperkeratosis. Because of this, it is recommended to perform a nail culture or submit a sample of nail clippings for microscopic evaluation to confirm the diagnosis of onychomycosis prior to starting systemic therapy in children. Fingernail involvement without toenail involvement is an unusual presentation of onychomycosis.

Twenty-nail dystrophy – also known as trachyonychia – can be caused by several inflammatory skin conditions such as lichen planus, psoriasis, eczema, pemphigus vulgaris, and alopecia areata. Clinically, there is uniformly monomorphic thinning of the nail plate with longitudinal ridging without splitting or pterygium.¹ This is a benign condition and should not cause scarring. About 10% of the cases of 20-nail dystrophy are caused by lichen planus.

Nail psoriasis is characterized by nail pitting, oil spots on the nail plate, leukonychia, subungual hyperkeratosis, and onycholysis, as well as nail crumbling, which were not seen in our patient. Although her initial presentation was of 20-nail dystrophy, which also can be a presentation of nail psoriasis, its rapid evolution with associated nail atrophy and pterygium make it unlikely to be psoriasis in this particular patient.

Patients with pachyonychia congenita – which is a genetic disorder or keratinization caused by mutations on several genes encoding keratin such as K6a, K16, K17, K6b, and possibly K6c – present with nail thickening (pachyonychia) and discoloration of the nails, as well as pincer nails. These patients also present with oral leukokeratosis and focal palmoplantar keratoderma.

The main treatment of lichen planus is potent topical corticosteroids.

For nail disease, topical treatment may not be effective and systemic treatment may be necessary. Systemic corticosteroids have been used in several pediatric series varying from a short course given at a dose of 1- 2 mg/kg per day for 2 weeks to a longer 3-month course followed by tapering.³ There are several protocols of intramuscular triamcinolone at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg in children in once a month injections for about 3 months that have been reported successful with minimal side effects.¹ Other medications reported useful in patients with NLP include dapsone and acitretin. Other treatment options include narrow-band UVB and PUVA.³

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Arch Dermatol. 2001 Aug;137(8):1027-32.

2. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2015 Jan;142(1):21-5.

3. Pediatr Dermatol. 2014 Jan-Feb;31(1):59-67.

4. Dermatological diseases, in “Nails: Diagnosis, Therapy, and Surgery,” 3rd ed. (Oxford: Elsevier Saunders, 2005, p. 105).

At a follow-up visit, a biopsy of the skin on the fingertips was performed, which showed lichenoid lymphocytic inflammatory infiltrate with associated hyperkeratosis, hypergranulosis, and acanthosis.

No fungal elements were seen. The findings were consistent with lichen planus.

Courtesy Dr. Catalina Matiz

Nail lichen planus (NLP) in children is not a common condition.¹ In a recent series from Chiheb et al., NLP was reported in 90 patients, of which 40% were children; a quarter of the patients reported having extracutaneous involvement as well.² In another childhood LP series,14 % of the children presented with nail disease.³ It can be a severe disease that, if not treated aggressively, may lead to destruction of the nail bed. This condition seems to be more prevalent in boys than girls and more prevalent in African American children.³ Unfortunately, in this patient’s case, the mother was hesitant to use systemic therapy and aggressive treatment was delayed.

Possible but not clear associations with autoimmune conditions such as vitiligo, autoimmune thyroiditis, myasthenia gravis, alopecia areata, thymoma, autoimmune polyendocrinopathy, atopic dermatitis, and lichen nitidus have been described in children with LP.

The clinical characteristics of NLP include nail plate thinning with longitudinal ridging and fissuring, with or without pterygium; trachyonychia; and erythema of the lunula when the nail matrix is involved. When the nail bed is affected, the patient can present with onycholysis with or without subungual hyperkeratosis and violaceous hue of the nail bed.⁴ NLP can have three different clinical presentations described by Tosti et al., which include typical NLP, 20‐nail dystrophy (trachyonychia), and idiopathic nail atrophy. Idiopathic nail atrophy is described solely in children as an acute and rapid progression that leads to destruction of the nail within months, which appears to be the clinical presentation in our patient.

The differential diagnosis of nail dystrophy in children includes infectious processes such as onychomycosis, especially when children present with onycholysis and subungual hyperkeratosis. Because of this, it is recommended to perform a nail culture or submit a sample of nail clippings for microscopic evaluation to confirm the diagnosis of onychomycosis prior to starting systemic therapy in children. Fingernail involvement without toenail involvement is an unusual presentation of onychomycosis.

Twenty-nail dystrophy – also known as trachyonychia – can be caused by several inflammatory skin conditions such as lichen planus, psoriasis, eczema, pemphigus vulgaris, and alopecia areata. Clinically, there is uniformly monomorphic thinning of the nail plate with longitudinal ridging without splitting or pterygium.¹ This is a benign condition and should not cause scarring. About 10% of the cases of 20-nail dystrophy are caused by lichen planus.

Nail psoriasis is characterized by nail pitting, oil spots on the nail plate, leukonychia, subungual hyperkeratosis, and onycholysis, as well as nail crumbling, which were not seen in our patient. Although her initial presentation was of 20-nail dystrophy, which also can be a presentation of nail psoriasis, its rapid evolution with associated nail atrophy and pterygium make it unlikely to be psoriasis in this particular patient.

Patients with pachyonychia congenita – which is a genetic disorder or keratinization caused by mutations on several genes encoding keratin such as K6a, K16, K17, K6b, and possibly K6c – present with nail thickening (pachyonychia) and discoloration of the nails, as well as pincer nails. These patients also present with oral leukokeratosis and focal palmoplantar keratoderma.

The main treatment of lichen planus is potent topical corticosteroids.

For nail disease, topical treatment may not be effective and systemic treatment may be necessary. Systemic corticosteroids have been used in several pediatric series varying from a short course given at a dose of 1- 2 mg/kg per day for 2 weeks to a longer 3-month course followed by tapering.³ There are several protocols of intramuscular triamcinolone at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg in children in once a month injections for about 3 months that have been reported successful with minimal side effects.¹ Other medications reported useful in patients with NLP include dapsone and acitretin. Other treatment options include narrow-band UVB and PUVA.³

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Arch Dermatol. 2001 Aug;137(8):1027-32.

2. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2015 Jan;142(1):21-5.

3. Pediatr Dermatol. 2014 Jan-Feb;31(1):59-67.

4. Dermatological diseases, in “Nails: Diagnosis, Therapy, and Surgery,” 3rd ed. (Oxford: Elsevier Saunders, 2005, p. 105).

Alcohol use is associated with hepatic steatosis, even after exclusion of heavy drinkers. Binge drinking was associated with a particularly high risk. The results are drawn from a retrospective analysis of the Framingham Heart Study and indicate a possible connection between alcohol use and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). If confirmed prospectively, the results suggest that alcohol use could be a target for prevention and treatment of presumed NAFLD.

The study was led by Michelle Long, MD, of Boston University, and was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Previous studies have produced mixed results with respect to alcohol consumption and NAFLD, with some reporting increased risk with alcohol consumption, and some a beneficial effect of moderate alcohol consumption. Most such studies focused on average daily or weekly alcohol intake, without examining individual differences in alcohol use behavior.

The current work included 2,475 participants from the Offspring and Third Generation Cohorts of the multidetector CT (MDCT) substudy of the Framingham Heart Study. The researchers excluded heavy drinkers, defined as those who had more than 21 drinks (men) or 14 drinks (women) per week.

Of the sample, 17.3% had hepatic steatosis as measured by MDCT. The risk of hepatic steatosis increased from 15.3% to 54.3% along increasing categories of alcohol use.

With each standard deviation increase in the number of alcohol drinks per week, the risk of hepatic steatosis increased by 15% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.29). Of subjects with presumed NAFLD, 25.4% were binge drinkers, defined as four or more drinks per day in women and five or more in men.

A pattern of risky weekly drinking – defined as 8 or more drinks for women or 15 or more for men – was associated with a 45% increase in odds of hepatic steatosis (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.06-1.98).

An analysis of only current drinkers showed stronger associations between hepatic steatosis and the number of alcoholic drinks per week, risky weekly drinking, and maximum number of drinks in 24 hours.

When the researchers broke down the analysis by beer, wine, or spirit drinkers, they only found a statistically significant association between alcohol consumption and hepatic steatosis in beer drinkers.

The study authors received funding from a range of nonindustry sources. They reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Long M et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Nov 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.022

Alcohol use is associated with hepatic steatosis, even after exclusion of heavy drinkers. Binge drinking was associated with a particularly high risk. The results are drawn from a retrospective analysis of the Framingham Heart Study and indicate a possible connection between alcohol use and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). If confirmed prospectively, the results suggest that alcohol use could be a target for prevention and treatment of presumed NAFLD.

The study was led by Michelle Long, MD, of Boston University, and was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Previous studies have produced mixed results with respect to alcohol consumption and NAFLD, with some reporting increased risk with alcohol consumption, and some a beneficial effect of moderate alcohol consumption. Most such studies focused on average daily or weekly alcohol intake, without examining individual differences in alcohol use behavior.

The current work included 2,475 participants from the Offspring and Third Generation Cohorts of the multidetector CT (MDCT) substudy of the Framingham Heart Study. The researchers excluded heavy drinkers, defined as those who had more than 21 drinks (men) or 14 drinks (women) per week.

Of the sample, 17.3% had hepatic steatosis as measured by MDCT. The risk of hepatic steatosis increased from 15.3% to 54.3% along increasing categories of alcohol use.

With each standard deviation increase in the number of alcohol drinks per week, the risk of hepatic steatosis increased by 15% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.29). Of subjects with presumed NAFLD, 25.4% were binge drinkers, defined as four or more drinks per day in women and five or more in men.

A pattern of risky weekly drinking – defined as 8 or more drinks for women or 15 or more for men – was associated with a 45% increase in odds of hepatic steatosis (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.06-1.98).

An analysis of only current drinkers showed stronger associations between hepatic steatosis and the number of alcoholic drinks per week, risky weekly drinking, and maximum number of drinks in 24 hours.

When the researchers broke down the analysis by beer, wine, or spirit drinkers, they only found a statistically significant association between alcohol consumption and hepatic steatosis in beer drinkers.

The study authors received funding from a range of nonindustry sources. They reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Long M et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Nov 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.022

Alcohol use is associated with hepatic steatosis, even after exclusion of heavy drinkers. Binge drinking was associated with a particularly high risk. The results are drawn from a retrospective analysis of the Framingham Heart Study and indicate a possible connection between alcohol use and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). If confirmed prospectively, the results suggest that alcohol use could be a target for prevention and treatment of presumed NAFLD.

The study was led by Michelle Long, MD, of Boston University, and was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Previous studies have produced mixed results with respect to alcohol consumption and NAFLD, with some reporting increased risk with alcohol consumption, and some a beneficial effect of moderate alcohol consumption. Most such studies focused on average daily or weekly alcohol intake, without examining individual differences in alcohol use behavior.

The current work included 2,475 participants from the Offspring and Third Generation Cohorts of the multidetector CT (MDCT) substudy of the Framingham Heart Study. The researchers excluded heavy drinkers, defined as those who had more than 21 drinks (men) or 14 drinks (women) per week.

Of the sample, 17.3% had hepatic steatosis as measured by MDCT. The risk of hepatic steatosis increased from 15.3% to 54.3% along increasing categories of alcohol use.

With each standard deviation increase in the number of alcohol drinks per week, the risk of hepatic steatosis increased by 15% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.29). Of subjects with presumed NAFLD, 25.4% were binge drinkers, defined as four or more drinks per day in women and five or more in men.

A pattern of risky weekly drinking – defined as 8 or more drinks for women or 15 or more for men – was associated with a 45% increase in odds of hepatic steatosis (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.06-1.98).

An analysis of only current drinkers showed stronger associations between hepatic steatosis and the number of alcoholic drinks per week, risky weekly drinking, and maximum number of drinks in 24 hours.

When the researchers broke down the analysis by beer, wine, or spirit drinkers, they only found a statistically significant association between alcohol consumption and hepatic steatosis in beer drinkers.

The study authors received funding from a range of nonindustry sources. They reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Long M et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Nov 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.022

Psoriasis patients are at increased risk for several types of cancer, notably lymphoma and keratinocyte cancer, based on data from a systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 2 million patients.

Previous studies have identified an increased overall cancer risk in psoriasis patients, compared with the general population or controls without psoriasis, and both lymphomas and keratinocyte cancers occur more often in psoriasis patients, compared with controls, but additional larger studies have been conducted since the last meta-analysis was published in 2013, wrote Sofie Vaengebjerg, MD, of the University of Copenhagen and colleagues.

To better identify the risk of cancer in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients and to explore the impact of biologics, the researchers reviewed data from 112 studies totaling 2,053,932 patients in a study published in JAMA Dermatology.

Overall, the risk of any cancer was slightly higher in psoriasis patients (risk ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.33), compared with controls, with a prevalence of 4.78% and an incidence rate of 11.75 per 1,000 person-years. The most common cancer among psoriasis patients was keratinocyte cancer, with a risk ratio of 2.28 (95% CI, 1.73-3.01), a prevalence of 2.55%, and an incidence rate of 4.35 per 1,000 person-years.

Other cancers with significantly elevated risk among psoriasis patients were lymphomas (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.37-1.78), lung cancer (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.40), and bladder cancer (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.19).

No increased risk of cancer was noted among psoriasis patients who were treated with biologics. “However, patients receiving biologic agents are selected and the results might be reliant on selection bias, and studies investigating long-term safety of these drugs are still limited,” the researchers wrote.

In addition, psoriatic arthritis was not associated with any overall increase in cancer risk, with the exception of three studies showing an increased risk for breast cancer, the researchers noted. The overall cancer prevalence for psoriatic arthritis patients was 5.74%, with an incidence rate of 6.44 per 1,000 person-years.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inconsistencies in study design and characteristics and the small amount of data on biologic agents and psoriatic arthritis, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large number of patients, real-world study settings, inclusion of biologics, and analysis of cancer in psoriatic arthritis patients.

“Clinicians treating patients with psoriasis should be aware of this increased risk, especially for lymphomas, as immunogenic treatment might be associated with exacerbations,” and should be aware that more research is needed to assess cancer risk associated with biologics, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Vaengebjerg had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, UCB, Almirall, and Sanofi.

SOURCE: Vaengebjerg S et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Feb 19. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0024.

Psoriasis patients are at increased risk for several types of cancer, notably lymphoma and keratinocyte cancer, based on data from a systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 2 million patients.

Previous studies have identified an increased overall cancer risk in psoriasis patients, compared with the general population or controls without psoriasis, and both lymphomas and keratinocyte cancers occur more often in psoriasis patients, compared with controls, but additional larger studies have been conducted since the last meta-analysis was published in 2013, wrote Sofie Vaengebjerg, MD, of the University of Copenhagen and colleagues.

To better identify the risk of cancer in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients and to explore the impact of biologics, the researchers reviewed data from 112 studies totaling 2,053,932 patients in a study published in JAMA Dermatology.

Overall, the risk of any cancer was slightly higher in psoriasis patients (risk ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.33), compared with controls, with a prevalence of 4.78% and an incidence rate of 11.75 per 1,000 person-years. The most common cancer among psoriasis patients was keratinocyte cancer, with a risk ratio of 2.28 (95% CI, 1.73-3.01), a prevalence of 2.55%, and an incidence rate of 4.35 per 1,000 person-years.

Other cancers with significantly elevated risk among psoriasis patients were lymphomas (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.37-1.78), lung cancer (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.40), and bladder cancer (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.19).

No increased risk of cancer was noted among psoriasis patients who were treated with biologics. “However, patients receiving biologic agents are selected and the results might be reliant on selection bias, and studies investigating long-term safety of these drugs are still limited,” the researchers wrote.

In addition, psoriatic arthritis was not associated with any overall increase in cancer risk, with the exception of three studies showing an increased risk for breast cancer, the researchers noted. The overall cancer prevalence for psoriatic arthritis patients was 5.74%, with an incidence rate of 6.44 per 1,000 person-years.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inconsistencies in study design and characteristics and the small amount of data on biologic agents and psoriatic arthritis, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large number of patients, real-world study settings, inclusion of biologics, and analysis of cancer in psoriatic arthritis patients.

“Clinicians treating patients with psoriasis should be aware of this increased risk, especially for lymphomas, as immunogenic treatment might be associated with exacerbations,” and should be aware that more research is needed to assess cancer risk associated with biologics, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Vaengebjerg had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, UCB, Almirall, and Sanofi.

SOURCE: Vaengebjerg S et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Feb 19. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0024.

Psoriasis patients are at increased risk for several types of cancer, notably lymphoma and keratinocyte cancer, based on data from a systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 2 million patients.

Previous studies have identified an increased overall cancer risk in psoriasis patients, compared with the general population or controls without psoriasis, and both lymphomas and keratinocyte cancers occur more often in psoriasis patients, compared with controls, but additional larger studies have been conducted since the last meta-analysis was published in 2013, wrote Sofie Vaengebjerg, MD, of the University of Copenhagen and colleagues.

To better identify the risk of cancer in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients and to explore the impact of biologics, the researchers reviewed data from 112 studies totaling 2,053,932 patients in a study published in JAMA Dermatology.

Overall, the risk of any cancer was slightly higher in psoriasis patients (risk ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.33), compared with controls, with a prevalence of 4.78% and an incidence rate of 11.75 per 1,000 person-years. The most common cancer among psoriasis patients was keratinocyte cancer, with a risk ratio of 2.28 (95% CI, 1.73-3.01), a prevalence of 2.55%, and an incidence rate of 4.35 per 1,000 person-years.

Other cancers with significantly elevated risk among psoriasis patients were lymphomas (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.37-1.78), lung cancer (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.40), and bladder cancer (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.19).

No increased risk of cancer was noted among psoriasis patients who were treated with biologics. “However, patients receiving biologic agents are selected and the results might be reliant on selection bias, and studies investigating long-term safety of these drugs are still limited,” the researchers wrote.

In addition, psoriatic arthritis was not associated with any overall increase in cancer risk, with the exception of three studies showing an increased risk for breast cancer, the researchers noted. The overall cancer prevalence for psoriatic arthritis patients was 5.74%, with an incidence rate of 6.44 per 1,000 person-years.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inconsistencies in study design and characteristics and the small amount of data on biologic agents and psoriatic arthritis, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large number of patients, real-world study settings, inclusion of biologics, and analysis of cancer in psoriatic arthritis patients.

“Clinicians treating patients with psoriasis should be aware of this increased risk, especially for lymphomas, as immunogenic treatment might be associated with exacerbations,” and should be aware that more research is needed to assess cancer risk associated with biologics, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Vaengebjerg had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, UCB, Almirall, and Sanofi.

SOURCE: Vaengebjerg S et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Feb 19. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0024.

In recent years, social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have become popular gathering spots for clinicians to connect, engage, and share medical content. Medical journals, which often act as purveyors of this content, have recognized social media’s growing power and influence and have begun looking for ways to better engage their audiences.

In 2016, the Annals of Surgery was looking to better disseminate the work being published in its pages and looked to Twitter as one way of accomplishing this. At the time, most journals were only posting the title or a brief description of the published manuscript and hoping their Twitter followers would click on the article link. As journal editors were finding, if the audience was not immediately familiar with the topic or able to quickly capture the nuances of the study, there was a good chance the reader would continue to scroll past the post and never view the article.

Recognizing that social media heavily relies on visual material to garner attention, Annals turned to Andrew Ibrahim, MD, an architect turned surgeon, to help them rethink their social media strategy. Using the design training he had previously received in his career as an architect, Dr. Ibrahim created a simple visual tool that could be used to capture the often complicated and nuanced aspects of a research study. He called his creation a “visual abstract.”

But what is a visual abstract? Simply, they are visual representations of the key findings of a published manuscript; or put another way, a “movie trailer” to the full manuscript. While they can take many different forms and designs, they often consist of three key components: (1) a simple, easy to understand title, (2) a primary focus on outcomes, and (3) the use of visual cues or images to help the reader absorb and remember the take home message. This simplified delivery of complex information allows the producer to efficiently share complex findings in a format that allows for rapid visualization and interpretation.

Andrew M. Ibrahim

Since its inception, several studies have examined the influence visual abstracts have on disseminating research. One study conducted by Dr. Ibrahim and his colleagues found that articles tweeted with a visual abstract had an almost eightfold increase in the number of Twitter impressions (a measure of social media dissemination) and a threefold increase in article visits, compared with those manuscripts tweeted with the article title only.¹ These results reflect what behavioral scientists have long understood: Humans process visual data better than any other type of data.² For instance, according to research compiled by 3M, the company behind popular sticky notes, visual data is processed 60,000 times faster than text and has been shown to improve learning by 400%.³ Likewise, digital marketers have found that pages with videos and images draw on average 94% more views than their text-only counterparts.⁴

This knowledge, along with the substantial difference in engagement and dissemination characteristics from Dr. Ibrahim’s study, was far beyond what anyone might have expected and started a trend in medicine that continues to grow today. Medical journals across all practices and disciplines, including several leading journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the Journal of Hospital Medicine (JHM), are utilizing this new tool to help disseminate their work in social media.

Visual abstracts have expanded beyond the social media sphere and are now frequently used in Grand Rounds presentations and as teaching tools among medical educators. JHM was one of the first journals to adopt the use of visual abstracts and has since published more than 150 in total. Given the growing popularity and expanded use of visual abstracts, JHM recently began archiving them on the journal’s website to allow clinicians to use the material in their own creative ways.

Visual abstracts are just one piece of the growing enterprise in social media for JHM. Recognizing the growing utilization of social media among physicians, JHM has taken a leading role in the use of online journal clubs. Since 2014, JHM has run a monthly Twitter-based journal club that discusses recently published articles and hospital medicine–based topics, called #JHMChat.⁵ This forum has allowed hospitalists from across the country, and around the world, to connect, network, and engage around topics important to the field of hospital medicine. The journal frequently reaches beyond hospital medicine borders and partners with other specialties and interest groups to gain perspective and insights into shared topic areas. To date, #JHMChat has one of the most robust online communities and continues to attract new followers each month.

As social media use continues to expand among clinicians, engagement tools like visual abstracts and Twitter chats will certainly continue to grow. Given that more clinicians are scrolling through websites than flipping through journal pages, medical journals like JHM will continually look for novel ways to engage their audiences and create communities among their followers. While a former architect who now practices as a surgeon led the way with visual abstracts, it remains to be seen who will create the next tool used to capture our attention on the ever-evolving sphere of social media.
 

Dr. Wray is a hospitalist at the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center. He also serves as a digital media and associate editor for the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

References

1. Ibrahim AM et al. Visual abstracts to disseminate research on social media: A prospective, case-control crossover study. Ann Surg. 2017;266(6):e46.

2. Tufte ER. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Second edition. Cheshire, Conn. Graphics Press, 2001. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999913808702121.

3. Polishing Your Presentation. http://web.archive.org/web/20001014041642/http://www.3m.com:80/meetingnetwork/files/meetingguide_pres.pdf. Accessed May 28, 2017.

4. 7 reasons you need visual content in your marketing strategy. https://medium.com/@nikos_iliopoulos/7-reasons-you-need-visual-content-in-your-marketing-strategy-bc77ca5521ac. Accessed May 28, 2017.

5. Wray CM et al. The adoption of an online journal club to improve research dissemination and social media engagement among hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2018. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2987.

In recent years, social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have become popular gathering spots for clinicians to connect, engage, and share medical content. Medical journals, which often act as purveyors of this content, have recognized social media’s growing power and influence and have begun looking for ways to better engage their audiences.

In 2016, the Annals of Surgery was looking to better disseminate the work being published in its pages and looked to Twitter as one way of accomplishing this. At the time, most journals were only posting the title or a brief description of the published manuscript and hoping their Twitter followers would click on the article link. As journal editors were finding, if the audience was not immediately familiar with the topic or able to quickly capture the nuances of the study, there was a good chance the reader would continue to scroll past the post and never view the article.

Recognizing that social media heavily relies on visual material to garner attention, Annals turned to Andrew Ibrahim, MD, an architect turned surgeon, to help them rethink their social media strategy. Using the design training he had previously received in his career as an architect, Dr. Ibrahim created a simple visual tool that could be used to capture the often complicated and nuanced aspects of a research study. He called his creation a “visual abstract.”

But what is a visual abstract? Simply, they are visual representations of the key findings of a published manuscript; or put another way, a “movie trailer” to the full manuscript. While they can take many different forms and designs, they often consist of three key components: (1) a simple, easy to understand title, (2) a primary focus on outcomes, and (3) the use of visual cues or images to help the reader absorb and remember the take home message. This simplified delivery of complex information allows the producer to efficiently share complex findings in a format that allows for rapid visualization and interpretation.

Andrew M. Ibrahim

Since its inception, several studies have examined the influence visual abstracts have on disseminating research. One study conducted by Dr. Ibrahim and his colleagues found that articles tweeted with a visual abstract had an almost eightfold increase in the number of Twitter impressions (a measure of social media dissemination) and a threefold increase in article visits, compared with those manuscripts tweeted with the article title only.¹ These results reflect what behavioral scientists have long understood: Humans process visual data better than any other type of data.² For instance, according to research compiled by 3M, the company behind popular sticky notes, visual data is processed 60,000 times faster than text and has been shown to improve learning by 400%.³ Likewise, digital marketers have found that pages with videos and images draw on average 94% more views than their text-only counterparts.⁴

This knowledge, along with the substantial difference in engagement and dissemination characteristics from Dr. Ibrahim’s study, was far beyond what anyone might have expected and started a trend in medicine that continues to grow today. Medical journals across all practices and disciplines, including several leading journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the Journal of Hospital Medicine (JHM), are utilizing this new tool to help disseminate their work in social media.

Visual abstracts have expanded beyond the social media sphere and are now frequently used in Grand Rounds presentations and as teaching tools among medical educators. JHM was one of the first journals to adopt the use of visual abstracts and has since published more than 150 in total. Given the growing popularity and expanded use of visual abstracts, JHM recently began archiving them on the journal’s website to allow clinicians to use the material in their own creative ways.

Visual abstracts are just one piece of the growing enterprise in social media for JHM. Recognizing the growing utilization of social media among physicians, JHM has taken a leading role in the use of online journal clubs. Since 2014, JHM has run a monthly Twitter-based journal club that discusses recently published articles and hospital medicine–based topics, called #JHMChat.⁵ This forum has allowed hospitalists from across the country, and around the world, to connect, network, and engage around topics important to the field of hospital medicine. The journal frequently reaches beyond hospital medicine borders and partners with other specialties and interest groups to gain perspective and insights into shared topic areas. To date, #JHMChat has one of the most robust online communities and continues to attract new followers each month.

As social media use continues to expand among clinicians, engagement tools like visual abstracts and Twitter chats will certainly continue to grow. Given that more clinicians are scrolling through websites than flipping through journal pages, medical journals like JHM will continually look for novel ways to engage their audiences and create communities among their followers. While a former architect who now practices as a surgeon led the way with visual abstracts, it remains to be seen who will create the next tool used to capture our attention on the ever-evolving sphere of social media.
 

Dr. Wray is a hospitalist at the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center. He also serves as a digital media and associate editor for the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

References

1. Ibrahim AM et al. Visual abstracts to disseminate research on social media: A prospective, case-control crossover study. Ann Surg. 2017;266(6):e46.

2. Tufte ER. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Second edition. Cheshire, Conn. Graphics Press, 2001. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999913808702121.

3. Polishing Your Presentation. http://web.archive.org/web/20001014041642/http://www.3m.com:80/meetingnetwork/files/meetingguide_pres.pdf. Accessed May 28, 2017.

4. 7 reasons you need visual content in your marketing strategy. https://medium.com/@nikos_iliopoulos/7-reasons-you-need-visual-content-in-your-marketing-strategy-bc77ca5521ac. Accessed May 28, 2017.

5. Wray CM et al. The adoption of an online journal club to improve research dissemination and social media engagement among hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2018. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2987.

In recent years, social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have become popular gathering spots for clinicians to connect, engage, and share medical content. Medical journals, which often act as purveyors of this content, have recognized social media’s growing power and influence and have begun looking for ways to better engage their audiences.

In 2016, the Annals of Surgery was looking to better disseminate the work being published in its pages and looked to Twitter as one way of accomplishing this. At the time, most journals were only posting the title or a brief description of the published manuscript and hoping their Twitter followers would click on the article link. As journal editors were finding, if the audience was not immediately familiar with the topic or able to quickly capture the nuances of the study, there was a good chance the reader would continue to scroll past the post and never view the article.

Recognizing that social media heavily relies on visual material to garner attention, Annals turned to Andrew Ibrahim, MD, an architect turned surgeon, to help them rethink their social media strategy. Using the design training he had previously received in his career as an architect, Dr. Ibrahim created a simple visual tool that could be used to capture the often complicated and nuanced aspects of a research study. He called his creation a “visual abstract.”

But what is a visual abstract? Simply, they are visual representations of the key findings of a published manuscript; or put another way, a “movie trailer” to the full manuscript. While they can take many different forms and designs, they often consist of three key components: (1) a simple, easy to understand title, (2) a primary focus on outcomes, and (3) the use of visual cues or images to help the reader absorb and remember the take home message. This simplified delivery of complex information allows the producer to efficiently share complex findings in a format that allows for rapid visualization and interpretation.

Andrew M. Ibrahim

Since its inception, several studies have examined the influence visual abstracts have on disseminating research. One study conducted by Dr. Ibrahim and his colleagues found that articles tweeted with a visual abstract had an almost eightfold increase in the number of Twitter impressions (a measure of social media dissemination) and a threefold increase in article visits, compared with those manuscripts tweeted with the article title only.¹ These results reflect what behavioral scientists have long understood: Humans process visual data better than any other type of data.² For instance, according to research compiled by 3M, the company behind popular sticky notes, visual data is processed 60,000 times faster than text and has been shown to improve learning by 400%.³ Likewise, digital marketers have found that pages with videos and images draw on average 94% more views than their text-only counterparts.⁴

This knowledge, along with the substantial difference in engagement and dissemination characteristics from Dr. Ibrahim’s study, was far beyond what anyone might have expected and started a trend in medicine that continues to grow today. Medical journals across all practices and disciplines, including several leading journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the Journal of Hospital Medicine (JHM), are utilizing this new tool to help disseminate their work in social media.

Visual abstracts have expanded beyond the social media sphere and are now frequently used in Grand Rounds presentations and as teaching tools among medical educators. JHM was one of the first journals to adopt the use of visual abstracts and has since published more than 150 in total. Given the growing popularity and expanded use of visual abstracts, JHM recently began archiving them on the journal’s website to allow clinicians to use the material in their own creative ways.

Visual abstracts are just one piece of the growing enterprise in social media for JHM. Recognizing the growing utilization of social media among physicians, JHM has taken a leading role in the use of online journal clubs. Since 2014, JHM has run a monthly Twitter-based journal club that discusses recently published articles and hospital medicine–based topics, called #JHMChat.⁵ This forum has allowed hospitalists from across the country, and around the world, to connect, network, and engage around topics important to the field of hospital medicine. The journal frequently reaches beyond hospital medicine borders and partners with other specialties and interest groups to gain perspective and insights into shared topic areas. To date, #JHMChat has one of the most robust online communities and continues to attract new followers each month.

As social media use continues to expand among clinicians, engagement tools like visual abstracts and Twitter chats will certainly continue to grow. Given that more clinicians are scrolling through websites than flipping through journal pages, medical journals like JHM will continually look for novel ways to engage their audiences and create communities among their followers. While a former architect who now practices as a surgeon led the way with visual abstracts, it remains to be seen who will create the next tool used to capture our attention on the ever-evolving sphere of social media.
 

Dr. Wray is a hospitalist at the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center. He also serves as a digital media and associate editor for the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

References

1. Ibrahim AM et al. Visual abstracts to disseminate research on social media: A prospective, case-control crossover study. Ann Surg. 2017;266(6):e46.

2. Tufte ER. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Second edition. Cheshire, Conn. Graphics Press, 2001. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999913808702121.

3. Polishing Your Presentation. http://web.archive.org/web/20001014041642/http://www.3m.com:80/meetingnetwork/files/meetingguide_pres.pdf. Accessed May 28, 2017.

4. 7 reasons you need visual content in your marketing strategy. https://medium.com/@nikos_iliopoulos/7-reasons-you-need-visual-content-in-your-marketing-strategy-bc77ca5521ac. Accessed May 28, 2017.

5. Wray CM et al. The adoption of an online journal club to improve research dissemination and social media engagement among hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2018. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2987.

The patient underwent a skin biopsy, which was consistent with mycosis fungoides (MF) a form of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Common MF complaints are a persistent pruritic rash that slowly progresses in size and shape. Nodules, papules, alopecia, and excoriations are often seen and can become secondarily infected. Sun spared areas are most affected. Itching and erythroderma can be quite intense, especially in Sezary Syndrome (SS)—a rare subtype of cutaneous T cell lymphoma that has a worse prognosis than localized MF.

It is a common for many patients with MF to go undiagnosed or incorrectly diagnosed for years. The differential on initial presentation can include eczema, dermatitis, psoriasis, or a drug reaction. Clues to this patient’s diagnosis were that the rash involved sun-spared areas and didn’t improve with a change to her oral medications or a course of topical steroids. Other clues that pointed to the diagnosis were that she had no history of prior scaling skin disease or psoriasis, her age (usual age of onset for MF is between 50 and 60 years), and the observation that the rash, although it looked like eczema or tinea, presented in atypical and multiple locations.

MF and SS are the most common cutaneous T cell lymphomas. Although these disorders initially involve the skin, later stages can spread to internal organs. Early MF can be difficult to diagnose on histology and can require multiple biopsies. The most accurate biopsy practice involves stopping topical medications for 4 weeks, then taking multiple biopsies of clinically different areas to confirm the diagnosis and clonality (the same cell line in more than one location). SS typically presents with a larger area of involvement and may be associated with lymphadenopathy.

The patient was seen by Dermatology. Due to the extent of the disease, which was suggestive of SS, she underwent peripheral blood flow cytometry, which revealed > 1000 Sezary cells/mcL. This confirmed the diagnosis of SS. The patient was started on photophoresis, interferon, high-potency topical steroids for the local symptoms, and bexarotene, which blocks abnormal cell growth by binding to retinoid receptors.

‌

Photos and text courtesy of John Durkin, MD, Pigmented Lesions Clinic, University of New Mexico, and Kirill Balatsky, MS II, University of New Mexico School of Medicine.

Submitted for publication by Dr. Daniel Stulberg, MD, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

The patient underwent a skin biopsy, which was consistent with mycosis fungoides (MF) a form of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Common MF complaints are a persistent pruritic rash that slowly progresses in size and shape. Nodules, papules, alopecia, and excoriations are often seen and can become secondarily infected. Sun spared areas are most affected. Itching and erythroderma can be quite intense, especially in Sezary Syndrome (SS)—a rare subtype of cutaneous T cell lymphoma that has a worse prognosis than localized MF.

It is a common for many patients with MF to go undiagnosed or incorrectly diagnosed for years. The differential on initial presentation can include eczema, dermatitis, psoriasis, or a drug reaction. Clues to this patient’s diagnosis were that the rash involved sun-spared areas and didn’t improve with a change to her oral medications or a course of topical steroids. Other clues that pointed to the diagnosis were that she had no history of prior scaling skin disease or psoriasis, her age (usual age of onset for MF is between 50 and 60 years), and the observation that the rash, although it looked like eczema or tinea, presented in atypical and multiple locations.

MF and SS are the most common cutaneous T cell lymphomas. Although these disorders initially involve the skin, later stages can spread to internal organs. Early MF can be difficult to diagnose on histology and can require multiple biopsies. The most accurate biopsy practice involves stopping topical medications for 4 weeks, then taking multiple biopsies of clinically different areas to confirm the diagnosis and clonality (the same cell line in more than one location). SS typically presents with a larger area of involvement and may be associated with lymphadenopathy.

The patient was seen by Dermatology. Due to the extent of the disease, which was suggestive of SS, she underwent peripheral blood flow cytometry, which revealed > 1000 Sezary cells/mcL. This confirmed the diagnosis of SS. The patient was started on photophoresis, interferon, high-potency topical steroids for the local symptoms, and bexarotene, which blocks abnormal cell growth by binding to retinoid receptors.

‌

Photos and text courtesy of John Durkin, MD, Pigmented Lesions Clinic, University of New Mexico, and Kirill Balatsky, MS II, University of New Mexico School of Medicine.

Submitted for publication by Dr. Daniel Stulberg, MD, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

The patient underwent a skin biopsy, which was consistent with mycosis fungoides (MF) a form of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Common MF complaints are a persistent pruritic rash that slowly progresses in size and shape. Nodules, papules, alopecia, and excoriations are often seen and can become secondarily infected. Sun spared areas are most affected. Itching and erythroderma can be quite intense, especially in Sezary Syndrome (SS)—a rare subtype of cutaneous T cell lymphoma that has a worse prognosis than localized MF.

It is a common for many patients with MF to go undiagnosed or incorrectly diagnosed for years. The differential on initial presentation can include eczema, dermatitis, psoriasis, or a drug reaction. Clues to this patient’s diagnosis were that the rash involved sun-spared areas and didn’t improve with a change to her oral medications or a course of topical steroids. Other clues that pointed to the diagnosis were that she had no history of prior scaling skin disease or psoriasis, her age (usual age of onset for MF is between 50 and 60 years), and the observation that the rash, although it looked like eczema or tinea, presented in atypical and multiple locations.

MF and SS are the most common cutaneous T cell lymphomas. Although these disorders initially involve the skin, later stages can spread to internal organs. Early MF can be difficult to diagnose on histology and can require multiple biopsies. The most accurate biopsy practice involves stopping topical medications for 4 weeks, then taking multiple biopsies of clinically different areas to confirm the diagnosis and clonality (the same cell line in more than one location). SS typically presents with a larger area of involvement and may be associated with lymphadenopathy.

The patient was seen by Dermatology. Due to the extent of the disease, which was suggestive of SS, she underwent peripheral blood flow cytometry, which revealed > 1000 Sezary cells/mcL. This confirmed the diagnosis of SS. The patient was started on photophoresis, interferon, high-potency topical steroids for the local symptoms, and bexarotene, which blocks abnormal cell growth by binding to retinoid receptors.

‌

Photos and text courtesy of John Durkin, MD, Pigmented Lesions Clinic, University of New Mexico, and Kirill Balatsky, MS II, University of New Mexico School of Medicine.

Submitted for publication by Dr. Daniel Stulberg, MD, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

The first trial of robot-assisted, high-precision supermicrosurgery in humans has shown that the technique was safe for treating breast cancer–related lymphedema.

Although results were preliminary – only 20 patients participated, and a single highly skilled surgeon performed the supermicrosurgery – additional trials are underway to test the new robotic technique at other centers.

The pilot study was published online Feb. 11 in Nature Communications.

The new device, known as MUSA, was supplied by MicroSure.

MUSA allowed surgeons to connect tiny vessels, as small as 0.3-0.8 mm across, a technique referred to as supermicrosurgery. This technique can be used to connect blocked lymph vessels to veins, which can reestablish flow of lymphatic fluid and decrease arm swelling in women with breast cancer–related lymphedema, the researchers explain.

Only a few highly skilled surgeons worldwide can conduct supermicrosurgery using current surgical techniques, the authors comment.

“The success of supermicrosurgery is limited by the precision and stability of the surgeon’s hands. Robot-assisted supermicrosurgery has the potential to overcome this obstacle because more refined and subtle movements can be performed. Before now, no robots were able to perform this type of surgery,” coauthor Rutger M. Schols, MD, PhD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

Robot-assisted surgery is not new – the Da Vinci system was the first robotic surgery device to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It was approved in 2000. However, Da Vinci was developed for minimally invasive surgery and is not precise enough for supermicrosurgery. And despite its $2 million price tag, Da Vinci has yet to show that it performs better than traditional surgery.

Designed specifically for supermicrosurgery

The MUSA robot was designed by surgeons at the Maastricht University Medical Center, engineers at the Eindhoven University of Technology, and the medical technology company Microsure specifically for reconstructive supermicrosurgery; all are located in the Netherlands. Two of the authors of the article hold positions and are shareholders in the company.

Surgeons activate MUSA using foot pedals and operate forceps-like joysticks to control high-precision surgical instruments that filter out hand tremors and scale down motions. For example, moving the joystick 1 cm causes the robot to move 0.10 mm. MUSA also works with standard microscopes found in most operating rooms.

To test MUSA, Dr. Schols and colleagues conducted a prospective, randomized trial that included 20 women with breast cancer–related lymphedema. The team randomly assigned eight women to undergo supermicrosurgery with MUSA and 12 women to undergo manual supermicrosurgery performed by a single surgeon. Two microsurgeons who were blinded to treatment groups evaluated the quality of the surgery using standardized scoring methods.

The results, which were adjusted for baseline factors, showed no significant differences in upper-limb lymphedema between the two groups 1 and 3 months after surgery, nor were there significant differences between the two groups in quality of life.

A slightly higher percentage of women in the MUSA group were able to discontinue daily use of a compressive garment to treat arm swelling at 3 months, compared with the group that underwent manual supermicrosurgery (87.5% vs. 83.3%). Participants reported no serious adverse events.

For the group that underwent manual surgery, the quality of anastomosis was significantly better, compared with the MUSA group. Surgical competency also was significantly higher in the group that underwent manual surgery.

The MUSA group experienced a longer total surgery time (mean, 115 min), compared with the group that underwent manual surgery (mean, 81 min). But the authors note that duration of surgery declined steeply over time for the MUSA group, suggesting a learning curve in using the robot.

The researchers caution that the study may have been too small to detect significant differences between groups. Larger studies are needed to test MUSA with other surgeons operating in other centers, the authors note.

“With respect to treatment of breast cancer–related lymphedema, we are continuing trials with more patients, more surgeons, and more centers,” Dr. Schols said in an interview.

“We expect that other centers – both national and international – are willing to test the MUSA,” he added.

Dr. Schols and several coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Two coauthors are shareholders and hold positions at MicroSure.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first trial of robot-assisted, high-precision supermicrosurgery in humans has shown that the technique was safe for treating breast cancer–related lymphedema.

Although results were preliminary – only 20 patients participated, and a single highly skilled surgeon performed the supermicrosurgery – additional trials are underway to test the new robotic technique at other centers.

The pilot study was published online Feb. 11 in Nature Communications.

The new device, known as MUSA, was supplied by MicroSure.

MUSA allowed surgeons to connect tiny vessels, as small as 0.3-0.8 mm across, a technique referred to as supermicrosurgery. This technique can be used to connect blocked lymph vessels to veins, which can reestablish flow of lymphatic fluid and decrease arm swelling in women with breast cancer–related lymphedema, the researchers explain.

Only a few highly skilled surgeons worldwide can conduct supermicrosurgery using current surgical techniques, the authors comment.

“The success of supermicrosurgery is limited by the precision and stability of the surgeon’s hands. Robot-assisted supermicrosurgery has the potential to overcome this obstacle because more refined and subtle movements can be performed. Before now, no robots were able to perform this type of surgery,” coauthor Rutger M. Schols, MD, PhD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

Robot-assisted surgery is not new – the Da Vinci system was the first robotic surgery device to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It was approved in 2000. However, Da Vinci was developed for minimally invasive surgery and is not precise enough for supermicrosurgery. And despite its $2 million price tag, Da Vinci has yet to show that it performs better than traditional surgery.

Designed specifically for supermicrosurgery

The MUSA robot was designed by surgeons at the Maastricht University Medical Center, engineers at the Eindhoven University of Technology, and the medical technology company Microsure specifically for reconstructive supermicrosurgery; all are located in the Netherlands. Two of the authors of the article hold positions and are shareholders in the company.

Surgeons activate MUSA using foot pedals and operate forceps-like joysticks to control high-precision surgical instruments that filter out hand tremors and scale down motions. For example, moving the joystick 1 cm causes the robot to move 0.10 mm. MUSA also works with standard microscopes found in most operating rooms.

To test MUSA, Dr. Schols and colleagues conducted a prospective, randomized trial that included 20 women with breast cancer–related lymphedema. The team randomly assigned eight women to undergo supermicrosurgery with MUSA and 12 women to undergo manual supermicrosurgery performed by a single surgeon. Two microsurgeons who were blinded to treatment groups evaluated the quality of the surgery using standardized scoring methods.

The results, which were adjusted for baseline factors, showed no significant differences in upper-limb lymphedema between the two groups 1 and 3 months after surgery, nor were there significant differences between the two groups in quality of life.

A slightly higher percentage of women in the MUSA group were able to discontinue daily use of a compressive garment to treat arm swelling at 3 months, compared with the group that underwent manual supermicrosurgery (87.5% vs. 83.3%). Participants reported no serious adverse events.

For the group that underwent manual surgery, the quality of anastomosis was significantly better, compared with the MUSA group. Surgical competency also was significantly higher in the group that underwent manual surgery.

The MUSA group experienced a longer total surgery time (mean, 115 min), compared with the group that underwent manual surgery (mean, 81 min). But the authors note that duration of surgery declined steeply over time for the MUSA group, suggesting a learning curve in using the robot.

The researchers caution that the study may have been too small to detect significant differences between groups. Larger studies are needed to test MUSA with other surgeons operating in other centers, the authors note.

“With respect to treatment of breast cancer–related lymphedema, we are continuing trials with more patients, more surgeons, and more centers,” Dr. Schols said in an interview.

“We expect that other centers – both national and international – are willing to test the MUSA,” he added.

Dr. Schols and several coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Two coauthors are shareholders and hold positions at MicroSure.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first trial of robot-assisted, high-precision supermicrosurgery in humans has shown that the technique was safe for treating breast cancer–related lymphedema.

Although results were preliminary – only 20 patients participated, and a single highly skilled surgeon performed the supermicrosurgery – additional trials are underway to test the new robotic technique at other centers.

The pilot study was published online Feb. 11 in Nature Communications.

The new device, known as MUSA, was supplied by MicroSure.

MUSA allowed surgeons to connect tiny vessels, as small as 0.3-0.8 mm across, a technique referred to as supermicrosurgery. This technique can be used to connect blocked lymph vessels to veins, which can reestablish flow of lymphatic fluid and decrease arm swelling in women with breast cancer–related lymphedema, the researchers explain.

Only a few highly skilled surgeons worldwide can conduct supermicrosurgery using current surgical techniques, the authors comment.

“The success of supermicrosurgery is limited by the precision and stability of the surgeon’s hands. Robot-assisted supermicrosurgery has the potential to overcome this obstacle because more refined and subtle movements can be performed. Before now, no robots were able to perform this type of surgery,” coauthor Rutger M. Schols, MD, PhD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

Robot-assisted surgery is not new – the Da Vinci system was the first robotic surgery device to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It was approved in 2000. However, Da Vinci was developed for minimally invasive surgery and is not precise enough for supermicrosurgery. And despite its $2 million price tag, Da Vinci has yet to show that it performs better than traditional surgery.

Designed specifically for supermicrosurgery

The MUSA robot was designed by surgeons at the Maastricht University Medical Center, engineers at the Eindhoven University of Technology, and the medical technology company Microsure specifically for reconstructive supermicrosurgery; all are located in the Netherlands. Two of the authors of the article hold positions and are shareholders in the company.

Surgeons activate MUSA using foot pedals and operate forceps-like joysticks to control high-precision surgical instruments that filter out hand tremors and scale down motions. For example, moving the joystick 1 cm causes the robot to move 0.10 mm. MUSA also works with standard microscopes found in most operating rooms.

To test MUSA, Dr. Schols and colleagues conducted a prospective, randomized trial that included 20 women with breast cancer–related lymphedema. The team randomly assigned eight women to undergo supermicrosurgery with MUSA and 12 women to undergo manual supermicrosurgery performed by a single surgeon. Two microsurgeons who were blinded to treatment groups evaluated the quality of the surgery using standardized scoring methods.

The results, which were adjusted for baseline factors, showed no significant differences in upper-limb lymphedema between the two groups 1 and 3 months after surgery, nor were there significant differences between the two groups in quality of life.

A slightly higher percentage of women in the MUSA group were able to discontinue daily use of a compressive garment to treat arm swelling at 3 months, compared with the group that underwent manual supermicrosurgery (87.5% vs. 83.3%). Participants reported no serious adverse events.

For the group that underwent manual surgery, the quality of anastomosis was significantly better, compared with the MUSA group. Surgical competency also was significantly higher in the group that underwent manual surgery.

The MUSA group experienced a longer total surgery time (mean, 115 min), compared with the group that underwent manual surgery (mean, 81 min). But the authors note that duration of surgery declined steeply over time for the MUSA group, suggesting a learning curve in using the robot.

The researchers caution that the study may have been too small to detect significant differences between groups. Larger studies are needed to test MUSA with other surgeons operating in other centers, the authors note.

“With respect to treatment of breast cancer–related lymphedema, we are continuing trials with more patients, more surgeons, and more centers,” Dr. Schols said in an interview.

“We expect that other centers – both national and international – are willing to test the MUSA,” he added.

Dr. Schols and several coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Two coauthors are shareholders and hold positions at MicroSure.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved formerly prescription-only Voltaren Arthritis Pain (diclofenac sodium topical gel, 1%) for nonprescription use via a process known as a prescription to over-the-counter (Rx-to-OTC) switch, according to a news release from the agency.

“As a result of the Rx-to-OTC switch process, many products sold over the counter today use ingredients or dosage strengths that were available only by prescription 30 years ago,” Karen Mahoney, MD, acting deputy director of the Office of Nonprescription Drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

This switch to nonprescription status is usually initiated by the manufacturer, who must provide data that demonstrates the drug in question is both safe and effective as self-medication in accordance with the proposed labeling and that consumers can use it safely and effectively without the supervision of a health care professional.

This particular therapy is a topical NSAID gel and was first approved by the FDA in 2007 with the indication for relief of osteoarthritis pain. It can take 7 days to have an effect, but if patients find it takes longer than that or they need to use it for more than 21 days, they should seek medical attention. The gel can cause severe allergic reactions, especially in people allergic to aspirin; patients who experience such reactions are advised to stop use and seek immediate medical care. Other concerns include potential for liver damage with extended use; the possibility of severe stomach bleeds; and risk of heart attack, heart failure, and stroke.

The gel will no longer be available in prescription form.

Full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website, as can the full news release regarding this approval.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved formerly prescription-only Voltaren Arthritis Pain (diclofenac sodium topical gel, 1%) for nonprescription use via a process known as a prescription to over-the-counter (Rx-to-OTC) switch, according to a news release from the agency.

“As a result of the Rx-to-OTC switch process, many products sold over the counter today use ingredients or dosage strengths that were available only by prescription 30 years ago,” Karen Mahoney, MD, acting deputy director of the Office of Nonprescription Drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

This switch to nonprescription status is usually initiated by the manufacturer, who must provide data that demonstrates the drug in question is both safe and effective as self-medication in accordance with the proposed labeling and that consumers can use it safely and effectively without the supervision of a health care professional.

This particular therapy is a topical NSAID gel and was first approved by the FDA in 2007 with the indication for relief of osteoarthritis pain. It can take 7 days to have an effect, but if patients find it takes longer than that or they need to use it for more than 21 days, they should seek medical attention. The gel can cause severe allergic reactions, especially in people allergic to aspirin; patients who experience such reactions are advised to stop use and seek immediate medical care. Other concerns include potential for liver damage with extended use; the possibility of severe stomach bleeds; and risk of heart attack, heart failure, and stroke.

The gel will no longer be available in prescription form.

Full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website, as can the full news release regarding this approval.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved formerly prescription-only Voltaren Arthritis Pain (diclofenac sodium topical gel, 1%) for nonprescription use via a process known as a prescription to over-the-counter (Rx-to-OTC) switch, according to a news release from the agency.

“As a result of the Rx-to-OTC switch process, many products sold over the counter today use ingredients or dosage strengths that were available only by prescription 30 years ago,” Karen Mahoney, MD, acting deputy director of the Office of Nonprescription Drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

This switch to nonprescription status is usually initiated by the manufacturer, who must provide data that demonstrates the drug in question is both safe and effective as self-medication in accordance with the proposed labeling and that consumers can use it safely and effectively without the supervision of a health care professional.

This particular therapy is a topical NSAID gel and was first approved by the FDA in 2007 with the indication for relief of osteoarthritis pain. It can take 7 days to have an effect, but if patients find it takes longer than that or they need to use it for more than 21 days, they should seek medical attention. The gel can cause severe allergic reactions, especially in people allergic to aspirin; patients who experience such reactions are advised to stop use and seek immediate medical care. Other concerns include potential for liver damage with extended use; the possibility of severe stomach bleeds; and risk of heart attack, heart failure, and stroke.

The gel will no longer be available in prescription form.

Full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website, as can the full news release regarding this approval.

[email protected]

COVID-19, the infection caused by the newly identified coronavirus, is a currently a disease with no pharmaceutical weapons against it. There’s no vaccine to prevent it, and no drugs can treat it.

But researchers are racing to change that. A vaccine could be ready to test as soon as April. More than two dozen studies have already been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, a website that tracks research. These studies aim to test everything from traditional Chinese medicine to vitamin C, stem cells, steroids, and medications that fight other viruses, like the flu and HIV. The hope is that something about how these repurposed remedies work will help patients who are desperately ill with no other prospects.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says this is all part of the playbook for brand-new diseases. “There’s a lot of empiric guessing,” he says. “They’re going to propose a whole lot of drugs that already exist. They’re going to say, here’s the data that shows it blocks the virus” in a test tube. But test tubes aren’t people, and many drugs that seem to work in a lab won’t end up helping patients.

Coronaviruses are especially hard to stop once they invade the body. Unlike many other kinds of viruses, they have a fail-safe against tampering – a “proofreader” that constantly inspects their code, looking for errors, including the potentially life-saving errors that drugs could introduce.

Dr. Fauci said that researchers will be able to make better guesses about how to help people when they can try drugs in animals. “We don’t have an animal model yet of the new coronavirus. When we do get an animal model, that will be a big boon to drugs because then, you can clearly test them in a physiological way, whether they work,” he says.

Looking to drugs for HIV and flu

One of the drugs already under study is the combination of two HIV medications: lopinavir and ritonavir (Kaletra). Kaletra stops viruses by interfering with the enzymes they need to infect cells, called proteases.

One study being done at the Guangzhou Eighth People’s Hospital in China is testing Kaletra against Arbidol, an antiviral drug approved in China and Russia to treat the flu. Two groups of patients will take the medications along with standard care. A third group in the study will receive only standard care, typically supportive therapy with oxygen and IV fluids that are meant to support the body so the immune system can fight off a virus on its own.

An Ebola drug gets a second look

One repurposed drug generating a lot of buzz is an experimental infusion called remdesivir (Xembify). It was originally tested against the Ebola virus. While it didn’t work for that infection, it has been shown to shut down the new coronavirus, at least in test tubes. It’s been given to a small number of COVID-19 patients already, including one in Washington state.

In order to have better evidence of how well it may work in people, two studies in Beijing are comparing remdesivir to a dummy pill to see if the drug can help patients with both mild and severe symptoms recover from their illnesses. Viruses work by infecting cells, taking over their machinery, and getting them to crank out more copies of the virus, which then goes on to infect more cells. Remdesivir is a mimic that fools a virus into replacing one of its four building blocks with a chemical fake. Once in the virus’s blueprints, the imposter acts like a stop sign that keeps the virus from copying itself.

Other kinds of drugs in the same class – called nucleotide analogs – are used to attack cancer and other infectious viruses like hepatitis.

Last week, Chinese scientists published study showing remdesivir was effective against the new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV. Out of seven drugs tested, only remdesivir and an older drug called chloroquine (Aralen), which is used to treat malaria, worked, at least in test tubes. “It functions like a knife that just cuts off the RNA strand,” says Mark Denison, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. “They can’t replicate any more. It stops them from doing that.” Dr. Denison is part of a team of researchers in Tennessee and North Carolina that discovered remdesivir could stop coronaviruses, like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in test tubes and animals. He has studied coronaviruses in his lab for 30 years. He knew they would pose a threat again. “We’re shocked, but not surprised, that this has happened again,” he says of the China-based outbreak of 2019-nCoV.

After the SARS outbreak, which infected more than 8,000 people in 26 countries during 2002-2003, and MERS, which has infected nearly 2,500 people in 27 countries since 2012, researchers knew they had to start looking for treatments that would work against coronaviruses. Dr. Denison reached out to Gilead Sciences, a company best known for its antiviral medications that treat HIV and hepatitis C, and asked it to send drug candidates for him to test on coronaviruses. “The idea was that we didn’t want a drug that would just work against SARS or MERS,” he says. “We wanted drugs that worked against every coronavirus.”

Many of the agents he tried didn’t work until Dr. Denison and his team knocked out the virus’s pesky proofreader. Remdesivir seems to be able to defeat the proofreader, though Dr. Denison admits that he does not know how the drug gets around a virus’s defenses. He has a grant from the National Institutes of Health to study that. Gilead has been giving remdesivir to “a small number” of coronavirus patients in the United States and Europe on a compassionate basis.

One of those patients was a 35-year-old man in Everett, Wash., who had gotten pneumonia after being infected with the new coronavirus during a trip to see family in Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the outbreak. His doctors started IV remdesivir on the evening of his 7th day in the hospital. On the 8th day, he improved. He was well enough to stop using oxygen. Signs of pneumonia were gone. He got his appetite back. His case was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, igniting a firestorm of interest in the therapy.

Unfortunately, though, even Dr. Denison says a single person’s case isn’t enough proof that the medication can treat the new coronavirus. The patient, who has not been identified, was getting expert care. He may have improved on his own, despite getting the drug. He said the challenge in people will be to find out two things: whether the medication can block the spread of virus in the body and whether it can reverse the disease. “You can remove the source of injury, but you still have the injury,” he said. Other important questions include how soon the drug may need to be given after infection for it work and whether it may cause significant side effects.

A promising pill

Another drug, a nucleoside analog, that appears to be able to defeat the coronavirus proofreader, EIDD-2801, was developed by Emory University in Atlanta. It was originally intended to treat the flu but has shown some effectiveness against coronaviruses like SARS and MERS.

The FDA recently reached out to Emory asking if it had any drug candidates that might work against the new coronavirus. “It’s a good shot on goal here,” says George Painter, PhD, CEO of Drug Innovation Ventures at Emory. EIDD-2801 can be taken as a pill, which makes it easier to use outside of a hospital setting.

“The capsules for the trial are being made at the end of this month. So we’re close,” Painter says. “We’re right on the edge.”

While these early tests are just getting started, and it will be months until researchers have results, the World Health Organization has sounded a note of caution.

In new guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19, the WHO reminded doctors and patients that there’s not enough evidence to recommend any specific treatment for infected patients.

Right now, the guidelines recommend that doctors offer supportive care to help the body fight off an infection on its own.

The organization says unlicensed treatments should be given only in the context of clinical trials that have been ethically reviewed or with strict clinical monitoring in emergencies.
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

COVID-19, the infection caused by the newly identified coronavirus, is a currently a disease with no pharmaceutical weapons against it. There’s no vaccine to prevent it, and no drugs can treat it.

But researchers are racing to change that. A vaccine could be ready to test as soon as April. More than two dozen studies have already been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, a website that tracks research. These studies aim to test everything from traditional Chinese medicine to vitamin C, stem cells, steroids, and medications that fight other viruses, like the flu and HIV. The hope is that something about how these repurposed remedies work will help patients who are desperately ill with no other prospects.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says this is all part of the playbook for brand-new diseases. “There’s a lot of empiric guessing,” he says. “They’re going to propose a whole lot of drugs that already exist. They’re going to say, here’s the data that shows it blocks the virus” in a test tube. But test tubes aren’t people, and many drugs that seem to work in a lab won’t end up helping patients.

Coronaviruses are especially hard to stop once they invade the body. Unlike many other kinds of viruses, they have a fail-safe against tampering – a “proofreader” that constantly inspects their code, looking for errors, including the potentially life-saving errors that drugs could introduce.

Dr. Fauci said that researchers will be able to make better guesses about how to help people when they can try drugs in animals. “We don’t have an animal model yet of the new coronavirus. When we do get an animal model, that will be a big boon to drugs because then, you can clearly test them in a physiological way, whether they work,” he says.

Looking to drugs for HIV and flu

One of the drugs already under study is the combination of two HIV medications: lopinavir and ritonavir (Kaletra). Kaletra stops viruses by interfering with the enzymes they need to infect cells, called proteases.

One study being done at the Guangzhou Eighth People’s Hospital in China is testing Kaletra against Arbidol, an antiviral drug approved in China and Russia to treat the flu. Two groups of patients will take the medications along with standard care. A third group in the study will receive only standard care, typically supportive therapy with oxygen and IV fluids that are meant to support the body so the immune system can fight off a virus on its own.

An Ebola drug gets a second look

One repurposed drug generating a lot of buzz is an experimental infusion called remdesivir (Xembify). It was originally tested against the Ebola virus. While it didn’t work for that infection, it has been shown to shut down the new coronavirus, at least in test tubes. It’s been given to a small number of COVID-19 patients already, including one in Washington state.

In order to have better evidence of how well it may work in people, two studies in Beijing are comparing remdesivir to a dummy pill to see if the drug can help patients with both mild and severe symptoms recover from their illnesses. Viruses work by infecting cells, taking over their machinery, and getting them to crank out more copies of the virus, which then goes on to infect more cells. Remdesivir is a mimic that fools a virus into replacing one of its four building blocks with a chemical fake. Once in the virus’s blueprints, the imposter acts like a stop sign that keeps the virus from copying itself.

Other kinds of drugs in the same class – called nucleotide analogs – are used to attack cancer and other infectious viruses like hepatitis.

Last week, Chinese scientists published study showing remdesivir was effective against the new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV. Out of seven drugs tested, only remdesivir and an older drug called chloroquine (Aralen), which is used to treat malaria, worked, at least in test tubes. “It functions like a knife that just cuts off the RNA strand,” says Mark Denison, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. “They can’t replicate any more. It stops them from doing that.” Dr. Denison is part of a team of researchers in Tennessee and North Carolina that discovered remdesivir could stop coronaviruses, like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in test tubes and animals. He has studied coronaviruses in his lab for 30 years. He knew they would pose a threat again. “We’re shocked, but not surprised, that this has happened again,” he says of the China-based outbreak of 2019-nCoV.

After the SARS outbreak, which infected more than 8,000 people in 26 countries during 2002-2003, and MERS, which has infected nearly 2,500 people in 27 countries since 2012, researchers knew they had to start looking for treatments that would work against coronaviruses. Dr. Denison reached out to Gilead Sciences, a company best known for its antiviral medications that treat HIV and hepatitis C, and asked it to send drug candidates for him to test on coronaviruses. “The idea was that we didn’t want a drug that would just work against SARS or MERS,” he says. “We wanted drugs that worked against every coronavirus.”

Many of the agents he tried didn’t work until Dr. Denison and his team knocked out the virus’s pesky proofreader. Remdesivir seems to be able to defeat the proofreader, though Dr. Denison admits that he does not know how the drug gets around a virus’s defenses. He has a grant from the National Institutes of Health to study that. Gilead has been giving remdesivir to “a small number” of coronavirus patients in the United States and Europe on a compassionate basis.

One of those patients was a 35-year-old man in Everett, Wash., who had gotten pneumonia after being infected with the new coronavirus during a trip to see family in Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the outbreak. His doctors started IV remdesivir on the evening of his 7th day in the hospital. On the 8th day, he improved. He was well enough to stop using oxygen. Signs of pneumonia were gone. He got his appetite back. His case was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, igniting a firestorm of interest in the therapy.

Unfortunately, though, even Dr. Denison says a single person’s case isn’t enough proof that the medication can treat the new coronavirus. The patient, who has not been identified, was getting expert care. He may have improved on his own, despite getting the drug. He said the challenge in people will be to find out two things: whether the medication can block the spread of virus in the body and whether it can reverse the disease. “You can remove the source of injury, but you still have the injury,” he said. Other important questions include how soon the drug may need to be given after infection for it work and whether it may cause significant side effects.

A promising pill

Another drug, a nucleoside analog, that appears to be able to defeat the coronavirus proofreader, EIDD-2801, was developed by Emory University in Atlanta. It was originally intended to treat the flu but has shown some effectiveness against coronaviruses like SARS and MERS.

The FDA recently reached out to Emory asking if it had any drug candidates that might work against the new coronavirus. “It’s a good shot on goal here,” says George Painter, PhD, CEO of Drug Innovation Ventures at Emory. EIDD-2801 can be taken as a pill, which makes it easier to use outside of a hospital setting.

“The capsules for the trial are being made at the end of this month. So we’re close,” Painter says. “We’re right on the edge.”

While these early tests are just getting started, and it will be months until researchers have results, the World Health Organization has sounded a note of caution.

In new guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19, the WHO reminded doctors and patients that there’s not enough evidence to recommend any specific treatment for infected patients.

Right now, the guidelines recommend that doctors offer supportive care to help the body fight off an infection on its own.

The organization says unlicensed treatments should be given only in the context of clinical trials that have been ethically reviewed or with strict clinical monitoring in emergencies.
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

COVID-19, the infection caused by the newly identified coronavirus, is a currently a disease with no pharmaceutical weapons against it. There’s no vaccine to prevent it, and no drugs can treat it.

But researchers are racing to change that. A vaccine could be ready to test as soon as April. More than two dozen studies have already been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, a website that tracks research. These studies aim to test everything from traditional Chinese medicine to vitamin C, stem cells, steroids, and medications that fight other viruses, like the flu and HIV. The hope is that something about how these repurposed remedies work will help patients who are desperately ill with no other prospects.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says this is all part of the playbook for brand-new diseases. “There’s a lot of empiric guessing,” he says. “They’re going to propose a whole lot of drugs that already exist. They’re going to say, here’s the data that shows it blocks the virus” in a test tube. But test tubes aren’t people, and many drugs that seem to work in a lab won’t end up helping patients.

Coronaviruses are especially hard to stop once they invade the body. Unlike many other kinds of viruses, they have a fail-safe against tampering – a “proofreader” that constantly inspects their code, looking for errors, including the potentially life-saving errors that drugs could introduce.

Dr. Fauci said that researchers will be able to make better guesses about how to help people when they can try drugs in animals. “We don’t have an animal model yet of the new coronavirus. When we do get an animal model, that will be a big boon to drugs because then, you can clearly test them in a physiological way, whether they work,” he says.

Looking to drugs for HIV and flu

One of the drugs already under study is the combination of two HIV medications: lopinavir and ritonavir (Kaletra). Kaletra stops viruses by interfering with the enzymes they need to infect cells, called proteases.

One study being done at the Guangzhou Eighth People’s Hospital in China is testing Kaletra against Arbidol, an antiviral drug approved in China and Russia to treat the flu. Two groups of patients will take the medications along with standard care. A third group in the study will receive only standard care, typically supportive therapy with oxygen and IV fluids that are meant to support the body so the immune system can fight off a virus on its own.

An Ebola drug gets a second look

One repurposed drug generating a lot of buzz is an experimental infusion called remdesivir (Xembify). It was originally tested against the Ebola virus. While it didn’t work for that infection, it has been shown to shut down the new coronavirus, at least in test tubes. It’s been given to a small number of COVID-19 patients already, including one in Washington state.

In order to have better evidence of how well it may work in people, two studies in Beijing are comparing remdesivir to a dummy pill to see if the drug can help patients with both mild and severe symptoms recover from their illnesses. Viruses work by infecting cells, taking over their machinery, and getting them to crank out more copies of the virus, which then goes on to infect more cells. Remdesivir is a mimic that fools a virus into replacing one of its four building blocks with a chemical fake. Once in the virus’s blueprints, the imposter acts like a stop sign that keeps the virus from copying itself.

Other kinds of drugs in the same class – called nucleotide analogs – are used to attack cancer and other infectious viruses like hepatitis.

Last week, Chinese scientists published study showing remdesivir was effective against the new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV. Out of seven drugs tested, only remdesivir and an older drug called chloroquine (Aralen), which is used to treat malaria, worked, at least in test tubes. “It functions like a knife that just cuts off the RNA strand,” says Mark Denison, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. “They can’t replicate any more. It stops them from doing that.” Dr. Denison is part of a team of researchers in Tennessee and North Carolina that discovered remdesivir could stop coronaviruses, like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), in test tubes and animals. He has studied coronaviruses in his lab for 30 years. He knew they would pose a threat again. “We’re shocked, but not surprised, that this has happened again,” he says of the China-based outbreak of 2019-nCoV.

After the SARS outbreak, which infected more than 8,000 people in 26 countries during 2002-2003, and MERS, which has infected nearly 2,500 people in 27 countries since 2012, researchers knew they had to start looking for treatments that would work against coronaviruses. Dr. Denison reached out to Gilead Sciences, a company best known for its antiviral medications that treat HIV and hepatitis C, and asked it to send drug candidates for him to test on coronaviruses. “The idea was that we didn’t want a drug that would just work against SARS or MERS,” he says. “We wanted drugs that worked against every coronavirus.”

Many of the agents he tried didn’t work until Dr. Denison and his team knocked out the virus’s pesky proofreader. Remdesivir seems to be able to defeat the proofreader, though Dr. Denison admits that he does not know how the drug gets around a virus’s defenses. He has a grant from the National Institutes of Health to study that. Gilead has been giving remdesivir to “a small number” of coronavirus patients in the United States and Europe on a compassionate basis.

One of those patients was a 35-year-old man in Everett, Wash., who had gotten pneumonia after being infected with the new coronavirus during a trip to see family in Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the outbreak. His doctors started IV remdesivir on the evening of his 7th day in the hospital. On the 8th day, he improved. He was well enough to stop using oxygen. Signs of pneumonia were gone. He got his appetite back. His case was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, igniting a firestorm of interest in the therapy.

Unfortunately, though, even Dr. Denison says a single person’s case isn’t enough proof that the medication can treat the new coronavirus. The patient, who has not been identified, was getting expert care. He may have improved on his own, despite getting the drug. He said the challenge in people will be to find out two things: whether the medication can block the spread of virus in the body and whether it can reverse the disease. “You can remove the source of injury, but you still have the injury,” he said. Other important questions include how soon the drug may need to be given after infection for it work and whether it may cause significant side effects.

A promising pill

Another drug, a nucleoside analog, that appears to be able to defeat the coronavirus proofreader, EIDD-2801, was developed by Emory University in Atlanta. It was originally intended to treat the flu but has shown some effectiveness against coronaviruses like SARS and MERS.

The FDA recently reached out to Emory asking if it had any drug candidates that might work against the new coronavirus. “It’s a good shot on goal here,” says George Painter, PhD, CEO of Drug Innovation Ventures at Emory. EIDD-2801 can be taken as a pill, which makes it easier to use outside of a hospital setting.

“The capsules for the trial are being made at the end of this month. So we’re close,” Painter says. “We’re right on the edge.”

While these early tests are just getting started, and it will be months until researchers have results, the World Health Organization has sounded a note of caution.

In new guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19, the WHO reminded doctors and patients that there’s not enough evidence to recommend any specific treatment for infected patients.

Right now, the guidelines recommend that doctors offer supportive care to help the body fight off an infection on its own.

The organization says unlicensed treatments should be given only in the context of clinical trials that have been ethically reviewed or with strict clinical monitoring in emergencies.
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.