TOPLINE:

Food insecurity among older adults is associated with increased dementia risk, poorer memory function, and faster memory decline, new research indicates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data on 7,012 adults (mean age, 67 years; 59% women) from the U.S. Health and Retirement Study.
• Food security status was assessed in 2013 using a validated survey, with cognitive outcomes evaluated between 2014 and 2018.
• Analyses were adjusted for demographics, socioeconomics, and health factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 18% of adults were food insecure, with 10% reporting low food security and 8% very low food security. About 11% of those aged 65+ in 2013 were food insecure.
• The odds of dementia were 38% higher (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.67) in adults with low food security and 37% higher (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.59) in those with very low food security, compared with food-secure adults.
• Translated to years of excess cognitive aging, food insecurity was associated with increased dementia risk equivalent to roughly 1.3 excess years of aging.
• Low and very low food security were also associated with lower memory levels and faster age-related memory decline.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study contributes to a limited literature by capitalizing on a large and diverse sample, validated exposure and outcome measures, and longitudinal data to robustly evaluate these associations, providing evidence in support of the connection between food insecurity in older adulthood and subsequent brain health,” the authors wrote. “Our findings highlight the need to improve food security in older adults and that doing so may protect individuals from cognitive decline and dementia.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Haobing Qian, PhD, with the University of California, San Francisco, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Residual confounding cannot be ruled out. Food insecurity was not assessed prior to 2013. The researchers lacked information on clinical dementia diagnoses.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Food insecurity among older adults is associated with increased dementia risk, poorer memory function, and faster memory decline, new research indicates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data on 7,012 adults (mean age, 67 years; 59% women) from the U.S. Health and Retirement Study.
• Food security status was assessed in 2013 using a validated survey, with cognitive outcomes evaluated between 2014 and 2018.
• Analyses were adjusted for demographics, socioeconomics, and health factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 18% of adults were food insecure, with 10% reporting low food security and 8% very low food security. About 11% of those aged 65+ in 2013 were food insecure.
• The odds of dementia were 38% higher (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.67) in adults with low food security and 37% higher (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.59) in those with very low food security, compared with food-secure adults.
• Translated to years of excess cognitive aging, food insecurity was associated with increased dementia risk equivalent to roughly 1.3 excess years of aging.
• Low and very low food security were also associated with lower memory levels and faster age-related memory decline.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study contributes to a limited literature by capitalizing on a large and diverse sample, validated exposure and outcome measures, and longitudinal data to robustly evaluate these associations, providing evidence in support of the connection between food insecurity in older adulthood and subsequent brain health,” the authors wrote. “Our findings highlight the need to improve food security in older adults and that doing so may protect individuals from cognitive decline and dementia.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Haobing Qian, PhD, with the University of California, San Francisco, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Residual confounding cannot be ruled out. Food insecurity was not assessed prior to 2013. The researchers lacked information on clinical dementia diagnoses.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Food insecurity among older adults is associated with increased dementia risk, poorer memory function, and faster memory decline, new research indicates.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data on 7,012 adults (mean age, 67 years; 59% women) from the U.S. Health and Retirement Study.
• Food security status was assessed in 2013 using a validated survey, with cognitive outcomes evaluated between 2014 and 2018.
• Analyses were adjusted for demographics, socioeconomics, and health factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 18% of adults were food insecure, with 10% reporting low food security and 8% very low food security. About 11% of those aged 65+ in 2013 were food insecure.
• The odds of dementia were 38% higher (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.67) in adults with low food security and 37% higher (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.59) in those with very low food security, compared with food-secure adults.
• Translated to years of excess cognitive aging, food insecurity was associated with increased dementia risk equivalent to roughly 1.3 excess years of aging.
• Low and very low food security were also associated with lower memory levels and faster age-related memory decline.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study contributes to a limited literature by capitalizing on a large and diverse sample, validated exposure and outcome measures, and longitudinal data to robustly evaluate these associations, providing evidence in support of the connection between food insecurity in older adulthood and subsequent brain health,” the authors wrote. “Our findings highlight the need to improve food security in older adults and that doing so may protect individuals from cognitive decline and dementia.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Haobing Qian, PhD, with the University of California, San Francisco, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Residual confounding cannot be ruled out. Food insecurity was not assessed prior to 2013. The researchers lacked information on clinical dementia diagnoses.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Use of fluticasone and budesonide for eosinophilic esophagitis during pregnancy had no significant adverse effect on maternal or fetal outcomes, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“Currently, there are no specific recommendations about the safe use of steroids in pregnant women with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), Julton Tomanguillo Chumbe, MD, said in an interview. “Our recommendations about the use of steroids among this population are based on the safety data extrapolated mainly from pregnant women with asthma.”

West Virginia University

In the study, Dr. Chumbe, an internal medicine resident at Charleston Area Medical Center, West Virginia University, Charleston, and colleagues identified pregnant patients aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of EoE between January 2011 and December 2022 through the TriNetx Global Collaborative Network, which includes 101 health care organizations in 14 countries. The study population consisted of 1,263 individuals.

The researchers used propensity score matching (PSM) to compare the rates of spontaneous abortion, placenta previa, preeclampsia, premature delivery, HELLP syndrome, eclampsia, hyperemesis gravidarum, and major congenital abnormalities between women with EoE who did and did not use steroids during pregnancy. The PSM cohorts included 268 women in each group.

Overall, pregnant women who used steroids were not significantly more likely than were those who did not use steroids to experience spontaneous abortion (3.73% vs. 4.85%, P = .52). Rates of placenta previa, preeclampsia, premature delivery, HELLP syndrome, and hyperemesis gravidarum were equal between the groups (3.73% vs. 3.73%, P = 1.00 for all). No cases of eclampsia occurred in the steroid group, compared with a 3.73% rate in women who did not use steroids.

Incidence of major congenital abnormalities including but not limited to malformations of the eye, ear, face, neck, skull and face bones, and of the circulatory, respiratory, and digestive systems, were similar between the steroid and no steroid groups (7.09% vs. 8.20%, P = .62)

Dr. Chumbe said he was not surprised by the findings, given the robust data about the safe use of steroids in pregnant women with asthma, in terms of pregnancy outcomes and fetal outcomes.

“The findings of this study provide reassurance that the use of steroids in pregnant patients with eosinophilic esophagitis is not significantly associated with an increased risk of worse maternal or fetal outcomes,” he said. “During pregnancy, some patients may discontinue treatment due to safety concerns. However, this study suggests that this may not be necessary.” Consequently, patients can maintain EoE management while reducing the risk of complications.

Looking ahead, “it will be important to have some data about the safe use of dupilumab during pregnancy in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis,” he said.
 

Pregnant patients can maintain EoE management

“This study is able to address an important concern that many patients have regarding the safety of steroid therapy for EoE, particularly during pregnancy,” said Anita Afzali, MD, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease and executive vice chair of internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati. “As EoE impacts over 40% of women, most who are in childbearing age, it is important to review the safety of treatment and management of EoE so a mother does not have to choose between EoE management and pregnancy.”

The results from this study were certainly reassuring, though not surprising, Dr. Afzali said. “Previously, the safety profile of steroids during pregnancy was mostly extrapolated from asthma, and other diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease. The results from this study confirm that there are no significant associations with adverse maternal or birth outcomes among women with EoE treated with steroids during pregnancy,” she said.

The study has some limitations, including the retrospective design and potential for selection bias, Dr. Afzali noted. “Further research is needed for the evaluation of newer therapies in the pipeline for treatment of EoE and its safety profile with pregnancy,” she said.

However, “sharing this information in clinical practice “will allow our patients to feel comfortable with continuation of appropriate steroid therapy for treatment and management of their EoE, without having to choose between family planning or pregnancy and EoE care management,” Dr. Afzali said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chumbe an Dr. Afzali indicated having no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of fluticasone and budesonide for eosinophilic esophagitis during pregnancy had no significant adverse effect on maternal or fetal outcomes, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“Currently, there are no specific recommendations about the safe use of steroids in pregnant women with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), Julton Tomanguillo Chumbe, MD, said in an interview. “Our recommendations about the use of steroids among this population are based on the safety data extrapolated mainly from pregnant women with asthma.”

West Virginia University

In the study, Dr. Chumbe, an internal medicine resident at Charleston Area Medical Center, West Virginia University, Charleston, and colleagues identified pregnant patients aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of EoE between January 2011 and December 2022 through the TriNetx Global Collaborative Network, which includes 101 health care organizations in 14 countries. The study population consisted of 1,263 individuals.

The researchers used propensity score matching (PSM) to compare the rates of spontaneous abortion, placenta previa, preeclampsia, premature delivery, HELLP syndrome, eclampsia, hyperemesis gravidarum, and major congenital abnormalities between women with EoE who did and did not use steroids during pregnancy. The PSM cohorts included 268 women in each group.

Overall, pregnant women who used steroids were not significantly more likely than were those who did not use steroids to experience spontaneous abortion (3.73% vs. 4.85%, P = .52). Rates of placenta previa, preeclampsia, premature delivery, HELLP syndrome, and hyperemesis gravidarum were equal between the groups (3.73% vs. 3.73%, P = 1.00 for all). No cases of eclampsia occurred in the steroid group, compared with a 3.73% rate in women who did not use steroids.

Incidence of major congenital abnormalities including but not limited to malformations of the eye, ear, face, neck, skull and face bones, and of the circulatory, respiratory, and digestive systems, were similar between the steroid and no steroid groups (7.09% vs. 8.20%, P = .62)

Dr. Chumbe said he was not surprised by the findings, given the robust data about the safe use of steroids in pregnant women with asthma, in terms of pregnancy outcomes and fetal outcomes.

“The findings of this study provide reassurance that the use of steroids in pregnant patients with eosinophilic esophagitis is not significantly associated with an increased risk of worse maternal or fetal outcomes,” he said. “During pregnancy, some patients may discontinue treatment due to safety concerns. However, this study suggests that this may not be necessary.” Consequently, patients can maintain EoE management while reducing the risk of complications.

Looking ahead, “it will be important to have some data about the safe use of dupilumab during pregnancy in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis,” he said.
 

Pregnant patients can maintain EoE management

“This study is able to address an important concern that many patients have regarding the safety of steroid therapy for EoE, particularly during pregnancy,” said Anita Afzali, MD, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease and executive vice chair of internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati. “As EoE impacts over 40% of women, most who are in childbearing age, it is important to review the safety of treatment and management of EoE so a mother does not have to choose between EoE management and pregnancy.”

The results from this study were certainly reassuring, though not surprising, Dr. Afzali said. “Previously, the safety profile of steroids during pregnancy was mostly extrapolated from asthma, and other diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease. The results from this study confirm that there are no significant associations with adverse maternal or birth outcomes among women with EoE treated with steroids during pregnancy,” she said.

The study has some limitations, including the retrospective design and potential for selection bias, Dr. Afzali noted. “Further research is needed for the evaluation of newer therapies in the pipeline for treatment of EoE and its safety profile with pregnancy,” she said.

However, “sharing this information in clinical practice “will allow our patients to feel comfortable with continuation of appropriate steroid therapy for treatment and management of their EoE, without having to choose between family planning or pregnancy and EoE care management,” Dr. Afzali said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chumbe an Dr. Afzali indicated having no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of fluticasone and budesonide for eosinophilic esophagitis during pregnancy had no significant adverse effect on maternal or fetal outcomes, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“Currently, there are no specific recommendations about the safe use of steroids in pregnant women with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), Julton Tomanguillo Chumbe, MD, said in an interview. “Our recommendations about the use of steroids among this population are based on the safety data extrapolated mainly from pregnant women with asthma.”

West Virginia University

In the study, Dr. Chumbe, an internal medicine resident at Charleston Area Medical Center, West Virginia University, Charleston, and colleagues identified pregnant patients aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of EoE between January 2011 and December 2022 through the TriNetx Global Collaborative Network, which includes 101 health care organizations in 14 countries. The study population consisted of 1,263 individuals.

The researchers used propensity score matching (PSM) to compare the rates of spontaneous abortion, placenta previa, preeclampsia, premature delivery, HELLP syndrome, eclampsia, hyperemesis gravidarum, and major congenital abnormalities between women with EoE who did and did not use steroids during pregnancy. The PSM cohorts included 268 women in each group.

Overall, pregnant women who used steroids were not significantly more likely than were those who did not use steroids to experience spontaneous abortion (3.73% vs. 4.85%, P = .52). Rates of placenta previa, preeclampsia, premature delivery, HELLP syndrome, and hyperemesis gravidarum were equal between the groups (3.73% vs. 3.73%, P = 1.00 for all). No cases of eclampsia occurred in the steroid group, compared with a 3.73% rate in women who did not use steroids.

Incidence of major congenital abnormalities including but not limited to malformations of the eye, ear, face, neck, skull and face bones, and of the circulatory, respiratory, and digestive systems, were similar between the steroid and no steroid groups (7.09% vs. 8.20%, P = .62)

Dr. Chumbe said he was not surprised by the findings, given the robust data about the safe use of steroids in pregnant women with asthma, in terms of pregnancy outcomes and fetal outcomes.

“The findings of this study provide reassurance that the use of steroids in pregnant patients with eosinophilic esophagitis is not significantly associated with an increased risk of worse maternal or fetal outcomes,” he said. “During pregnancy, some patients may discontinue treatment due to safety concerns. However, this study suggests that this may not be necessary.” Consequently, patients can maintain EoE management while reducing the risk of complications.

Looking ahead, “it will be important to have some data about the safe use of dupilumab during pregnancy in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis,” he said.
 

Pregnant patients can maintain EoE management

“This study is able to address an important concern that many patients have regarding the safety of steroid therapy for EoE, particularly during pregnancy,” said Anita Afzali, MD, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease and executive vice chair of internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati. “As EoE impacts over 40% of women, most who are in childbearing age, it is important to review the safety of treatment and management of EoE so a mother does not have to choose between EoE management and pregnancy.”

The results from this study were certainly reassuring, though not surprising, Dr. Afzali said. “Previously, the safety profile of steroids during pregnancy was mostly extrapolated from asthma, and other diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease. The results from this study confirm that there are no significant associations with adverse maternal or birth outcomes among women with EoE treated with steroids during pregnancy,” she said.

The study has some limitations, including the retrospective design and potential for selection bias, Dr. Afzali noted. “Further research is needed for the evaluation of newer therapies in the pipeline for treatment of EoE and its safety profile with pregnancy,” she said.

However, “sharing this information in clinical practice “will allow our patients to feel comfortable with continuation of appropriate steroid therapy for treatment and management of their EoE, without having to choose between family planning or pregnancy and EoE care management,” Dr. Afzali said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chumbe an Dr. Afzali indicated having no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

TOPLINE:

Biopsies that rely on MRI to detect prostate cancer are worth the cost, according to research published online  in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators ran a simulation of a hypothetical group of 65-year-old men who were at risk for the cancer, as indicated by their prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.
• The costs and benefits of periodic ultrasound biopsies were modeled in comparison with those of an annual MRI plus MRI-guided biopsies using epidemiologic and clinical data.
• The investigators compared the cost-effectiveness of each biopsy approach over a decade, as measured by the cost of procedures divided by the projected gain in life-years.
• Cost-effectiveness was defined as less than $100,000 for each life-year gain using an MRI in comparison with ultrasound.
• They stratified the cost-effectiveness of the MRI approach by severity of PSA level: less than 2.5 ng/mL, 2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• For three of the four PSA levels (2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL) the combination of MRI plus MRI-guided biopsy was cost effective.
• The MRI-based approach cost $6,000 more than ultrasound for each life-year gained at the highest PSA level of greater than 10.0 ng/mL, which was significantly below the $100,000 threshold.
• At the lowest PSA level of less than 2.5 ng/mL, the difference between MRI and ultrasound was $187,000, which was above the threshold.

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers wrote that there is “a growing consensus that the use of MRI and potential MRI-guided biopsy is cost effective.”

SOURCE:

Ali Jalali, PhD, a health economist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, is the senior author of the study. Simulation data come from the National Vital Statistics Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Medicare fee schedule.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is a hypothetical simulation of what could happen under different conditions, not an analysis of data developed over time in clinical practice. It also assumes that PSA levels remain constant over time.

DISCLOSURES:

One author receives grants from Siemens Healthineers for MRI technology development, and another author consults for Promaxo, which develops MRI tools.

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

TOPLINE:

Biopsies that rely on MRI to detect prostate cancer are worth the cost, according to research published online  in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators ran a simulation of a hypothetical group of 65-year-old men who were at risk for the cancer, as indicated by their prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.
• The costs and benefits of periodic ultrasound biopsies were modeled in comparison with those of an annual MRI plus MRI-guided biopsies using epidemiologic and clinical data.
• The investigators compared the cost-effectiveness of each biopsy approach over a decade, as measured by the cost of procedures divided by the projected gain in life-years.
• Cost-effectiveness was defined as less than $100,000 for each life-year gain using an MRI in comparison with ultrasound.
• They stratified the cost-effectiveness of the MRI approach by severity of PSA level: less than 2.5 ng/mL, 2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• For three of the four PSA levels (2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL) the combination of MRI plus MRI-guided biopsy was cost effective.
• The MRI-based approach cost $6,000 more than ultrasound for each life-year gained at the highest PSA level of greater than 10.0 ng/mL, which was significantly below the $100,000 threshold.
• At the lowest PSA level of less than 2.5 ng/mL, the difference between MRI and ultrasound was $187,000, which was above the threshold.

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers wrote that there is “a growing consensus that the use of MRI and potential MRI-guided biopsy is cost effective.”

SOURCE:

Ali Jalali, PhD, a health economist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, is the senior author of the study. Simulation data come from the National Vital Statistics Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Medicare fee schedule.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is a hypothetical simulation of what could happen under different conditions, not an analysis of data developed over time in clinical practice. It also assumes that PSA levels remain constant over time.

DISCLOSURES:

One author receives grants from Siemens Healthineers for MRI technology development, and another author consults for Promaxo, which develops MRI tools.

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

TOPLINE:

Biopsies that rely on MRI to detect prostate cancer are worth the cost, according to research published online  in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators ran a simulation of a hypothetical group of 65-year-old men who were at risk for the cancer, as indicated by their prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.
• The costs and benefits of periodic ultrasound biopsies were modeled in comparison with those of an annual MRI plus MRI-guided biopsies using epidemiologic and clinical data.
• The investigators compared the cost-effectiveness of each biopsy approach over a decade, as measured by the cost of procedures divided by the projected gain in life-years.
• Cost-effectiveness was defined as less than $100,000 for each life-year gain using an MRI in comparison with ultrasound.
• They stratified the cost-effectiveness of the MRI approach by severity of PSA level: less than 2.5 ng/mL, 2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• For three of the four PSA levels (2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL) the combination of MRI plus MRI-guided biopsy was cost effective.
• The MRI-based approach cost $6,000 more than ultrasound for each life-year gained at the highest PSA level of greater than 10.0 ng/mL, which was significantly below the $100,000 threshold.
• At the lowest PSA level of less than 2.5 ng/mL, the difference between MRI and ultrasound was $187,000, which was above the threshold.

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers wrote that there is “a growing consensus that the use of MRI and potential MRI-guided biopsy is cost effective.”

SOURCE:

Ali Jalali, PhD, a health economist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, is the senior author of the study. Simulation data come from the National Vital Statistics Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Medicare fee schedule.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is a hypothetical simulation of what could happen under different conditions, not an analysis of data developed over time in clinical practice. It also assumes that PSA levels remain constant over time.

DISCLOSURES:

One author receives grants from Siemens Healthineers for MRI technology development, and another author consults for Promaxo, which develops MRI tools.

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

Physician burnout persists even as the height of the COVID-19 crisis fades farther into the rear-view mirror. The causes for the sadness, stress, and frustration among doctors vary, but the effects are universal and often debilitating: exhaustion, emotional detachment, lethargy, feeling useless, and lacking purpose. 

When surveyed, physicians pointed to many systemic solutions for burnout in Medscape’s Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, such as a need for greater compensation, more manageable workloads and schedules, and more support staff. But for many doctors, these fixes may be years if not decades away. Equally important are strategies for relieving burnout symptoms now, especially as we head into a busy holiday season.

Because not every stress-relief practice works for everyone, it’s crucial to try various methods until you find something that makes a difference for you, said Christine Gibson, MD, a family physician and trauma therapist in Calgary, Alta., and author of The Modern Trauma Toolkit.

“Every person should have a toolkit of the things that bring them out of the psychological and physical distress that dysregulates their nervous system,” said Dr. Gibson. 

Once you learn the personal ways to alleviate your specific brand of burnout, you can start working on systemic changes that might help the culture of medicine overall.

One or even more of these more unusual burnout prescriptions may be key to your personal emotional regulation and mental wellness.
 

Symptoms speak louder than words

It seems obvious, but if you aren’t aware that what you’re feeling is burnout, you probably aren’t going to find effective steps to relieve it. Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor and director of wellness, engagement, and outreach in the department of psychiatry, Washington University in St. Louis, is a psychiatrist who treats health care professionals, including frontline workers during the height of the pandemic. But even as a burnout expert, she admits that she misses the signs in herself. 

“I was fighting constant fatigue, falling asleep the minute I got home from work every day, but I thought a B12 shot would solve all my problems. I didn’t realize I was having symptoms of burnout until my own therapist told me,” said Dr. Gold. “As doctors, we spend so much time focusing on other people that we don’t necessarily notice very much in ourselves – usually once it starts to impact our job.”

Practices like meditation and mindfulness can help you delve into your feelings and emotions and notice how you’re doing. But you may also need to ask spouses, partners, and friends and family – or better yet, a mental health professional – if they notice that you seem burnt out. 
 

Practice ‘in the moment’ relief 

Sometimes, walking away at the moment of stress helps like when stepping away from a heated argument. “Step out of a frustrating staff meeting to go to the bathroom and splash your face,” said Eran Magan, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and founder and CEO of the suicide prevention system EarlyAlert.me. “Tell a patient you need to check something in the next room, so you have time to take a breath.” 

Dr. Magan recommended finding techniques that help lower acute stress while it’s actually happening. First, find a way to escape or excuse yourself from the event, and when possible, stop situations that are actively upsetting or triggering in their tracks. 

Next, recharge by doing something that helps you feel better, like looking at a cute video of your child or grandchild or closing your eyes and taking a deep breath. You can also try to “catch” good feelings from someone else, said Dr. Magan. Ask someone about a trip, vacation, holiday, or pleasant event. “Ask a colleague about something that makes [them] happy,” he said. “Happiness can be infectious too.”
 

Burnout is also in the body

“Body psychotherapy” or somatic therapy is a treatment that focuses on how emotions appear within your body. Dr. Gibson said it’s a valuable tool for addressing trauma and a mainstay in many a medical career; it’s useful to help physicians learn to “befriend” their nervous system. 

Somatic therapy exercises involve things like body scanning, scanning for physical sensations; conscious breathing, connecting to each inhale and exhale; grounding your weight by releasing tension through your feet, doing a total body stretch; or releasing shoulder and neck tension by consciously relaxing each of these muscle groups.

“We spend our whole day in sympathetic tone; our amygdala’s are firing, telling us that we’re in danger,” said Dr. Gibson. “We actually have to practice getting into and spending time in our parasympathetic nervous system to restore the balance in our autonomic nervous system.” 

Somatic therapy includes a wide array of exercises that help reconnect you to your body through calming or activation. The movements release tension, ground you, and restore balance. 
 

Bite-sized tools for well-being

Because of the prevalence of physician burnout, there’s been a groundswell of researchers and organizations who have turned their focus toward improving the well-being in the health care workforce. 

One such effort comes from the Duke Center for the Advancement of Well-being Science, which “camouflages” well-being tools as continuing education credits to make them accessible for busy, stressed, and overworked physicians.

“They’re called bite-sized tools for well-being, and they have actual evidence behind them,” said Dr. Gold. For example, she said, one tools is a text program called Three Good Things that encourages physicians to send a text listing three positive things that happened during the day. The exercise lasts 15 days, and texters have access to others’ answers as well. After 3 months, participants’ baseline depression, gratitude, and life satisfaction had all “significantly improved.”

“It feels almost ridiculous that that could work, but it does,” said Dr. Gold. “I’ve had patients push back and say: ‘Well, isn’t that toxic positivity?’ But really what it is is dialectics. It’s not saying there’s only positive; it’s just making you realize there is more than just the negative.”

These and other short interventions focus on concepts such as joy, humor, awe, engagement, and self-kindness to build resilience and help physicians recover from burnout symptoms. 
 

Cognitive restructuring could work

Cognitive restructuring is a therapeutic process of learning new ways of interpreting and responding to people and situations. It helps you change the “filter” through which you interact with your environment. Dr. Gibson said it’s a tool to use with care after other modes of therapy that help you understand your patterns and how they developed because of how you view and understand the world. 

“The message of [cognitive-behavioral therapy] or cognitive restructuring is there’s something wrong with the way you’re thinking, and we need to change it or fix it, but in a traumatic system [like health care], you’re thinking has been an adaptive process related to the harm in the environment you’re in,” said Dr. Gibson. 

“So, if you [jump straight to cognitive restructuring before other types of therapy], then we just gaslight ourselves into believing that there’s something wrong with us, that we haven’t adapted sufficiently to an environment that’s actually harmful.”
 

Strive for a few systemic changes

Systemic changes can be small ones within your own sphere. For example, Dr. Magan said, work toward making little tweaks to the flow of your day that will increase calm and reduce frustration. 

“Make a ‘bug list,’ little, regular demands that drain your energy, and discuss them with your colleagues and supervisors to see if they can be improved,” he said. Examples include everyday frustrations like having unsolicited visitors popping into your office, scheduling complex patients too late in the day, or having a computer freeze whenever you access patient charts.

Though not always financially feasible, affecting real change and finding relief from all these insidious bugs can improve your mental health and burnout symptoms.

“Physicians tend to work extremely hard in order to keep holding together a system that is often not inherently sustainable, like the fascia of a body under tremendous strain,” said Dr. Magan. “Sometimes the brave thing to do is to refuse to continue being the lynchpin and let things break, so the system will have to start improving itself, rather than demanding more and more of the people in it.”

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

Physician burnout persists even as the height of the COVID-19 crisis fades farther into the rear-view mirror. The causes for the sadness, stress, and frustration among doctors vary, but the effects are universal and often debilitating: exhaustion, emotional detachment, lethargy, feeling useless, and lacking purpose. 

When surveyed, physicians pointed to many systemic solutions for burnout in Medscape’s Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, such as a need for greater compensation, more manageable workloads and schedules, and more support staff. But for many doctors, these fixes may be years if not decades away. Equally important are strategies for relieving burnout symptoms now, especially as we head into a busy holiday season.

Because not every stress-relief practice works for everyone, it’s crucial to try various methods until you find something that makes a difference for you, said Christine Gibson, MD, a family physician and trauma therapist in Calgary, Alta., and author of The Modern Trauma Toolkit.

“Every person should have a toolkit of the things that bring them out of the psychological and physical distress that dysregulates their nervous system,” said Dr. Gibson. 

Once you learn the personal ways to alleviate your specific brand of burnout, you can start working on systemic changes that might help the culture of medicine overall.

One or even more of these more unusual burnout prescriptions may be key to your personal emotional regulation and mental wellness.
 

Symptoms speak louder than words

It seems obvious, but if you aren’t aware that what you’re feeling is burnout, you probably aren’t going to find effective steps to relieve it. Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor and director of wellness, engagement, and outreach in the department of psychiatry, Washington University in St. Louis, is a psychiatrist who treats health care professionals, including frontline workers during the height of the pandemic. But even as a burnout expert, she admits that she misses the signs in herself. 

“I was fighting constant fatigue, falling asleep the minute I got home from work every day, but I thought a B12 shot would solve all my problems. I didn’t realize I was having symptoms of burnout until my own therapist told me,” said Dr. Gold. “As doctors, we spend so much time focusing on other people that we don’t necessarily notice very much in ourselves – usually once it starts to impact our job.”

Practices like meditation and mindfulness can help you delve into your feelings and emotions and notice how you’re doing. But you may also need to ask spouses, partners, and friends and family – or better yet, a mental health professional – if they notice that you seem burnt out. 
 

Practice ‘in the moment’ relief 

Sometimes, walking away at the moment of stress helps like when stepping away from a heated argument. “Step out of a frustrating staff meeting to go to the bathroom and splash your face,” said Eran Magan, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and founder and CEO of the suicide prevention system EarlyAlert.me. “Tell a patient you need to check something in the next room, so you have time to take a breath.” 

Dr. Magan recommended finding techniques that help lower acute stress while it’s actually happening. First, find a way to escape or excuse yourself from the event, and when possible, stop situations that are actively upsetting or triggering in their tracks. 

Next, recharge by doing something that helps you feel better, like looking at a cute video of your child or grandchild or closing your eyes and taking a deep breath. You can also try to “catch” good feelings from someone else, said Dr. Magan. Ask someone about a trip, vacation, holiday, or pleasant event. “Ask a colleague about something that makes [them] happy,” he said. “Happiness can be infectious too.”
 

Burnout is also in the body

“Body psychotherapy” or somatic therapy is a treatment that focuses on how emotions appear within your body. Dr. Gibson said it’s a valuable tool for addressing trauma and a mainstay in many a medical career; it’s useful to help physicians learn to “befriend” their nervous system. 

Somatic therapy exercises involve things like body scanning, scanning for physical sensations; conscious breathing, connecting to each inhale and exhale; grounding your weight by releasing tension through your feet, doing a total body stretch; or releasing shoulder and neck tension by consciously relaxing each of these muscle groups.

“We spend our whole day in sympathetic tone; our amygdala’s are firing, telling us that we’re in danger,” said Dr. Gibson. “We actually have to practice getting into and spending time in our parasympathetic nervous system to restore the balance in our autonomic nervous system.” 

Somatic therapy includes a wide array of exercises that help reconnect you to your body through calming or activation. The movements release tension, ground you, and restore balance. 
 

Bite-sized tools for well-being

Because of the prevalence of physician burnout, there’s been a groundswell of researchers and organizations who have turned their focus toward improving the well-being in the health care workforce. 

One such effort comes from the Duke Center for the Advancement of Well-being Science, which “camouflages” well-being tools as continuing education credits to make them accessible for busy, stressed, and overworked physicians.

“They’re called bite-sized tools for well-being, and they have actual evidence behind them,” said Dr. Gold. For example, she said, one tools is a text program called Three Good Things that encourages physicians to send a text listing three positive things that happened during the day. The exercise lasts 15 days, and texters have access to others’ answers as well. After 3 months, participants’ baseline depression, gratitude, and life satisfaction had all “significantly improved.”

“It feels almost ridiculous that that could work, but it does,” said Dr. Gold. “I’ve had patients push back and say: ‘Well, isn’t that toxic positivity?’ But really what it is is dialectics. It’s not saying there’s only positive; it’s just making you realize there is more than just the negative.”

These and other short interventions focus on concepts such as joy, humor, awe, engagement, and self-kindness to build resilience and help physicians recover from burnout symptoms. 
 

Cognitive restructuring could work

Cognitive restructuring is a therapeutic process of learning new ways of interpreting and responding to people and situations. It helps you change the “filter” through which you interact with your environment. Dr. Gibson said it’s a tool to use with care after other modes of therapy that help you understand your patterns and how they developed because of how you view and understand the world. 

“The message of [cognitive-behavioral therapy] or cognitive restructuring is there’s something wrong with the way you’re thinking, and we need to change it or fix it, but in a traumatic system [like health care], you’re thinking has been an adaptive process related to the harm in the environment you’re in,” said Dr. Gibson. 

“So, if you [jump straight to cognitive restructuring before other types of therapy], then we just gaslight ourselves into believing that there’s something wrong with us, that we haven’t adapted sufficiently to an environment that’s actually harmful.”
 

Strive for a few systemic changes

Systemic changes can be small ones within your own sphere. For example, Dr. Magan said, work toward making little tweaks to the flow of your day that will increase calm and reduce frustration. 

“Make a ‘bug list,’ little, regular demands that drain your energy, and discuss them with your colleagues and supervisors to see if they can be improved,” he said. Examples include everyday frustrations like having unsolicited visitors popping into your office, scheduling complex patients too late in the day, or having a computer freeze whenever you access patient charts.

Though not always financially feasible, affecting real change and finding relief from all these insidious bugs can improve your mental health and burnout symptoms.

“Physicians tend to work extremely hard in order to keep holding together a system that is often not inherently sustainable, like the fascia of a body under tremendous strain,” said Dr. Magan. “Sometimes the brave thing to do is to refuse to continue being the lynchpin and let things break, so the system will have to start improving itself, rather than demanding more and more of the people in it.”

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

Physician burnout persists even as the height of the COVID-19 crisis fades farther into the rear-view mirror. The causes for the sadness, stress, and frustration among doctors vary, but the effects are universal and often debilitating: exhaustion, emotional detachment, lethargy, feeling useless, and lacking purpose. 

When surveyed, physicians pointed to many systemic solutions for burnout in Medscape’s Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, such as a need for greater compensation, more manageable workloads and schedules, and more support staff. But for many doctors, these fixes may be years if not decades away. Equally important are strategies for relieving burnout symptoms now, especially as we head into a busy holiday season.

Because not every stress-relief practice works for everyone, it’s crucial to try various methods until you find something that makes a difference for you, said Christine Gibson, MD, a family physician and trauma therapist in Calgary, Alta., and author of The Modern Trauma Toolkit.

“Every person should have a toolkit of the things that bring them out of the psychological and physical distress that dysregulates their nervous system,” said Dr. Gibson. 

Once you learn the personal ways to alleviate your specific brand of burnout, you can start working on systemic changes that might help the culture of medicine overall.

One or even more of these more unusual burnout prescriptions may be key to your personal emotional regulation and mental wellness.
 

Symptoms speak louder than words

It seems obvious, but if you aren’t aware that what you’re feeling is burnout, you probably aren’t going to find effective steps to relieve it. Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor and director of wellness, engagement, and outreach in the department of psychiatry, Washington University in St. Louis, is a psychiatrist who treats health care professionals, including frontline workers during the height of the pandemic. But even as a burnout expert, she admits that she misses the signs in herself. 

“I was fighting constant fatigue, falling asleep the minute I got home from work every day, but I thought a B12 shot would solve all my problems. I didn’t realize I was having symptoms of burnout until my own therapist told me,” said Dr. Gold. “As doctors, we spend so much time focusing on other people that we don’t necessarily notice very much in ourselves – usually once it starts to impact our job.”

Practices like meditation and mindfulness can help you delve into your feelings and emotions and notice how you’re doing. But you may also need to ask spouses, partners, and friends and family – or better yet, a mental health professional – if they notice that you seem burnt out. 
 

Practice ‘in the moment’ relief 

Sometimes, walking away at the moment of stress helps like when stepping away from a heated argument. “Step out of a frustrating staff meeting to go to the bathroom and splash your face,” said Eran Magan, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and founder and CEO of the suicide prevention system EarlyAlert.me. “Tell a patient you need to check something in the next room, so you have time to take a breath.” 

Dr. Magan recommended finding techniques that help lower acute stress while it’s actually happening. First, find a way to escape or excuse yourself from the event, and when possible, stop situations that are actively upsetting or triggering in their tracks. 

Next, recharge by doing something that helps you feel better, like looking at a cute video of your child or grandchild or closing your eyes and taking a deep breath. You can also try to “catch” good feelings from someone else, said Dr. Magan. Ask someone about a trip, vacation, holiday, or pleasant event. “Ask a colleague about something that makes [them] happy,” he said. “Happiness can be infectious too.”
 

Burnout is also in the body

“Body psychotherapy” or somatic therapy is a treatment that focuses on how emotions appear within your body. Dr. Gibson said it’s a valuable tool for addressing trauma and a mainstay in many a medical career; it’s useful to help physicians learn to “befriend” their nervous system. 

Somatic therapy exercises involve things like body scanning, scanning for physical sensations; conscious breathing, connecting to each inhale and exhale; grounding your weight by releasing tension through your feet, doing a total body stretch; or releasing shoulder and neck tension by consciously relaxing each of these muscle groups.

“We spend our whole day in sympathetic tone; our amygdala’s are firing, telling us that we’re in danger,” said Dr. Gibson. “We actually have to practice getting into and spending time in our parasympathetic nervous system to restore the balance in our autonomic nervous system.” 

Somatic therapy includes a wide array of exercises that help reconnect you to your body through calming or activation. The movements release tension, ground you, and restore balance. 
 

Bite-sized tools for well-being

Because of the prevalence of physician burnout, there’s been a groundswell of researchers and organizations who have turned their focus toward improving the well-being in the health care workforce. 

One such effort comes from the Duke Center for the Advancement of Well-being Science, which “camouflages” well-being tools as continuing education credits to make them accessible for busy, stressed, and overworked physicians.

“They’re called bite-sized tools for well-being, and they have actual evidence behind them,” said Dr. Gold. For example, she said, one tools is a text program called Three Good Things that encourages physicians to send a text listing three positive things that happened during the day. The exercise lasts 15 days, and texters have access to others’ answers as well. After 3 months, participants’ baseline depression, gratitude, and life satisfaction had all “significantly improved.”

“It feels almost ridiculous that that could work, but it does,” said Dr. Gold. “I’ve had patients push back and say: ‘Well, isn’t that toxic positivity?’ But really what it is is dialectics. It’s not saying there’s only positive; it’s just making you realize there is more than just the negative.”

These and other short interventions focus on concepts such as joy, humor, awe, engagement, and self-kindness to build resilience and help physicians recover from burnout symptoms. 
 

Cognitive restructuring could work

Cognitive restructuring is a therapeutic process of learning new ways of interpreting and responding to people and situations. It helps you change the “filter” through which you interact with your environment. Dr. Gibson said it’s a tool to use with care after other modes of therapy that help you understand your patterns and how they developed because of how you view and understand the world. 

“The message of [cognitive-behavioral therapy] or cognitive restructuring is there’s something wrong with the way you’re thinking, and we need to change it or fix it, but in a traumatic system [like health care], you’re thinking has been an adaptive process related to the harm in the environment you’re in,” said Dr. Gibson. 

“So, if you [jump straight to cognitive restructuring before other types of therapy], then we just gaslight ourselves into believing that there’s something wrong with us, that we haven’t adapted sufficiently to an environment that’s actually harmful.”
 

Strive for a few systemic changes

Systemic changes can be small ones within your own sphere. For example, Dr. Magan said, work toward making little tweaks to the flow of your day that will increase calm and reduce frustration. 

“Make a ‘bug list,’ little, regular demands that drain your energy, and discuss them with your colleagues and supervisors to see if they can be improved,” he said. Examples include everyday frustrations like having unsolicited visitors popping into your office, scheduling complex patients too late in the day, or having a computer freeze whenever you access patient charts.

Though not always financially feasible, affecting real change and finding relief from all these insidious bugs can improve your mental health and burnout symptoms.

“Physicians tend to work extremely hard in order to keep holding together a system that is often not inherently sustainable, like the fascia of a body under tremendous strain,” said Dr. Magan. “Sometimes the brave thing to do is to refuse to continue being the lynchpin and let things break, so the system will have to start improving itself, rather than demanding more and more of the people in it.”

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

Isotretinoin users have no increased risk of suicide or psychiatric conditions on a population level, a meta-analysis of 25 studies that included 1.6 million patients suggests.

Instead, those who are treated with the drug for severe acne may have a lower risk of suicide attempts 2-4 years after treatment, wrote the authors, led by Nicole Kye Wen Tan, MBBS, of Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine at the National University of Singapore. The results were published online in JAMA Dermatology.

The analysis showed that the 1-year absolute risk from between two and eight studies of suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, completed suicides, and self-harm were each less than 0.5%. For comparison, the absolute risk of depression was 3.83% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.45-5.93; I² [measuring heterogeneity] = 77%) in 11 studies.
 

Less likely to attempt suicide

Isotretinoin users were less likely than were nonusers to attempt suicide at 2 years (relative risk [RR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-1.00; I² = 0%); 3 years (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.95; I2 = 0%); and 4 years (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; I² = 23%) following treatment.

Additionally, isotretinoin was not linked with the risk of “all psychiatric disorders” (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.99-1.19; I² = 0%).

Among the study limitations, the authors noted that because of the widespread claims that isotretinoin can affect mental health, it is plausible that patients at high risk of psychiatric illness were less likely to be treated with isotretinoin in the first place, which could have resulted in underestimating psychiatric risks in the observational studies.
 

“Two things can be true”

John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved with this research, said the study helps confirm what he and many others have long thought.

Dr. Barbieri

The results of the meta-analysis show that “two things can be true, which often gets lost with isotretinoin,” he said. At a population level, isotretinoin improves mental health but on the individual level, it may cause rare side effects that harm mental health, he added.

In making decisions on the use of isotretinoin, he continued, “we should feel reassured that the likely outcome is improved mental health compared to other alternatives that we have, but at the same time we should be vigilant about monitoring a patient’s mental health while they are being treated with isotretinoin.”

He said that this topic draws extreme views on social media, with people who want the drug off the market and those who discount concerns altogether.

“I think the real answer is a little more in the middle,” he said. “We still have to be thoughtful when we use it.”

Because outcomes such as suicide in patients on isotretinoin are not common, Dr. Barbieri said, smaller studies individually have lacked precision on effect. The size of this meta-analysis helps add confidence in the results, he said.

In addition, this study can help clinicians point to numbers when they talk with their patients about benefits and risks, he said.
 

What a meta-analysis might miss

In an accompanying editorial, Parker Magin, PhD, of the School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia, and Shaun Prentice, PhD, of the School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Adelaide, South Australia, wrote that though the work by Tan et al. is “broadly reassuring,” they have concerns about the patients a meta-analysis might miss.

They wrote that other studies have shown evidence both of biological plausibility that isotretinoin may be linked with psychiatric effects and that it may cause these side effects. “One could conclude that it is plausible that isotretinoin has markedly adverse, idiosyncratic psychiatric effects in a small minority of individual patients,” they wrote. “It is also plausible that these presumably rare occurrences are not detectable in studies where the majority of patients experience no adverse psychiatric outcomes or even positive outcomes.”

Far from the “final word”

Dr. Magin and Dr. Prentice pointed out that while the study adds to the literature on his topic, the relationship between acne, psychiatric conditions, and isotretinoin is complex and thus these findings “are far from the final word.”

Randomized, controlled trials have limited use in this area and observational studies are always susceptible to bias, they noted. “Clinicians, though, can take some degree of further reassurance from this extension of the literature around the psychiatric sequelae of isotretinoin,” they wrote.

Senior author Hazel Oon, MD, of the National Skin Centre, Singapore, disclosed ties with AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and Pfizer. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Barbieri is an associate editor at JAMA Dermatology and is cochair of the American Academy of Dermatology Acne Guidelines Work Group.

Isotretinoin users have no increased risk of suicide or psychiatric conditions on a population level, a meta-analysis of 25 studies that included 1.6 million patients suggests.

Instead, those who are treated with the drug for severe acne may have a lower risk of suicide attempts 2-4 years after treatment, wrote the authors, led by Nicole Kye Wen Tan, MBBS, of Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine at the National University of Singapore. The results were published online in JAMA Dermatology.

The analysis showed that the 1-year absolute risk from between two and eight studies of suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, completed suicides, and self-harm were each less than 0.5%. For comparison, the absolute risk of depression was 3.83% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.45-5.93; I² [measuring heterogeneity] = 77%) in 11 studies.
 

Less likely to attempt suicide

Isotretinoin users were less likely than were nonusers to attempt suicide at 2 years (relative risk [RR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-1.00; I² = 0%); 3 years (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.95; I2 = 0%); and 4 years (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; I² = 23%) following treatment.

Additionally, isotretinoin was not linked with the risk of “all psychiatric disorders” (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.99-1.19; I² = 0%).

Among the study limitations, the authors noted that because of the widespread claims that isotretinoin can affect mental health, it is plausible that patients at high risk of psychiatric illness were less likely to be treated with isotretinoin in the first place, which could have resulted in underestimating psychiatric risks in the observational studies.
 

“Two things can be true”

John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved with this research, said the study helps confirm what he and many others have long thought.

Dr. Barbieri

The results of the meta-analysis show that “two things can be true, which often gets lost with isotretinoin,” he said. At a population level, isotretinoin improves mental health but on the individual level, it may cause rare side effects that harm mental health, he added.

In making decisions on the use of isotretinoin, he continued, “we should feel reassured that the likely outcome is improved mental health compared to other alternatives that we have, but at the same time we should be vigilant about monitoring a patient’s mental health while they are being treated with isotretinoin.”

He said that this topic draws extreme views on social media, with people who want the drug off the market and those who discount concerns altogether.

“I think the real answer is a little more in the middle,” he said. “We still have to be thoughtful when we use it.”

Because outcomes such as suicide in patients on isotretinoin are not common, Dr. Barbieri said, smaller studies individually have lacked precision on effect. The size of this meta-analysis helps add confidence in the results, he said.

In addition, this study can help clinicians point to numbers when they talk with their patients about benefits and risks, he said.
 

What a meta-analysis might miss

In an accompanying editorial, Parker Magin, PhD, of the School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia, and Shaun Prentice, PhD, of the School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Adelaide, South Australia, wrote that though the work by Tan et al. is “broadly reassuring,” they have concerns about the patients a meta-analysis might miss.

They wrote that other studies have shown evidence both of biological plausibility that isotretinoin may be linked with psychiatric effects and that it may cause these side effects. “One could conclude that it is plausible that isotretinoin has markedly adverse, idiosyncratic psychiatric effects in a small minority of individual patients,” they wrote. “It is also plausible that these presumably rare occurrences are not detectable in studies where the majority of patients experience no adverse psychiatric outcomes or even positive outcomes.”

Far from the “final word”

Dr. Magin and Dr. Prentice pointed out that while the study adds to the literature on his topic, the relationship between acne, psychiatric conditions, and isotretinoin is complex and thus these findings “are far from the final word.”

Randomized, controlled trials have limited use in this area and observational studies are always susceptible to bias, they noted. “Clinicians, though, can take some degree of further reassurance from this extension of the literature around the psychiatric sequelae of isotretinoin,” they wrote.

Senior author Hazel Oon, MD, of the National Skin Centre, Singapore, disclosed ties with AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and Pfizer. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Barbieri is an associate editor at JAMA Dermatology and is cochair of the American Academy of Dermatology Acne Guidelines Work Group.

Isotretinoin users have no increased risk of suicide or psychiatric conditions on a population level, a meta-analysis of 25 studies that included 1.6 million patients suggests.

Instead, those who are treated with the drug for severe acne may have a lower risk of suicide attempts 2-4 years after treatment, wrote the authors, led by Nicole Kye Wen Tan, MBBS, of Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine at the National University of Singapore. The results were published online in JAMA Dermatology.

The analysis showed that the 1-year absolute risk from between two and eight studies of suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, completed suicides, and self-harm were each less than 0.5%. For comparison, the absolute risk of depression was 3.83% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.45-5.93; I² [measuring heterogeneity] = 77%) in 11 studies.
 

Less likely to attempt suicide

Isotretinoin users were less likely than were nonusers to attempt suicide at 2 years (relative risk [RR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-1.00; I² = 0%); 3 years (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.95; I2 = 0%); and 4 years (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; I² = 23%) following treatment.

Additionally, isotretinoin was not linked with the risk of “all psychiatric disorders” (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.99-1.19; I² = 0%).

Among the study limitations, the authors noted that because of the widespread claims that isotretinoin can affect mental health, it is plausible that patients at high risk of psychiatric illness were less likely to be treated with isotretinoin in the first place, which could have resulted in underestimating psychiatric risks in the observational studies.
 

“Two things can be true”

John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved with this research, said the study helps confirm what he and many others have long thought.

Dr. Barbieri

The results of the meta-analysis show that “two things can be true, which often gets lost with isotretinoin,” he said. At a population level, isotretinoin improves mental health but on the individual level, it may cause rare side effects that harm mental health, he added.

In making decisions on the use of isotretinoin, he continued, “we should feel reassured that the likely outcome is improved mental health compared to other alternatives that we have, but at the same time we should be vigilant about monitoring a patient’s mental health while they are being treated with isotretinoin.”

He said that this topic draws extreme views on social media, with people who want the drug off the market and those who discount concerns altogether.

“I think the real answer is a little more in the middle,” he said. “We still have to be thoughtful when we use it.”

Because outcomes such as suicide in patients on isotretinoin are not common, Dr. Barbieri said, smaller studies individually have lacked precision on effect. The size of this meta-analysis helps add confidence in the results, he said.

In addition, this study can help clinicians point to numbers when they talk with their patients about benefits and risks, he said.
 

What a meta-analysis might miss

In an accompanying editorial, Parker Magin, PhD, of the School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia, and Shaun Prentice, PhD, of the School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Adelaide, South Australia, wrote that though the work by Tan et al. is “broadly reassuring,” they have concerns about the patients a meta-analysis might miss.

They wrote that other studies have shown evidence both of biological plausibility that isotretinoin may be linked with psychiatric effects and that it may cause these side effects. “One could conclude that it is plausible that isotretinoin has markedly adverse, idiosyncratic psychiatric effects in a small minority of individual patients,” they wrote. “It is also plausible that these presumably rare occurrences are not detectable in studies where the majority of patients experience no adverse psychiatric outcomes or even positive outcomes.”

Far from the “final word”

Dr. Magin and Dr. Prentice pointed out that while the study adds to the literature on his topic, the relationship between acne, psychiatric conditions, and isotretinoin is complex and thus these findings “are far from the final word.”

Randomized, controlled trials have limited use in this area and observational studies are always susceptible to bias, they noted. “Clinicians, though, can take some degree of further reassurance from this extension of the literature around the psychiatric sequelae of isotretinoin,” they wrote.

Senior author Hazel Oon, MD, of the National Skin Centre, Singapore, disclosed ties with AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and Pfizer. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Barbieri is an associate editor at JAMA Dermatology and is cochair of the American Academy of Dermatology Acne Guidelines Work Group.

In the first study of its kind, U.K. and French researchers reported that exercise positively affected physical and cognitive health in persons with Down syndrome. “The findings are significant and offer a crucial challenge to the [Down syndrome] and wider societies,” wrote a team led by Dan Gordon, PhD, associate professor of cardiorespiratory exercise physiology at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England. “Impact of Prescribed Exercise on the Physical and Cognitive Health of Adults with Down Syndrome: The MinDSets Study” was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

“Through the simple application of walking, a form of exercise which requires little to no equipment or expense, there were significant increases in cognitive and executive function, reflecting improved capabilities in key attributes of information processing, vigilance, and selective attention,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Gordon

“Increased cognitive function will help foster increased societal integration and quality of life, which, given that this is the first generation of those with [Down syndrome] to outlive their parents and caregivers, is of importance,” they wrote.

For example, those in an exercise-only intervention arm had an 11.4% improvement on the distance covered in the Six-Minute Walk Test, going from a mean of 498.8 meters before intervention to 522.1 meters afterward. Those in a group that combined group exercise with cognitive training increased the distance walked by 9.9%, or 49.2 meters. Groups that got cognitive training only or no intervention showed no significant changes.

In measures of cognitive function, the exercise group showed a 38% increase in selective attention, with the cognitive and combined groups showing changes for the same measure of 16.5% and 55.3%, respectively. The changes for concentration in the exercise-alone group was 31.5%, while those receiving cognitive training alone or combined exercise plus cognitive training showed improvements in concentration of 21% and 15%, respectively.

Asked why a combination intervention was not superior to exercise alone, Dr. Gordon said in an interview, “Something we’re looking at in the data but can’t fully confirm is that the combined group started to become fatigued due to the double dose of the intervention, and this prevented them in the final tests from doing quite so well as the exercise-alone group. Irrespective of the magnitude of change, any cognitive adaptation observed will be beneficial to this population.”

The evidence for the benefits of exercise on both physical and cognitive health in a non–Down syndrome population are well established, he said, but there were few data on its effect on the Down syndrome population.

One small study showed physical and neurocognitive benefits with resistance training.

“The evidence from previous studies showed increased levels of inactivity and sitting time in Down syndrome individuals compared with non–[Down syndrome] controls, so we hypothesized that exercise, albeit small amounts, would increase their physical fitness,” Dr. Gordon said.

His team also hypothesized that walking would stimulate cognitive development since it requires heightened cognitive engagement compared with inactivity. “What surprised us was the degree of improvement,” Dr. Gordon said.

The process of walking requires the brain to interpret information on a real-time basis from both internal and external cues, he continued. “For most of us this process requires low-level cognitive engagement. However, in the [Down syndrome] population, where motor control is impaired and accompanied by poor muscle tone, walking imposes a heightened cognitive load.” It requires them to concentrate on the action, be aware of their surroundings, and make the right decisions, all of which stimulate areas of the brain that control these functions.
 

Study details

Eighty-three adult participants were available for final analysis – 67 from North America, 8 from Europe, 5 from Africa, 2 from Asia, and 1 from Australia. The mean age of participants was 27.1 years, 40 were female, and all had caregiver support during the study.

Those unable to visualize information on computer and mobile/tablet screens or to listen to instructions/auditory cues were excluded. All were provided with instructions and a mobile monitoring tool set to record steps completed, distances covered, speeds, and heart rate.

Each was assigned to one of four groups. Exercise intervention-only consisted of 8 weeks of cardiorespiratory exercise defined as either walking or jogging three times a week for 30 minutes. Cognitive training included eight levels (about 20 minutes) of cognitive and executive function exercises six times per week. The combined group completed both the cardiorespiratory and cognitive interventions, while the fourth group acted as controls with no intervention.

According to the authors, the study offers a real-life scenario that can be readily adopted within the Down syndrome community.

This study was commissioned by the Canadian Down Syndrome Society. The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

In the first study of its kind, U.K. and French researchers reported that exercise positively affected physical and cognitive health in persons with Down syndrome. “The findings are significant and offer a crucial challenge to the [Down syndrome] and wider societies,” wrote a team led by Dan Gordon, PhD, associate professor of cardiorespiratory exercise physiology at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England. “Impact of Prescribed Exercise on the Physical and Cognitive Health of Adults with Down Syndrome: The MinDSets Study” was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

“Through the simple application of walking, a form of exercise which requires little to no equipment or expense, there were significant increases in cognitive and executive function, reflecting improved capabilities in key attributes of information processing, vigilance, and selective attention,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Gordon

“Increased cognitive function will help foster increased societal integration and quality of life, which, given that this is the first generation of those with [Down syndrome] to outlive their parents and caregivers, is of importance,” they wrote.

For example, those in an exercise-only intervention arm had an 11.4% improvement on the distance covered in the Six-Minute Walk Test, going from a mean of 498.8 meters before intervention to 522.1 meters afterward. Those in a group that combined group exercise with cognitive training increased the distance walked by 9.9%, or 49.2 meters. Groups that got cognitive training only or no intervention showed no significant changes.

In measures of cognitive function, the exercise group showed a 38% increase in selective attention, with the cognitive and combined groups showing changes for the same measure of 16.5% and 55.3%, respectively. The changes for concentration in the exercise-alone group was 31.5%, while those receiving cognitive training alone or combined exercise plus cognitive training showed improvements in concentration of 21% and 15%, respectively.

Asked why a combination intervention was not superior to exercise alone, Dr. Gordon said in an interview, “Something we’re looking at in the data but can’t fully confirm is that the combined group started to become fatigued due to the double dose of the intervention, and this prevented them in the final tests from doing quite so well as the exercise-alone group. Irrespective of the magnitude of change, any cognitive adaptation observed will be beneficial to this population.”

The evidence for the benefits of exercise on both physical and cognitive health in a non–Down syndrome population are well established, he said, but there were few data on its effect on the Down syndrome population.

One small study showed physical and neurocognitive benefits with resistance training.

“The evidence from previous studies showed increased levels of inactivity and sitting time in Down syndrome individuals compared with non–[Down syndrome] controls, so we hypothesized that exercise, albeit small amounts, would increase their physical fitness,” Dr. Gordon said.

His team also hypothesized that walking would stimulate cognitive development since it requires heightened cognitive engagement compared with inactivity. “What surprised us was the degree of improvement,” Dr. Gordon said.

The process of walking requires the brain to interpret information on a real-time basis from both internal and external cues, he continued. “For most of us this process requires low-level cognitive engagement. However, in the [Down syndrome] population, where motor control is impaired and accompanied by poor muscle tone, walking imposes a heightened cognitive load.” It requires them to concentrate on the action, be aware of their surroundings, and make the right decisions, all of which stimulate areas of the brain that control these functions.
 

Study details

Eighty-three adult participants were available for final analysis – 67 from North America, 8 from Europe, 5 from Africa, 2 from Asia, and 1 from Australia. The mean age of participants was 27.1 years, 40 were female, and all had caregiver support during the study.

Those unable to visualize information on computer and mobile/tablet screens or to listen to instructions/auditory cues were excluded. All were provided with instructions and a mobile monitoring tool set to record steps completed, distances covered, speeds, and heart rate.

Each was assigned to one of four groups. Exercise intervention-only consisted of 8 weeks of cardiorespiratory exercise defined as either walking or jogging three times a week for 30 minutes. Cognitive training included eight levels (about 20 minutes) of cognitive and executive function exercises six times per week. The combined group completed both the cardiorespiratory and cognitive interventions, while the fourth group acted as controls with no intervention.

According to the authors, the study offers a real-life scenario that can be readily adopted within the Down syndrome community.

This study was commissioned by the Canadian Down Syndrome Society. The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

In the first study of its kind, U.K. and French researchers reported that exercise positively affected physical and cognitive health in persons with Down syndrome. “The findings are significant and offer a crucial challenge to the [Down syndrome] and wider societies,” wrote a team led by Dan Gordon, PhD, associate professor of cardiorespiratory exercise physiology at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England. “Impact of Prescribed Exercise on the Physical and Cognitive Health of Adults with Down Syndrome: The MinDSets Study” was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

“Through the simple application of walking, a form of exercise which requires little to no equipment or expense, there were significant increases in cognitive and executive function, reflecting improved capabilities in key attributes of information processing, vigilance, and selective attention,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Gordon

“Increased cognitive function will help foster increased societal integration and quality of life, which, given that this is the first generation of those with [Down syndrome] to outlive their parents and caregivers, is of importance,” they wrote.

For example, those in an exercise-only intervention arm had an 11.4% improvement on the distance covered in the Six-Minute Walk Test, going from a mean of 498.8 meters before intervention to 522.1 meters afterward. Those in a group that combined group exercise with cognitive training increased the distance walked by 9.9%, or 49.2 meters. Groups that got cognitive training only or no intervention showed no significant changes.

In measures of cognitive function, the exercise group showed a 38% increase in selective attention, with the cognitive and combined groups showing changes for the same measure of 16.5% and 55.3%, respectively. The changes for concentration in the exercise-alone group was 31.5%, while those receiving cognitive training alone or combined exercise plus cognitive training showed improvements in concentration of 21% and 15%, respectively.

Asked why a combination intervention was not superior to exercise alone, Dr. Gordon said in an interview, “Something we’re looking at in the data but can’t fully confirm is that the combined group started to become fatigued due to the double dose of the intervention, and this prevented them in the final tests from doing quite so well as the exercise-alone group. Irrespective of the magnitude of change, any cognitive adaptation observed will be beneficial to this population.”

The evidence for the benefits of exercise on both physical and cognitive health in a non–Down syndrome population are well established, he said, but there were few data on its effect on the Down syndrome population.

One small study showed physical and neurocognitive benefits with resistance training.

“The evidence from previous studies showed increased levels of inactivity and sitting time in Down syndrome individuals compared with non–[Down syndrome] controls, so we hypothesized that exercise, albeit small amounts, would increase their physical fitness,” Dr. Gordon said.

His team also hypothesized that walking would stimulate cognitive development since it requires heightened cognitive engagement compared with inactivity. “What surprised us was the degree of improvement,” Dr. Gordon said.

The process of walking requires the brain to interpret information on a real-time basis from both internal and external cues, he continued. “For most of us this process requires low-level cognitive engagement. However, in the [Down syndrome] population, where motor control is impaired and accompanied by poor muscle tone, walking imposes a heightened cognitive load.” It requires them to concentrate on the action, be aware of their surroundings, and make the right decisions, all of which stimulate areas of the brain that control these functions.
 

Study details

Eighty-three adult participants were available for final analysis – 67 from North America, 8 from Europe, 5 from Africa, 2 from Asia, and 1 from Australia. The mean age of participants was 27.1 years, 40 were female, and all had caregiver support during the study.

Those unable to visualize information on computer and mobile/tablet screens or to listen to instructions/auditory cues were excluded. All were provided with instructions and a mobile monitoring tool set to record steps completed, distances covered, speeds, and heart rate.

Each was assigned to one of four groups. Exercise intervention-only consisted of 8 weeks of cardiorespiratory exercise defined as either walking or jogging three times a week for 30 minutes. Cognitive training included eight levels (about 20 minutes) of cognitive and executive function exercises six times per week. The combined group completed both the cardiorespiratory and cognitive interventions, while the fourth group acted as controls with no intervention.

According to the authors, the study offers a real-life scenario that can be readily adopted within the Down syndrome community.

This study was commissioned by the Canadian Down Syndrome Society. The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

A novel prognostic tool based on social determinants effectively predicted increased risk of alcohol use relapse in adults who underwent liver transplants for alcoholic liver disease, based on data from 140 individuals.

Alcohol relapse after liver transplant ranges from 4% to as high as 95% among patients with alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and better tools are needed to identify those at increased risk, Jiten P. Kothadia, MD, of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, said in a presentation given in October at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Dr. Kothadia and colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of the Social Determinant Acuity Tool (S-DAT), which stratified patients in terms of successful post-liver transplant outcomes from excellent (S-DAT scores 0-6) to poor candidates (scores 35-40). The S-DAT categories included cognitive function, mental health, social support, coping skills, financial status, compliance, alcohol abuse, substance abuse, reliability, legal issues, understanding the transplant process, and desire for transplant.

The study population included 140 adults with alcoholic liver disease who underwent a liver transplant between January 2016 and November 2021 at a single center. Before surgery, all patients underwent a thorough psychosocial evaluation using the S-DAT. The mean age of the participants was 53.4 years, 107 were male, and 67.9% had abstained from alcohol for more than 6 months prior to transplant.

The primary outcome of post-liver transplant alcohol relapse was defined as any alcohol use regardless of the amount or frequency, based on patient interviews or blood or urine tests.

Overall, the rate of relapse was 23.6%; and the rate within a year was 18.6%. In a multivariate analysis, S-DAT score was a significant predictor of relapse (odds ratio [OR] 1.65, P = .000). Other independent predictors of relapse were post-LT alcohol treatment (OR 7.11, P = .02), smoking history (OR 0.15, P = .03), and marital status (OR 60.28, P = .000). The area under the receiver operative curves (AUROC) for the S-DAT score to predict alcohol relapse within 1 year after LT was 0.77.

The sensitivity of the S-DAT for predicting relapse risk was 96.2%, and specificity was 40.4%; positive and negative predictive values were 26.9% and 97.9%, respectively.

The high sensitivity and negative predictive values of the S-DAT make it a useful screening tool for identifying patients at low risk of alcohol relapse after a liver transplant, Dr. Kothadia said in an interview. “Our score will guide risk-based interventions post-LT to reduce post-LT relapse and improve long-term outcomes.”

The findings included only data from a single center, which may limit generalizability, Dr. Kothadia said. The tool is not yet clinically available, he noted.

“We would like to perform external validation of our S-DAT score as it stresses the importance of these psychosocial variables,” and to confirm the findings in larger, multicenter, prospective clinical trials, he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Kothadia indicated no relevant financial relationships.

A novel prognostic tool based on social determinants effectively predicted increased risk of alcohol use relapse in adults who underwent liver transplants for alcoholic liver disease, based on data from 140 individuals.

Alcohol relapse after liver transplant ranges from 4% to as high as 95% among patients with alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and better tools are needed to identify those at increased risk, Jiten P. Kothadia, MD, of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, said in a presentation given in October at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Dr. Kothadia and colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of the Social Determinant Acuity Tool (S-DAT), which stratified patients in terms of successful post-liver transplant outcomes from excellent (S-DAT scores 0-6) to poor candidates (scores 35-40). The S-DAT categories included cognitive function, mental health, social support, coping skills, financial status, compliance, alcohol abuse, substance abuse, reliability, legal issues, understanding the transplant process, and desire for transplant.

The study population included 140 adults with alcoholic liver disease who underwent a liver transplant between January 2016 and November 2021 at a single center. Before surgery, all patients underwent a thorough psychosocial evaluation using the S-DAT. The mean age of the participants was 53.4 years, 107 were male, and 67.9% had abstained from alcohol for more than 6 months prior to transplant.

The primary outcome of post-liver transplant alcohol relapse was defined as any alcohol use regardless of the amount or frequency, based on patient interviews or blood or urine tests.

Overall, the rate of relapse was 23.6%; and the rate within a year was 18.6%. In a multivariate analysis, S-DAT score was a significant predictor of relapse (odds ratio [OR] 1.65, P = .000). Other independent predictors of relapse were post-LT alcohol treatment (OR 7.11, P = .02), smoking history (OR 0.15, P = .03), and marital status (OR 60.28, P = .000). The area under the receiver operative curves (AUROC) for the S-DAT score to predict alcohol relapse within 1 year after LT was 0.77.

The sensitivity of the S-DAT for predicting relapse risk was 96.2%, and specificity was 40.4%; positive and negative predictive values were 26.9% and 97.9%, respectively.

The high sensitivity and negative predictive values of the S-DAT make it a useful screening tool for identifying patients at low risk of alcohol relapse after a liver transplant, Dr. Kothadia said in an interview. “Our score will guide risk-based interventions post-LT to reduce post-LT relapse and improve long-term outcomes.”

The findings included only data from a single center, which may limit generalizability, Dr. Kothadia said. The tool is not yet clinically available, he noted.

“We would like to perform external validation of our S-DAT score as it stresses the importance of these psychosocial variables,” and to confirm the findings in larger, multicenter, prospective clinical trials, he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Kothadia indicated no relevant financial relationships.

A novel prognostic tool based on social determinants effectively predicted increased risk of alcohol use relapse in adults who underwent liver transplants for alcoholic liver disease, based on data from 140 individuals.

Alcohol relapse after liver transplant ranges from 4% to as high as 95% among patients with alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and better tools are needed to identify those at increased risk, Jiten P. Kothadia, MD, of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, said in a presentation given in October at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Dr. Kothadia and colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of the Social Determinant Acuity Tool (S-DAT), which stratified patients in terms of successful post-liver transplant outcomes from excellent (S-DAT scores 0-6) to poor candidates (scores 35-40). The S-DAT categories included cognitive function, mental health, social support, coping skills, financial status, compliance, alcohol abuse, substance abuse, reliability, legal issues, understanding the transplant process, and desire for transplant.

The study population included 140 adults with alcoholic liver disease who underwent a liver transplant between January 2016 and November 2021 at a single center. Before surgery, all patients underwent a thorough psychosocial evaluation using the S-DAT. The mean age of the participants was 53.4 years, 107 were male, and 67.9% had abstained from alcohol for more than 6 months prior to transplant.

The primary outcome of post-liver transplant alcohol relapse was defined as any alcohol use regardless of the amount or frequency, based on patient interviews or blood or urine tests.

Overall, the rate of relapse was 23.6%; and the rate within a year was 18.6%. In a multivariate analysis, S-DAT score was a significant predictor of relapse (odds ratio [OR] 1.65, P = .000). Other independent predictors of relapse were post-LT alcohol treatment (OR 7.11, P = .02), smoking history (OR 0.15, P = .03), and marital status (OR 60.28, P = .000). The area under the receiver operative curves (AUROC) for the S-DAT score to predict alcohol relapse within 1 year after LT was 0.77.

The sensitivity of the S-DAT for predicting relapse risk was 96.2%, and specificity was 40.4%; positive and negative predictive values were 26.9% and 97.9%, respectively.

The high sensitivity and negative predictive values of the S-DAT make it a useful screening tool for identifying patients at low risk of alcohol relapse after a liver transplant, Dr. Kothadia said in an interview. “Our score will guide risk-based interventions post-LT to reduce post-LT relapse and improve long-term outcomes.”

The findings included only data from a single center, which may limit generalizability, Dr. Kothadia said. The tool is not yet clinically available, he noted.

“We would like to perform external validation of our S-DAT score as it stresses the importance of these psychosocial variables,” and to confirm the findings in larger, multicenter, prospective clinical trials, he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Kothadia indicated no relevant financial relationships.

Cutaneous malignant melanoma represents an aggressive form of skin cancer, with 132,000 new cases of melanoma and 50,000 melanoma-related deaths diagnosed worldwide each year.¹ In recent decades, major progress has been made in the treatment of melanoma, especially metastatic and advanced-stage disease. Approval of new treatments, such as immunotherapy with anti–PD-1 (pembrolizumab and nivolumab) and anti–CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) antibodies, has revolutionized therapeutic strategies (Figure 1). Molecularly, melanoma has the highest mutational burden among solid tumors. Approximately 40% of melanomas harbor the BRAF V600 mutation, leading to constitutive activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway.² The other described genomic subtypes are mutated RAS (accounting for approximately 28% of cases), mutated NF1 (approximately 14% of cases), and triple wild type, though these other subtypes have not been as successfully targeted with therapy to date.³ Dual inhibition of this pathway using combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors confers high response rates and survival benefit, though efficacy in metastatic patients often is limited by development of resistance. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 3 combinations of targeted therapy in unresectable tumors: dabrafenib and trametinib, vemurafenib and cobimetinib, and encorafenib and binimetinib. The oncolytic herpesvirus talimogene laherparepvec also has received FDA approval for local treatment of unresectable cutaneous, subcutaneous, and nodal lesions in patients with recurrent melanoma after initial surgery.²

In this review, we explore new therapeutic agents and novel combinations that are being tested in early-phase clinical trials (Table). We discuss newer promising tools such as nanotechnology to develop nanosystems that act as drug carriers and/or light absorbents to potentially improve therapy outcomes. Finally, we highlight challenges such as management after resistance and intervention with novel immunotherapies and the lack of predictive biomarkers to stratify patients to targeted treatments after primary treatment failure.

Targeted Therapies

Vemurafenib was approved by the FDA in 2011 and was the first BRAF-targeted therapy approved for the treatment of melanoma based on a 48% response rate and a 63% reduction in the risk for death vs dacarbazine chemotherapy.⁴ Despite a rapid and clinically significant initial response, progression-free survival (PFS) was only 5.3 months, which is indicative of the rapid development of resistance with monotherapy through MAPK reactivation. As a result, combined BRAF and MEK inhibition was introduced and is now the standard of care for targeted therapy in melanoma. Treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib, vemurafenib and cobimetinib, or encorafenib and binimetinib is associated with prolonged PFS and overall survival (OS) compared to BRAF inhibitor monotherapy, with response rates exceeding 60% and a complete response rate of 10% to 18%.⁵ Recently, combining atezolizumab with vemurafenib and cobimetinib was shown to improve PFS compared to combined targeted therapy.⁶ Targeted therapy usually is given as first-line treatment to symptomatic patients with a high tumor burden because the response may be more rapid than the response to immunotherapy. Ultimately, most patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma receive both targeted therapy and immunotherapy.

Mutations of KIT (encoding proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase) activate intracellular MAPK and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathways (Figure 2).⁷ KIT mutations are found in mucosal and acral melanomas as well as chronically sun-damaged skin, with frequencies of 39%, 36%, and 28%, respectively. Imatinib was associated with a 53% response rate and PFS of 3.9 months among patients with KIT-mutated melanoma but failed to cause regression in melanomas with KIT amplification.⁸

Anti–CTLA-4 Immune Checkpoint Inhibition

CTLA-4 is a protein found on T cells that binds with another protein, B7, preventing T cells from killing cancer cells. Hence, blockade of CTLA-4 antibody avoids the immunosuppressive state of lymphocytes, strengthening their antitumor action.⁹ Ipilimumab, an anti–CTLA-4 antibody, demonstrated improvement in median OS for management of unresectable or metastatic stage IV melanoma, resulting in its FDA approval.⁸ A combination of ipilimumab with dacarbazine in stage IV melanoma showed notable improvement of OS.¹⁰ Similarly, tremelimumab showed evidence of tumor regression in a phase 1 trial but with more severe immune-related side effects compared with ipilimumab.¹¹ A second study on patients with stage IV melanoma treated with tremelimumab as first-line therapy in comparison with dacarbazine demonstrated differences in OS that were not statistically significant, though there was a longer duration of an objective response in patients treated with tremelimumab (35.8 months) compared with patients responding to dacarbazine (13.7 months).¹²

Anti–PD-1 Immune Checkpoint Inhibition

PD-1 is a transmembrane protein with immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory signaling, identified as an apoptosis-associated molecule.¹³ Upon activation, it is expressed on the cell surface of CD4, CD8, B lymphocytes, natural killer cells, monocytes, and dendritic cells.¹⁴ PD-L1, the ligand of PD-1, is constitutively expressed on different hematopoietic cells, as well as on fibroblasts, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, neurons, and keratinocytes.^15,16 Reactivation of effector T lymphocytes by PD-1:PD-L1 pathway inhibition has shown clinically significant therapeutic relevance.¹⁷ The PD-1:PD-L1 interaction is active only in the presence of T- or B-cell antigen receptor cross-link. This interaction prevents PI3K/AKT signaling and MAPK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway activation with the net result of lymphocytic functional exhaustion.^18,19 PD-L1 blockade is shown to have better clinical benefit and minor toxicity compared to anti–CTLA-4 therapy. Treatment with anti-PD1 nivolumab in a phase 1b clinical trial (N=107) demonstrated highly specific action, durable tumor remission, and long-term safety in 32% of patients with advanced melanoma.²⁰ These promising results led to the FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with advanced and unresponsive melanoma. A recent clinical trial combining ipilimumab and nivolumab resulted in an impressive increase of PFS compared with ipilimumab monotherapy (11.5 months vs 2.9 months).²¹ Similarly, treatment with pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma demonstrated improvement in PFS and OS compared with anti–CTLA-4 therapy,^22,23 which resulted in FDA approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of advanced melanoma in patients previously treated with ipilimumab or BRAF inhibitors in BRAF V600 mutation–positive patients.²⁴

Lymphocyte-Activated Gene 3–Targeted Therapies

Lymphocyte-activated gene 3 (LAG-3)(also known as CD223 or FDC protein) is a type of immune checkpoint receptor transmembrane protein that is located on chromosome 12.²⁵ It is present on the surface of effector T cells and regulatory T cells that regulate the adaptive immune response.²⁶ Lymphocyte-activated gene 3 is reported to be highly expressed on the surface of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, thus the level of LAG-3 expression was found to corelate with the prognosis of tumors. In some tumors involving the kidneys, lungs, and bladder, a high level of LAG-3 was associated with a worse prognosis; in gastric carcinoma and melanoma, a high level of LAG-3 indicates better prognosis.²⁷ Similar to PD-1, LAG-3 also is found to be an inhibitory checkpoint that contributes to decreased T cells. Therefore, antibodies targeting LAG-3 have been gaining interest as modalities in cancer immunotherapy. The initial clinical trials employing only LAG-3 antibody on solid tumors found an objective response rate and disease control rate of 6% and 17%, respectively.^25,26,28 Given the unsatisfactory results, the idea that combination therapy with an anti–PD-L1 drug and LAG-3 antibody started gaining attention. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial, RELATIVITY-047, studying the effects of a combination of relatlimab (a first-in-class LAG-3 antibody) and nivolumab (an anti–PD-L1 antibody) on melanoma found longer PFS (10.1 months vs 4.6 months) and a 25% lower risk for disease progression or death with the combination of relatlimab and nivolumab vs nivolumab alone.²⁸ The FDA approved the combination of relatlimab and nivolumab for individuals aged 12 years or older with previously untreated melanoma that is surgically unresectable or has metastasized.²⁹ Zhao et al³⁰ demonstrated that LAG-3/PD-1 and CTLA-4/PD-1 inhibition showed similar PFS, and LAG-3/PD-1 inhibition showed earlier survival benefit and fewer treatment-related adverse effects, with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse effects occurring in 18.9% of patients on anti–LAG-3 and anti–PD-1 combination (relatlimab plus nivolumab) compared with 55.0% in patients treated with anti–CTL-4 and anti–PD-1 combination (ipilimumab plus nivolumab)(N=1344). Further studies are warranted to understand the exact mechanism of LAG-3 signaling pathways, effects of its inhibition and efficacy, and adverse events associated with its combined use with anti–PD-1 drugs.

The use of nanotechnology represents one of the newer alternative therapies employed for treatment of melanoma and is especially gaining interest due to reduced adverse effects in comparison with other conventional treatments for melanoma. Nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems precisely target tumor cells and improve the effect of both the conventional and innovative antineoplastic treatment.^27,31 Tumor vasculature differs from normal tissues by being discontinuous and having interspersed small gaps/holes that allow nanoparticles to exit the circulation and enter and accumulate in the tumor tissue, leading to enhanced and targeted release of the antineoplastic drug to tumor cells.³² This mechanism is called the enhanced permeability and retention effect.³³

Another mechanism by which nanoparticles work is ligand-based targeting in which ligands such as monoclonal antibodies, peptides, and nucleic acids located on the surface of nanoparticles can bind to receptors on the plasma membrane of tumor cells and lead to targeted delivery of the drug.³⁴ Nanomaterials used for melanoma treatment include vesicular systems such as liposomes and niosomes, polymeric nanoparticles, noble metal-based nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, dendrimers, solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructures, lipid carriers, and microneedles. In melanoma, nanoparticles can be used to enhance targeted delivery of drugs, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Cai et al³⁵ described usage of scaffolds in delivery systems. Tumor-associated antigens, adjuvant drugs, and chemical agents that influence the tumor microenvironment can be loaded onto these scaffolding agents. In a study by Zhu et al,³⁶ photosensitizer chlorin e6 and immunoadjuvant aluminum hydroxide were used as a novel nanosystem that effectively destroyed tumor cells and induced a strong systemic antitumor response. IL-2 is a cytokine produced by B or T lymphocytes. Its use in melanoma has been limited by a severe adverse effect profile and lack of complete response in most patients. Cytokine-containing nanogels have been found to selectively release IL-2 in response to activation of T-cell receptors, and a mouse model in melanoma showed better response compared to free IL-1 and no adverse systemic effects.³⁷

Nanovaccines represent another interesting novel immunotherapy modality. A study by Conniot et al³⁸ showed that nanoparticles can be used in the treatment of melanoma. Nanoparticles made of biodegradable polymer were loaded with Melan-A/MART-1 (26–35 A27L) MHC class I-restricted peptide (MHC class I antigen), and the limited peptide MHC class II Melan-A/MART-1 51–73 (MHC class II antigen) and grafted with mannose that was then combined with an anti–PD-L1 antibody and injected into mouse models. This combination resulted in T-cell infiltration at early stages and increased infiltration of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Ibrutinib, a myeloid-derived suppressor cell inhibitor, was added and demonstrated marked tumor remission and prolonged survival.³⁸

Overexpression of certain microRNAs (miRNAs), especially miR-204-5p and miR-199b-5p, has been shown to inhibit growth of melanoma cells in vitro, both alone and in combination with MAPK inhibitors, but these miRNAs are easily degradable in body fluids. Lipid nanoparticles can bind these miRNAs and have been shown to inhibit tumor cell proliferation and improve efficacy of BRAF and MEK inhibitors.³⁹

Triple-Combination Therapy

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti–PD-1 or anti–CTLA-4 drugs have become the standard of care in treatment of advanced melanoma. Approximately 40% to 50% of cases of melanoma harbor BRAF mutations, and patients with these mutations could benefit from BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Data from clinical trials on BRAF and MEK inhibitors even showed initial high objective response rates, but the response was short-lived, and there was frequent acquired resistance.⁴⁰ With ICIs, the major limitation was primary resistance, with only 50% of patients initially responding.⁴¹ Studies on murine models demonstrated that BRAF-mutated tumors had decreased expression of IFN-γ, tumor necrosis factor α, and CD40 ligand on CD4⁺ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and increased accumulation of regulatory T cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells, leading to a protumor microenvironment. BRAF and MEK pathway inhibition were found to improve intratumoral CD4⁺ T-cell activity, leading to improved antitumor T-cell responses.⁴² Because of this enhanced immune response by BRAF and MEK inhibitors, it was hypothesized and later supported by clinical research that a combination of these targeted treatments and ICIs can have a synergistic effect, leading to increased antitumor activity.⁴³ A randomized phase 2 clinical trial (KEYNOTE-022) in which the treatment group was given pembrolizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib and the control group was treated with dabrafenib and trametinib showed increased medial OS in the treatment group vs the control group (46.3 months vs 26.3 months) and more frequent complete response in the treatment group vs the control group (20% vs 15%).⁴⁴ In the IMspire150 phase 3 clinical trial, patients with advanced stage IIIC to IV BRAF-mutant melanoma were treated with either a triple combination of the PDL-1 inhibitor atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib or vemurafenib and cobimetinib. Although the objective response rate was similar in both groups, the median duration of response was longer in the triplet group compared with the doublet group (21 months vs 12.6 months). Given these results, the FDA approved the triple-combination therapy with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib. Although triple-combination therapy has shown promising results, it is expected that there will be an increase in the frequency of treatment-related adverse effects. In the phase 3 COMBi-I study, patients with advanced stage IIIC to IV BRAF V600E mutant cutaneous melanoma were treated with either a combination of spartalizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib or just dabrafenib and trametinib. Although the objective response rates were not significantly different (69% vs 64%), there was increased frequency of treatment-related adverse effects in patients receiving triple-combination therapy.⁴³ As more follow-up data come out of these ongoing clinical trials, benefits of triple-combination therapy and its adverse effect profile will be more definitely established.

Challenges and Future Perspectives

One of the major roadblocks in the treatment of melanoma is the failure of response to ICI with CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in a large patient population, which has resulted in the need for new biomarkers that can act as potential therapeutic targets. Further, the main underlying factor for both adjuvant and neoadjuvant approaches remains the selection of patients, optimizing therapeutic outcomes while minimizing the number of patients exposed to potentially toxic treatments without gaining clinical benefit. Clinical and pathological factors (eg, Breslow thickness, ulceration, the number of positive lymph nodes) play a role in stratifying patients as per risk of recurrence.⁴⁵ Similarly, peripheral blood biomarkers have been proposed as prognostic tools for high-risk stage II and III melanoma, including markers of systemic inflammation previously explored in the metastatic setting.⁴⁶ However, the use of these parameters has not been validated for clinical practice. Currently, despite promising results of BRAF and MEK inhibitors and therapeutic ICIs, as well as IL-2 or interferon alfa, treatment options in metastatic melanoma are limited because of its high heterogeneity, problematic patient stratification, and high genetic mutational rate. Recently, the role of epigenetic modifications andmiRNAs in melanoma progression and metastatic spread has been described. Silencing of CDKN2A locus and encoding for p16^INK4A and p14^ARF by DNA methylation are noted in 27% and 57% of metastatic melanomas, respectively, which enables melanoma cells to escape from growth arrest and apoptosis generated by Rb protein and p53 pathways.⁴⁷ Demethylation of these and other tumor suppressor genes with proapoptotic function (eg, RASSF1A and tumor necrosis factor–related apoptosis-inducing ligand) can restore cell death pathways, though future clinical studies in melanoma are warranted.⁴⁸

Cutaneous malignant melanoma represents an aggressive form of skin cancer, with 132,000 new cases of melanoma and 50,000 melanoma-related deaths diagnosed worldwide each year.¹ In recent decades, major progress has been made in the treatment of melanoma, especially metastatic and advanced-stage disease. Approval of new treatments, such as immunotherapy with anti–PD-1 (pembrolizumab and nivolumab) and anti–CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) antibodies, has revolutionized therapeutic strategies (Figure 1). Molecularly, melanoma has the highest mutational burden among solid tumors. Approximately 40% of melanomas harbor the BRAF V600 mutation, leading to constitutive activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway.² The other described genomic subtypes are mutated RAS (accounting for approximately 28% of cases), mutated NF1 (approximately 14% of cases), and triple wild type, though these other subtypes have not been as successfully targeted with therapy to date.³ Dual inhibition of this pathway using combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors confers high response rates and survival benefit, though efficacy in metastatic patients often is limited by development of resistance. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 3 combinations of targeted therapy in unresectable tumors: dabrafenib and trametinib, vemurafenib and cobimetinib, and encorafenib and binimetinib. The oncolytic herpesvirus talimogene laherparepvec also has received FDA approval for local treatment of unresectable cutaneous, subcutaneous, and nodal lesions in patients with recurrent melanoma after initial surgery.²

In this review, we explore new therapeutic agents and novel combinations that are being tested in early-phase clinical trials (Table). We discuss newer promising tools such as nanotechnology to develop nanosystems that act as drug carriers and/or light absorbents to potentially improve therapy outcomes. Finally, we highlight challenges such as management after resistance and intervention with novel immunotherapies and the lack of predictive biomarkers to stratify patients to targeted treatments after primary treatment failure.

Targeted Therapies

Vemurafenib was approved by the FDA in 2011 and was the first BRAF-targeted therapy approved for the treatment of melanoma based on a 48% response rate and a 63% reduction in the risk for death vs dacarbazine chemotherapy.⁴ Despite a rapid and clinically significant initial response, progression-free survival (PFS) was only 5.3 months, which is indicative of the rapid development of resistance with monotherapy through MAPK reactivation. As a result, combined BRAF and MEK inhibition was introduced and is now the standard of care for targeted therapy in melanoma. Treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib, vemurafenib and cobimetinib, or encorafenib and binimetinib is associated with prolonged PFS and overall survival (OS) compared to BRAF inhibitor monotherapy, with response rates exceeding 60% and a complete response rate of 10% to 18%.⁵ Recently, combining atezolizumab with vemurafenib and cobimetinib was shown to improve PFS compared to combined targeted therapy.⁶ Targeted therapy usually is given as first-line treatment to symptomatic patients with a high tumor burden because the response may be more rapid than the response to immunotherapy. Ultimately, most patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma receive both targeted therapy and immunotherapy.

Mutations of KIT (encoding proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase) activate intracellular MAPK and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathways (Figure 2).⁷ KIT mutations are found in mucosal and acral melanomas as well as chronically sun-damaged skin, with frequencies of 39%, 36%, and 28%, respectively. Imatinib was associated with a 53% response rate and PFS of 3.9 months among patients with KIT-mutated melanoma but failed to cause regression in melanomas with KIT amplification.⁸

Anti–CTLA-4 Immune Checkpoint Inhibition

CTLA-4 is a protein found on T cells that binds with another protein, B7, preventing T cells from killing cancer cells. Hence, blockade of CTLA-4 antibody avoids the immunosuppressive state of lymphocytes, strengthening their antitumor action.⁹ Ipilimumab, an anti–CTLA-4 antibody, demonstrated improvement in median OS for management of unresectable or metastatic stage IV melanoma, resulting in its FDA approval.⁸ A combination of ipilimumab with dacarbazine in stage IV melanoma showed notable improvement of OS.¹⁰ Similarly, tremelimumab showed evidence of tumor regression in a phase 1 trial but with more severe immune-related side effects compared with ipilimumab.¹¹ A second study on patients with stage IV melanoma treated with tremelimumab as first-line therapy in comparison with dacarbazine demonstrated differences in OS that were not statistically significant, though there was a longer duration of an objective response in patients treated with tremelimumab (35.8 months) compared with patients responding to dacarbazine (13.7 months).¹²

Anti–PD-1 Immune Checkpoint Inhibition

PD-1 is a transmembrane protein with immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory signaling, identified as an apoptosis-associated molecule.¹³ Upon activation, it is expressed on the cell surface of CD4, CD8, B lymphocytes, natural killer cells, monocytes, and dendritic cells.¹⁴ PD-L1, the ligand of PD-1, is constitutively expressed on different hematopoietic cells, as well as on fibroblasts, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, neurons, and keratinocytes.^15,16 Reactivation of effector T lymphocytes by PD-1:PD-L1 pathway inhibition has shown clinically significant therapeutic relevance.¹⁷ The PD-1:PD-L1 interaction is active only in the presence of T- or B-cell antigen receptor cross-link. This interaction prevents PI3K/AKT signaling and MAPK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway activation with the net result of lymphocytic functional exhaustion.^18,19 PD-L1 blockade is shown to have better clinical benefit and minor toxicity compared to anti–CTLA-4 therapy. Treatment with anti-PD1 nivolumab in a phase 1b clinical trial (N=107) demonstrated highly specific action, durable tumor remission, and long-term safety in 32% of patients with advanced melanoma.²⁰ These promising results led to the FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with advanced and unresponsive melanoma. A recent clinical trial combining ipilimumab and nivolumab resulted in an impressive increase of PFS compared with ipilimumab monotherapy (11.5 months vs 2.9 months).²¹ Similarly, treatment with pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma demonstrated improvement in PFS and OS compared with anti–CTLA-4 therapy,^22,23 which resulted in FDA approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of advanced melanoma in patients previously treated with ipilimumab or BRAF inhibitors in BRAF V600 mutation–positive patients.²⁴

Lymphocyte-Activated Gene 3–Targeted Therapies

Lymphocyte-activated gene 3 (LAG-3)(also known as CD223 or FDC protein) is a type of immune checkpoint receptor transmembrane protein that is located on chromosome 12.²⁵ It is present on the surface of effector T cells and regulatory T cells that regulate the adaptive immune response.²⁶ Lymphocyte-activated gene 3 is reported to be highly expressed on the surface of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, thus the level of LAG-3 expression was found to corelate with the prognosis of tumors. In some tumors involving the kidneys, lungs, and bladder, a high level of LAG-3 was associated with a worse prognosis; in gastric carcinoma and melanoma, a high level of LAG-3 indicates better prognosis.²⁷ Similar to PD-1, LAG-3 also is found to be an inhibitory checkpoint that contributes to decreased T cells. Therefore, antibodies targeting LAG-3 have been gaining interest as modalities in cancer immunotherapy. The initial clinical trials employing only LAG-3 antibody on solid tumors found an objective response rate and disease control rate of 6% and 17%, respectively.^25,26,28 Given the unsatisfactory results, the idea that combination therapy with an anti–PD-L1 drug and LAG-3 antibody started gaining attention. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial, RELATIVITY-047, studying the effects of a combination of relatlimab (a first-in-class LAG-3 antibody) and nivolumab (an anti–PD-L1 antibody) on melanoma found longer PFS (10.1 months vs 4.6 months) and a 25% lower risk for disease progression or death with the combination of relatlimab and nivolumab vs nivolumab alone.²⁸ The FDA approved the combination of relatlimab and nivolumab for individuals aged 12 years or older with previously untreated melanoma that is surgically unresectable or has metastasized.²⁹ Zhao et al³⁰ demonstrated that LAG-3/PD-1 and CTLA-4/PD-1 inhibition showed similar PFS, and LAG-3/PD-1 inhibition showed earlier survival benefit and fewer treatment-related adverse effects, with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse effects occurring in 18.9% of patients on anti–LAG-3 and anti–PD-1 combination (relatlimab plus nivolumab) compared with 55.0% in patients treated with anti–CTL-4 and anti–PD-1 combination (ipilimumab plus nivolumab)(N=1344). Further studies are warranted to understand the exact mechanism of LAG-3 signaling pathways, effects of its inhibition and efficacy, and adverse events associated with its combined use with anti–PD-1 drugs.

The use of nanotechnology represents one of the newer alternative therapies employed for treatment of melanoma and is especially gaining interest due to reduced adverse effects in comparison with other conventional treatments for melanoma. Nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems precisely target tumor cells and improve the effect of both the conventional and innovative antineoplastic treatment.^27,31 Tumor vasculature differs from normal tissues by being discontinuous and having interspersed small gaps/holes that allow nanoparticles to exit the circulation and enter and accumulate in the tumor tissue, leading to enhanced and targeted release of the antineoplastic drug to tumor cells.³² This mechanism is called the enhanced permeability and retention effect.³³

Another mechanism by which nanoparticles work is ligand-based targeting in which ligands such as monoclonal antibodies, peptides, and nucleic acids located on the surface of nanoparticles can bind to receptors on the plasma membrane of tumor cells and lead to targeted delivery of the drug.³⁴ Nanomaterials used for melanoma treatment include vesicular systems such as liposomes and niosomes, polymeric nanoparticles, noble metal-based nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, dendrimers, solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructures, lipid carriers, and microneedles. In melanoma, nanoparticles can be used to enhance targeted delivery of drugs, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Cai et al³⁵ described usage of scaffolds in delivery systems. Tumor-associated antigens, adjuvant drugs, and chemical agents that influence the tumor microenvironment can be loaded onto these scaffolding agents. In a study by Zhu et al,³⁶ photosensitizer chlorin e6 and immunoadjuvant aluminum hydroxide were used as a novel nanosystem that effectively destroyed tumor cells and induced a strong systemic antitumor response. IL-2 is a cytokine produced by B or T lymphocytes. Its use in melanoma has been limited by a severe adverse effect profile and lack of complete response in most patients. Cytokine-containing nanogels have been found to selectively release IL-2 in response to activation of T-cell receptors, and a mouse model in melanoma showed better response compared to free IL-1 and no adverse systemic effects.³⁷

Nanovaccines represent another interesting novel immunotherapy modality. A study by Conniot et al³⁸ showed that nanoparticles can be used in the treatment of melanoma. Nanoparticles made of biodegradable polymer were loaded with Melan-A/MART-1 (26–35 A27L) MHC class I-restricted peptide (MHC class I antigen), and the limited peptide MHC class II Melan-A/MART-1 51–73 (MHC class II antigen) and grafted with mannose that was then combined with an anti–PD-L1 antibody and injected into mouse models. This combination resulted in T-cell infiltration at early stages and increased infiltration of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Ibrutinib, a myeloid-derived suppressor cell inhibitor, was added and demonstrated marked tumor remission and prolonged survival.³⁸

Overexpression of certain microRNAs (miRNAs), especially miR-204-5p and miR-199b-5p, has been shown to inhibit growth of melanoma cells in vitro, both alone and in combination with MAPK inhibitors, but these miRNAs are easily degradable in body fluids. Lipid nanoparticles can bind these miRNAs and have been shown to inhibit tumor cell proliferation and improve efficacy of BRAF and MEK inhibitors.³⁹

Triple-Combination Therapy

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti–PD-1 or anti–CTLA-4 drugs have become the standard of care in treatment of advanced melanoma. Approximately 40% to 50% of cases of melanoma harbor BRAF mutations, and patients with these mutations could benefit from BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Data from clinical trials on BRAF and MEK inhibitors even showed initial high objective response rates, but the response was short-lived, and there was frequent acquired resistance.⁴⁰ With ICIs, the major limitation was primary resistance, with only 50% of patients initially responding.⁴¹ Studies on murine models demonstrated that BRAF-mutated tumors had decreased expression of IFN-γ, tumor necrosis factor α, and CD40 ligand on CD4⁺ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and increased accumulation of regulatory T cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells, leading to a protumor microenvironment. BRAF and MEK pathway inhibition were found to improve intratumoral CD4⁺ T-cell activity, leading to improved antitumor T-cell responses.⁴² Because of this enhanced immune response by BRAF and MEK inhibitors, it was hypothesized and later supported by clinical research that a combination of these targeted treatments and ICIs can have a synergistic effect, leading to increased antitumor activity.⁴³ A randomized phase 2 clinical trial (KEYNOTE-022) in which the treatment group was given pembrolizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib and the control group was treated with dabrafenib and trametinib showed increased medial OS in the treatment group vs the control group (46.3 months vs 26.3 months) and more frequent complete response in the treatment group vs the control group (20% vs 15%).⁴⁴ In the IMspire150 phase 3 clinical trial, patients with advanced stage IIIC to IV BRAF-mutant melanoma were treated with either a triple combination of the PDL-1 inhibitor atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib or vemurafenib and cobimetinib. Although the objective response rate was similar in both groups, the median duration of response was longer in the triplet group compared with the doublet group (21 months vs 12.6 months). Given these results, the FDA approved the triple-combination therapy with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib. Although triple-combination therapy has shown promising results, it is expected that there will be an increase in the frequency of treatment-related adverse effects. In the phase 3 COMBi-I study, patients with advanced stage IIIC to IV BRAF V600E mutant cutaneous melanoma were treated with either a combination of spartalizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib or just dabrafenib and trametinib. Although the objective response rates were not significantly different (69% vs 64%), there was increased frequency of treatment-related adverse effects in patients receiving triple-combination therapy.⁴³ As more follow-up data come out of these ongoing clinical trials, benefits of triple-combination therapy and its adverse effect profile will be more definitely established.

Challenges and Future Perspectives

One of the major roadblocks in the treatment of melanoma is the failure of response to ICI with CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in a large patient population, which has resulted in the need for new biomarkers that can act as potential therapeutic targets. Further, the main underlying factor for both adjuvant and neoadjuvant approaches remains the selection of patients, optimizing therapeutic outcomes while minimizing the number of patients exposed to potentially toxic treatments without gaining clinical benefit. Clinical and pathological factors (eg, Breslow thickness, ulceration, the number of positive lymph nodes) play a role in stratifying patients as per risk of recurrence.⁴⁵ Similarly, peripheral blood biomarkers have been proposed as prognostic tools for high-risk stage II and III melanoma, including markers of systemic inflammation previously explored in the metastatic setting.⁴⁶ However, the use of these parameters has not been validated for clinical practice. Currently, despite promising results of BRAF and MEK inhibitors and therapeutic ICIs, as well as IL-2 or interferon alfa, treatment options in metastatic melanoma are limited because of its high heterogeneity, problematic patient stratification, and high genetic mutational rate. Recently, the role of epigenetic modifications andmiRNAs in melanoma progression and metastatic spread has been described. Silencing of CDKN2A locus and encoding for p16^INK4A and p14^ARF by DNA methylation are noted in 27% and 57% of metastatic melanomas, respectively, which enables melanoma cells to escape from growth arrest and apoptosis generated by Rb protein and p53 pathways.⁴⁷ Demethylation of these and other tumor suppressor genes with proapoptotic function (eg, RASSF1A and tumor necrosis factor–related apoptosis-inducing ligand) can restore cell death pathways, though future clinical studies in melanoma are warranted.⁴⁸

Cutaneous malignant melanoma represents an aggressive form of skin cancer, with 132,000 new cases of melanoma and 50,000 melanoma-related deaths diagnosed worldwide each year.¹ In recent decades, major progress has been made in the treatment of melanoma, especially metastatic and advanced-stage disease. Approval of new treatments, such as immunotherapy with anti–PD-1 (pembrolizumab and nivolumab) and anti–CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) antibodies, has revolutionized therapeutic strategies (Figure 1). Molecularly, melanoma has the highest mutational burden among solid tumors. Approximately 40% of melanomas harbor the BRAF V600 mutation, leading to constitutive activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway.² The other described genomic subtypes are mutated RAS (accounting for approximately 28% of cases), mutated NF1 (approximately 14% of cases), and triple wild type, though these other subtypes have not been as successfully targeted with therapy to date.³ Dual inhibition of this pathway using combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors confers high response rates and survival benefit, though efficacy in metastatic patients often is limited by development of resistance. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 3 combinations of targeted therapy in unresectable tumors: dabrafenib and trametinib, vemurafenib and cobimetinib, and encorafenib and binimetinib. The oncolytic herpesvirus talimogene laherparepvec also has received FDA approval for local treatment of unresectable cutaneous, subcutaneous, and nodal lesions in patients with recurrent melanoma after initial surgery.²

In this review, we explore new therapeutic agents and novel combinations that are being tested in early-phase clinical trials (Table). We discuss newer promising tools such as nanotechnology to develop nanosystems that act as drug carriers and/or light absorbents to potentially improve therapy outcomes. Finally, we highlight challenges such as management after resistance and intervention with novel immunotherapies and the lack of predictive biomarkers to stratify patients to targeted treatments after primary treatment failure.

Targeted Therapies

Vemurafenib was approved by the FDA in 2011 and was the first BRAF-targeted therapy approved for the treatment of melanoma based on a 48% response rate and a 63% reduction in the risk for death vs dacarbazine chemotherapy.⁴ Despite a rapid and clinically significant initial response, progression-free survival (PFS) was only 5.3 months, which is indicative of the rapid development of resistance with monotherapy through MAPK reactivation. As a result, combined BRAF and MEK inhibition was introduced and is now the standard of care for targeted therapy in melanoma. Treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib, vemurafenib and cobimetinib, or encorafenib and binimetinib is associated with prolonged PFS and overall survival (OS) compared to BRAF inhibitor monotherapy, with response rates exceeding 60% and a complete response rate of 10% to 18%.⁵ Recently, combining atezolizumab with vemurafenib and cobimetinib was shown to improve PFS compared to combined targeted therapy.⁶ Targeted therapy usually is given as first-line treatment to symptomatic patients with a high tumor burden because the response may be more rapid than the response to immunotherapy. Ultimately, most patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma receive both targeted therapy and immunotherapy.

Mutations of KIT (encoding proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase) activate intracellular MAPK and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathways (Figure 2).⁷ KIT mutations are found in mucosal and acral melanomas as well as chronically sun-damaged skin, with frequencies of 39%, 36%, and 28%, respectively. Imatinib was associated with a 53% response rate and PFS of 3.9 months among patients with KIT-mutated melanoma but failed to cause regression in melanomas with KIT amplification.⁸

Anti–CTLA-4 Immune Checkpoint Inhibition

CTLA-4 is a protein found on T cells that binds with another protein, B7, preventing T cells from killing cancer cells. Hence, blockade of CTLA-4 antibody avoids the immunosuppressive state of lymphocytes, strengthening their antitumor action.⁹ Ipilimumab, an anti–CTLA-4 antibody, demonstrated improvement in median OS for management of unresectable or metastatic stage IV melanoma, resulting in its FDA approval.⁸ A combination of ipilimumab with dacarbazine in stage IV melanoma showed notable improvement of OS.¹⁰ Similarly, tremelimumab showed evidence of tumor regression in a phase 1 trial but with more severe immune-related side effects compared with ipilimumab.¹¹ A second study on patients with stage IV melanoma treated with tremelimumab as first-line therapy in comparison with dacarbazine demonstrated differences in OS that were not statistically significant, though there was a longer duration of an objective response in patients treated with tremelimumab (35.8 months) compared with patients responding to dacarbazine (13.7 months).¹²

Anti–PD-1 Immune Checkpoint Inhibition

PD-1 is a transmembrane protein with immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory signaling, identified as an apoptosis-associated molecule.¹³ Upon activation, it is expressed on the cell surface of CD4, CD8, B lymphocytes, natural killer cells, monocytes, and dendritic cells.¹⁴ PD-L1, the ligand of PD-1, is constitutively expressed on different hematopoietic cells, as well as on fibroblasts, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, neurons, and keratinocytes.^15,16 Reactivation of effector T lymphocytes by PD-1:PD-L1 pathway inhibition has shown clinically significant therapeutic relevance.¹⁷ The PD-1:PD-L1 interaction is active only in the presence of T- or B-cell antigen receptor cross-link. This interaction prevents PI3K/AKT signaling and MAPK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway activation with the net result of lymphocytic functional exhaustion.^18,19 PD-L1 blockade is shown to have better clinical benefit and minor toxicity compared to anti–CTLA-4 therapy. Treatment with anti-PD1 nivolumab in a phase 1b clinical trial (N=107) demonstrated highly specific action, durable tumor remission, and long-term safety in 32% of patients with advanced melanoma.²⁰ These promising results led to the FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with advanced and unresponsive melanoma. A recent clinical trial combining ipilimumab and nivolumab resulted in an impressive increase of PFS compared with ipilimumab monotherapy (11.5 months vs 2.9 months).²¹ Similarly, treatment with pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma demonstrated improvement in PFS and OS compared with anti–CTLA-4 therapy,^22,23 which resulted in FDA approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of advanced melanoma in patients previously treated with ipilimumab or BRAF inhibitors in BRAF V600 mutation–positive patients.²⁴

Lymphocyte-Activated Gene 3–Targeted Therapies

Lymphocyte-activated gene 3 (LAG-3)(also known as CD223 or FDC protein) is a type of immune checkpoint receptor transmembrane protein that is located on chromosome 12.²⁵ It is present on the surface of effector T cells and regulatory T cells that regulate the adaptive immune response.²⁶ Lymphocyte-activated gene 3 is reported to be highly expressed on the surface of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, thus the level of LAG-3 expression was found to corelate with the prognosis of tumors. In some tumors involving the kidneys, lungs, and bladder, a high level of LAG-3 was associated with a worse prognosis; in gastric carcinoma and melanoma, a high level of LAG-3 indicates better prognosis.²⁷ Similar to PD-1, LAG-3 also is found to be an inhibitory checkpoint that contributes to decreased T cells. Therefore, antibodies targeting LAG-3 have been gaining interest as modalities in cancer immunotherapy. The initial clinical trials employing only LAG-3 antibody on solid tumors found an objective response rate and disease control rate of 6% and 17%, respectively.^25,26,28 Given the unsatisfactory results, the idea that combination therapy with an anti–PD-L1 drug and LAG-3 antibody started gaining attention. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial, RELATIVITY-047, studying the effects of a combination of relatlimab (a first-in-class LAG-3 antibody) and nivolumab (an anti–PD-L1 antibody) on melanoma found longer PFS (10.1 months vs 4.6 months) and a 25% lower risk for disease progression or death with the combination of relatlimab and nivolumab vs nivolumab alone.²⁸ The FDA approved the combination of relatlimab and nivolumab for individuals aged 12 years or older with previously untreated melanoma that is surgically unresectable or has metastasized.²⁹ Zhao et al³⁰ demonstrated that LAG-3/PD-1 and CTLA-4/PD-1 inhibition showed similar PFS, and LAG-3/PD-1 inhibition showed earlier survival benefit and fewer treatment-related adverse effects, with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse effects occurring in 18.9% of patients on anti–LAG-3 and anti–PD-1 combination (relatlimab plus nivolumab) compared with 55.0% in patients treated with anti–CTL-4 and anti–PD-1 combination (ipilimumab plus nivolumab)(N=1344). Further studies are warranted to understand the exact mechanism of LAG-3 signaling pathways, effects of its inhibition and efficacy, and adverse events associated with its combined use with anti–PD-1 drugs.

The use of nanotechnology represents one of the newer alternative therapies employed for treatment of melanoma and is especially gaining interest due to reduced adverse effects in comparison with other conventional treatments for melanoma. Nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems precisely target tumor cells and improve the effect of both the conventional and innovative antineoplastic treatment.^27,31 Tumor vasculature differs from normal tissues by being discontinuous and having interspersed small gaps/holes that allow nanoparticles to exit the circulation and enter and accumulate in the tumor tissue, leading to enhanced and targeted release of the antineoplastic drug to tumor cells.³² This mechanism is called the enhanced permeability and retention effect.³³

Another mechanism by which nanoparticles work is ligand-based targeting in which ligands such as monoclonal antibodies, peptides, and nucleic acids located on the surface of nanoparticles can bind to receptors on the plasma membrane of tumor cells and lead to targeted delivery of the drug.³⁴ Nanomaterials used for melanoma treatment include vesicular systems such as liposomes and niosomes, polymeric nanoparticles, noble metal-based nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, dendrimers, solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructures, lipid carriers, and microneedles. In melanoma, nanoparticles can be used to enhance targeted delivery of drugs, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Cai et al³⁵ described usage of scaffolds in delivery systems. Tumor-associated antigens, adjuvant drugs, and chemical agents that influence the tumor microenvironment can be loaded onto these scaffolding agents. In a study by Zhu et al,³⁶ photosensitizer chlorin e6 and immunoadjuvant aluminum hydroxide were used as a novel nanosystem that effectively destroyed tumor cells and induced a strong systemic antitumor response. IL-2 is a cytokine produced by B or T lymphocytes. Its use in melanoma has been limited by a severe adverse effect profile and lack of complete response in most patients. Cytokine-containing nanogels have been found to selectively release IL-2 in response to activation of T-cell receptors, and a mouse model in melanoma showed better response compared to free IL-1 and no adverse systemic effects.³⁷

Nanovaccines represent another interesting novel immunotherapy modality. A study by Conniot et al³⁸ showed that nanoparticles can be used in the treatment of melanoma. Nanoparticles made of biodegradable polymer were loaded with Melan-A/MART-1 (26–35 A27L) MHC class I-restricted peptide (MHC class I antigen), and the limited peptide MHC class II Melan-A/MART-1 51–73 (MHC class II antigen) and grafted with mannose that was then combined with an anti–PD-L1 antibody and injected into mouse models. This combination resulted in T-cell infiltration at early stages and increased infiltration of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Ibrutinib, a myeloid-derived suppressor cell inhibitor, was added and demonstrated marked tumor remission and prolonged survival.³⁸

Overexpression of certain microRNAs (miRNAs), especially miR-204-5p and miR-199b-5p, has been shown to inhibit growth of melanoma cells in vitro, both alone and in combination with MAPK inhibitors, but these miRNAs are easily degradable in body fluids. Lipid nanoparticles can bind these miRNAs and have been shown to inhibit tumor cell proliferation and improve efficacy of BRAF and MEK inhibitors.³⁹

Triple-Combination Therapy

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti–PD-1 or anti–CTLA-4 drugs have become the standard of care in treatment of advanced melanoma. Approximately 40% to 50% of cases of melanoma harbor BRAF mutations, and patients with these mutations could benefit from BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Data from clinical trials on BRAF and MEK inhibitors even showed initial high objective response rates, but the response was short-lived, and there was frequent acquired resistance.⁴⁰ With ICIs, the major limitation was primary resistance, with only 50% of patients initially responding.⁴¹ Studies on murine models demonstrated that BRAF-mutated tumors had decreased expression of IFN-γ, tumor necrosis factor α, and CD40 ligand on CD4⁺ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and increased accumulation of regulatory T cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells, leading to a protumor microenvironment. BRAF and MEK pathway inhibition were found to improve intratumoral CD4⁺ T-cell activity, leading to improved antitumor T-cell responses.⁴² Because of this enhanced immune response by BRAF and MEK inhibitors, it was hypothesized and later supported by clinical research that a combination of these targeted treatments and ICIs can have a synergistic effect, leading to increased antitumor activity.⁴³ A randomized phase 2 clinical trial (KEYNOTE-022) in which the treatment group was given pembrolizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib and the control group was treated with dabrafenib and trametinib showed increased medial OS in the treatment group vs the control group (46.3 months vs 26.3 months) and more frequent complete response in the treatment group vs the control group (20% vs 15%).⁴⁴ In the IMspire150 phase 3 clinical trial, patients with advanced stage IIIC to IV BRAF-mutant melanoma were treated with either a triple combination of the PDL-1 inhibitor atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib or vemurafenib and cobimetinib. Although the objective response rate was similar in both groups, the median duration of response was longer in the triplet group compared with the doublet group (21 months vs 12.6 months). Given these results, the FDA approved the triple-combination therapy with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib. Although triple-combination therapy has shown promising results, it is expected that there will be an increase in the frequency of treatment-related adverse effects. In the phase 3 COMBi-I study, patients with advanced stage IIIC to IV BRAF V600E mutant cutaneous melanoma were treated with either a combination of spartalizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib or just dabrafenib and trametinib. Although the objective response rates were not significantly different (69% vs 64%), there was increased frequency of treatment-related adverse effects in patients receiving triple-combination therapy.⁴³ As more follow-up data come out of these ongoing clinical trials, benefits of triple-combination therapy and its adverse effect profile will be more definitely established.

Challenges and Future Perspectives

One of the major roadblocks in the treatment of melanoma is the failure of response to ICI with CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in a large patient population, which has resulted in the need for new biomarkers that can act as potential therapeutic targets. Further, the main underlying factor for both adjuvant and neoadjuvant approaches remains the selection of patients, optimizing therapeutic outcomes while minimizing the number of patients exposed to potentially toxic treatments without gaining clinical benefit. Clinical and pathological factors (eg, Breslow thickness, ulceration, the number of positive lymph nodes) play a role in stratifying patients as per risk of recurrence.⁴⁵ Similarly, peripheral blood biomarkers have been proposed as prognostic tools for high-risk stage II and III melanoma, including markers of systemic inflammation previously explored in the metastatic setting.⁴⁶ However, the use of these parameters has not been validated for clinical practice. Currently, despite promising results of BRAF and MEK inhibitors and therapeutic ICIs, as well as IL-2 or interferon alfa, treatment options in metastatic melanoma are limited because of its high heterogeneity, problematic patient stratification, and high genetic mutational rate. Recently, the role of epigenetic modifications andmiRNAs in melanoma progression and metastatic spread has been described. Silencing of CDKN2A locus and encoding for p16^INK4A and p14^ARF by DNA methylation are noted in 27% and 57% of metastatic melanomas, respectively, which enables melanoma cells to escape from growth arrest and apoptosis generated by Rb protein and p53 pathways.⁴⁷ Demethylation of these and other tumor suppressor genes with proapoptotic function (eg, RASSF1A and tumor necrosis factor–related apoptosis-inducing ligand) can restore cell death pathways, though future clinical studies in melanoma are warranted.⁴⁸

TOPLINE:

In individuals with low B-cell counts, T cells have enhanced responses to COVID-19 vaccination and may help prevent severe disease after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• How the immune systems of B cell–deficient patients respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination is not fully understood.
• Researchers evaluated anti–SARS-CoV-2 T-cell responses in 33 patients treated with rituximab (RTX), 12 patients with common variable immune deficiency, and 44 controls.
• The study analyzed effector and memory CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 after infection and vaccination.

TAKEAWAY: 

• All B cell–deficient individuals (those treated with RTX or those with a diagnosis of common variable immune deficiency) had increased effector and memory T-cell responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, compared with controls.
• Patients treated with RTX who were vaccinated against COVID-19 had 4.8-fold reduced odds of moderate or severe disease. (These data were not available for patients with common variable immune deficiency.)
• RTX treatment was associated with a decrease in preexisting T-cell immunity in unvaccinated patients, regardless of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2.
• This association was not found in vaccinated patients treated with RTX.

IN PRACTICE:

“[These findings] provide support for vaccination in this vulnerable population and demonstrate the potential benefit of vaccine-induced CD8+ T-cell responses on reducing disease severity from SARS-CoV-2 infection in the absence of spike protein–specific antibodies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was published online on November 29 in Science Translational Medicine. The first author is Reza Zonozi, MD, who conducted the research while at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is now in private practice in northern Virginia. 

LIMITATIONS:

Researchers did not obtain specimens from patients with common variable immune deficiency after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Only a small subset of immunophenotyped participants had subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Ragon Institute of Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard Medical School, the Mark and Lisa Schwartz Foundation and E. Schwartz; the Lambertus Family Foundation; and S. Edgerly and P. Edgerly. Four authors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and Pfizer.

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

TOPLINE:

In individuals with low B-cell counts, T cells have enhanced responses to COVID-19 vaccination and may help prevent severe disease after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• How the immune systems of B cell–deficient patients respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination is not fully understood.
• Researchers evaluated anti–SARS-CoV-2 T-cell responses in 33 patients treated with rituximab (RTX), 12 patients with common variable immune deficiency, and 44 controls.
• The study analyzed effector and memory CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 after infection and vaccination.

TAKEAWAY: 

• All B cell–deficient individuals (those treated with RTX or those with a diagnosis of common variable immune deficiency) had increased effector and memory T-cell responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, compared with controls.
• Patients treated with RTX who were vaccinated against COVID-19 had 4.8-fold reduced odds of moderate or severe disease. (These data were not available for patients with common variable immune deficiency.)
• RTX treatment was associated with a decrease in preexisting T-cell immunity in unvaccinated patients, regardless of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2.
• This association was not found in vaccinated patients treated with RTX.

IN PRACTICE:

“[These findings] provide support for vaccination in this vulnerable population and demonstrate the potential benefit of vaccine-induced CD8+ T-cell responses on reducing disease severity from SARS-CoV-2 infection in the absence of spike protein–specific antibodies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was published online on November 29 in Science Translational Medicine. The first author is Reza Zonozi, MD, who conducted the research while at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is now in private practice in northern Virginia. 

LIMITATIONS:

Researchers did not obtain specimens from patients with common variable immune deficiency after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Only a small subset of immunophenotyped participants had subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Ragon Institute of Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard Medical School, the Mark and Lisa Schwartz Foundation and E. Schwartz; the Lambertus Family Foundation; and S. Edgerly and P. Edgerly. Four authors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and Pfizer.

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

TOPLINE:

In individuals with low B-cell counts, T cells have enhanced responses to COVID-19 vaccination and may help prevent severe disease after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• How the immune systems of B cell–deficient patients respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination is not fully understood.
• Researchers evaluated anti–SARS-CoV-2 T-cell responses in 33 patients treated with rituximab (RTX), 12 patients with common variable immune deficiency, and 44 controls.
• The study analyzed effector and memory CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 after infection and vaccination.

TAKEAWAY: 

• All B cell–deficient individuals (those treated with RTX or those with a diagnosis of common variable immune deficiency) had increased effector and memory T-cell responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, compared with controls.
• Patients treated with RTX who were vaccinated against COVID-19 had 4.8-fold reduced odds of moderate or severe disease. (These data were not available for patients with common variable immune deficiency.)
• RTX treatment was associated with a decrease in preexisting T-cell immunity in unvaccinated patients, regardless of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2.
• This association was not found in vaccinated patients treated with RTX.

IN PRACTICE:

“[These findings] provide support for vaccination in this vulnerable population and demonstrate the potential benefit of vaccine-induced CD8+ T-cell responses on reducing disease severity from SARS-CoV-2 infection in the absence of spike protein–specific antibodies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was published online on November 29 in Science Translational Medicine. The first author is Reza Zonozi, MD, who conducted the research while at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is now in private practice in northern Virginia. 

LIMITATIONS:

Researchers did not obtain specimens from patients with common variable immune deficiency after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Only a small subset of immunophenotyped participants had subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Ragon Institute of Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard Medical School, the Mark and Lisa Schwartz Foundation and E. Schwartz; the Lambertus Family Foundation; and S. Edgerly and P. Edgerly. Four authors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and Pfizer.

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

While adult rheumatology programs continue to have high match rates, pediatric rheumatology programs remain less popular.

The National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) reported on Nov. 29 that rheumatology filled 124 of 127 programs (97.6%), with 273 (98.9%) of 276 positions filled. Comparatively, pediatric rheumatology filled 21 out of 38 programs (55%) and 32 (61.5%) of 52 positions.

This year, the number of programs and positions across all specialties rose by 3%, whereas the number of applications only rose by 0.4% (35 additional applicants).

“The growth of fellowship programs and positions in the Match reflect training opportunities and the future workforce trends of medical subspecialties,” said NRMP President Donna Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, in a statement. “While the increase in applicant numbers did not keep pace with the increase in positions this year, the Match rate for applicants remains strong at 82%.”

In adult rheumatology, matched applicants included 117 MD graduates, 86 foreign applicants, 38 DO graduates, and 32 U.S. citizen international medical graduates. A total of 348 applicants preferred the specialty, and 78% matched to rheumatology, whereas 2% matched to a different specialty. Another 70 applicants (20%) did not match to any program.

In pediatric rheumatology, matched applicants included 23 MD graduates, 6 DO graduates, and 3 foreign applicants. All applicants who preferred pediatric rheumatology matched to a program.

Adult rheumatology was one of several specialties that filled over 95% of positions. The other specialties that matched at that rate were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, critical care medicine, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Interventional Pulmonology and Oncology was the only specialty to achieve a 100% fill rate.

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

While adult rheumatology programs continue to have high match rates, pediatric rheumatology programs remain less popular.

The National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) reported on Nov. 29 that rheumatology filled 124 of 127 programs (97.6%), with 273 (98.9%) of 276 positions filled. Comparatively, pediatric rheumatology filled 21 out of 38 programs (55%) and 32 (61.5%) of 52 positions.

This year, the number of programs and positions across all specialties rose by 3%, whereas the number of applications only rose by 0.4% (35 additional applicants).

“The growth of fellowship programs and positions in the Match reflect training opportunities and the future workforce trends of medical subspecialties,” said NRMP President Donna Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, in a statement. “While the increase in applicant numbers did not keep pace with the increase in positions this year, the Match rate for applicants remains strong at 82%.”

In adult rheumatology, matched applicants included 117 MD graduates, 86 foreign applicants, 38 DO graduates, and 32 U.S. citizen international medical graduates. A total of 348 applicants preferred the specialty, and 78% matched to rheumatology, whereas 2% matched to a different specialty. Another 70 applicants (20%) did not match to any program.

In pediatric rheumatology, matched applicants included 23 MD graduates, 6 DO graduates, and 3 foreign applicants. All applicants who preferred pediatric rheumatology matched to a program.

Adult rheumatology was one of several specialties that filled over 95% of positions. The other specialties that matched at that rate were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, critical care medicine, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Interventional Pulmonology and Oncology was the only specialty to achieve a 100% fill rate.

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

While adult rheumatology programs continue to have high match rates, pediatric rheumatology programs remain less popular.

The National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) reported on Nov. 29 that rheumatology filled 124 of 127 programs (97.6%), with 273 (98.9%) of 276 positions filled. Comparatively, pediatric rheumatology filled 21 out of 38 programs (55%) and 32 (61.5%) of 52 positions.

This year, the number of programs and positions across all specialties rose by 3%, whereas the number of applications only rose by 0.4% (35 additional applicants).

“The growth of fellowship programs and positions in the Match reflect training opportunities and the future workforce trends of medical subspecialties,” said NRMP President Donna Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, in a statement. “While the increase in applicant numbers did not keep pace with the increase in positions this year, the Match rate for applicants remains strong at 82%.”

In adult rheumatology, matched applicants included 117 MD graduates, 86 foreign applicants, 38 DO graduates, and 32 U.S. citizen international medical graduates. A total of 348 applicants preferred the specialty, and 78% matched to rheumatology, whereas 2% matched to a different specialty. Another 70 applicants (20%) did not match to any program.

In pediatric rheumatology, matched applicants included 23 MD graduates, 6 DO graduates, and 3 foreign applicants. All applicants who preferred pediatric rheumatology matched to a program.

Adult rheumatology was one of several specialties that filled over 95% of positions. The other specialties that matched at that rate were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, critical care medicine, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Interventional Pulmonology and Oncology was the only specialty to achieve a 100% fill rate.

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