Specific sputum markers, including higher sputum eosinophils, macrophages, and lymphocyte counts, were associated with remission after interleukin-5 (IL-5)–targeted therapy for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. The finding was based on data from 52 individuals.

Although IL-5 therapies have been shown to be effective for improving asthma, patients’ responses vary, write Catherine Moermans, PhD, of Liège University, Belgium, and colleagues.

Biotherapies targeting IL-5 allow a tangible improvement of asthma. However, all patients do not respond the same way to these treatments, and reliable biomarkers for predicting treatment response are lacking, they say.

In an observational study published in the journal Chest, the researchers recruited 52 adults with severe asthma who began anti–IL-5 treatment at a single center. The primary outcome was remission of asthma.

Remission was defined as meeting all of the following criteria 1 year after therapy: no chronic treatment with oral corticosteroids; no exacerbation; asthma control questionnaire scores lower than 1.5 and/or asthma test greater than 19; forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) of at least 80% predicted; and/or improvement of FEV₁ equal to or larger than 10%, and a blood eosinophil count lower than 300 cells/mL.

Prior to treatment, the researchers measured eosinophil peroxidase (EPX), immunoglobulin E (IgE), IL-3, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, IL-33, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), and eotaxin-1 levels in the sputum of each patient.

At follow-up, 11 patients met the criteria for remission. These patients had significantly higher sputum eosinophil counts, sputum macrophage counts, and lymphocyte counts at baseline, compared with those not in remission (P = .006, P = .02, and P = .04, respectively). Sputum neutrophil percentage levels were significantly lower in patients whose asthma was in remission, compared with those whose asthma was not in remission (P = .007).

At the protein level, remission patients also showed higher baseline levels of sputum eotaxin-1, TSLP, IL-5, EPX, and IgE protein, compared with patients who did not achieve remission (P = .046, P = .04, P = .002, P = .001, and P = .006, respectively).

Overall, EPX and IL-5 measures showed the best combination of sensitivity and specificity, as well as the best area under the curve, the researchers write.

Patients in remission were significantly more likely to be men (8 of 11 patients), a finding that reflected previous studies, the researchers write. The finding of eosinophilic inflammation associated with stronger response to anti–IL-5 therapy also reflected previous studies, but the current study showed that “with a comparable blood eosinophil level at baseline before biotherapy, the response can be highly variable.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size and the lack of a formal definition of remission. Other research needs include an analysis based on nonresponse or suboptimal response predictors, the researchers note.

The results suggest that sputum type 2 markers are potential predictors of remission after anti–IL-5 treatment in adults with severe eosinophilic asthma, although the results must be validated in a larger, multicenter cohort, they conclude.

The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca. Several coauthors have relationships with these companies. Dr. Moermans has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Specific sputum markers, including higher sputum eosinophils, macrophages, and lymphocyte counts, were associated with remission after interleukin-5 (IL-5)–targeted therapy for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. The finding was based on data from 52 individuals.

Although IL-5 therapies have been shown to be effective for improving asthma, patients’ responses vary, write Catherine Moermans, PhD, of Liège University, Belgium, and colleagues.

Biotherapies targeting IL-5 allow a tangible improvement of asthma. However, all patients do not respond the same way to these treatments, and reliable biomarkers for predicting treatment response are lacking, they say.

In an observational study published in the journal Chest, the researchers recruited 52 adults with severe asthma who began anti–IL-5 treatment at a single center. The primary outcome was remission of asthma.

Remission was defined as meeting all of the following criteria 1 year after therapy: no chronic treatment with oral corticosteroids; no exacerbation; asthma control questionnaire scores lower than 1.5 and/or asthma test greater than 19; forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) of at least 80% predicted; and/or improvement of FEV₁ equal to or larger than 10%, and a blood eosinophil count lower than 300 cells/mL.

Prior to treatment, the researchers measured eosinophil peroxidase (EPX), immunoglobulin E (IgE), IL-3, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, IL-33, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), and eotaxin-1 levels in the sputum of each patient.

At follow-up, 11 patients met the criteria for remission. These patients had significantly higher sputum eosinophil counts, sputum macrophage counts, and lymphocyte counts at baseline, compared with those not in remission (P = .006, P = .02, and P = .04, respectively). Sputum neutrophil percentage levels were significantly lower in patients whose asthma was in remission, compared with those whose asthma was not in remission (P = .007).

At the protein level, remission patients also showed higher baseline levels of sputum eotaxin-1, TSLP, IL-5, EPX, and IgE protein, compared with patients who did not achieve remission (P = .046, P = .04, P = .002, P = .001, and P = .006, respectively).

Overall, EPX and IL-5 measures showed the best combination of sensitivity and specificity, as well as the best area under the curve, the researchers write.

Patients in remission were significantly more likely to be men (8 of 11 patients), a finding that reflected previous studies, the researchers write. The finding of eosinophilic inflammation associated with stronger response to anti–IL-5 therapy also reflected previous studies, but the current study showed that “with a comparable blood eosinophil level at baseline before biotherapy, the response can be highly variable.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size and the lack of a formal definition of remission. Other research needs include an analysis based on nonresponse or suboptimal response predictors, the researchers note.

The results suggest that sputum type 2 markers are potential predictors of remission after anti–IL-5 treatment in adults with severe eosinophilic asthma, although the results must be validated in a larger, multicenter cohort, they conclude.

The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca. Several coauthors have relationships with these companies. Dr. Moermans has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Specific sputum markers, including higher sputum eosinophils, macrophages, and lymphocyte counts, were associated with remission after interleukin-5 (IL-5)–targeted therapy for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. The finding was based on data from 52 individuals.

Although IL-5 therapies have been shown to be effective for improving asthma, patients’ responses vary, write Catherine Moermans, PhD, of Liège University, Belgium, and colleagues.

Biotherapies targeting IL-5 allow a tangible improvement of asthma. However, all patients do not respond the same way to these treatments, and reliable biomarkers for predicting treatment response are lacking, they say.

In an observational study published in the journal Chest, the researchers recruited 52 adults with severe asthma who began anti–IL-5 treatment at a single center. The primary outcome was remission of asthma.

Remission was defined as meeting all of the following criteria 1 year after therapy: no chronic treatment with oral corticosteroids; no exacerbation; asthma control questionnaire scores lower than 1.5 and/or asthma test greater than 19; forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) of at least 80% predicted; and/or improvement of FEV₁ equal to or larger than 10%, and a blood eosinophil count lower than 300 cells/mL.

Prior to treatment, the researchers measured eosinophil peroxidase (EPX), immunoglobulin E (IgE), IL-3, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, IL-33, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), and eotaxin-1 levels in the sputum of each patient.

At follow-up, 11 patients met the criteria for remission. These patients had significantly higher sputum eosinophil counts, sputum macrophage counts, and lymphocyte counts at baseline, compared with those not in remission (P = .006, P = .02, and P = .04, respectively). Sputum neutrophil percentage levels were significantly lower in patients whose asthma was in remission, compared with those whose asthma was not in remission (P = .007).

At the protein level, remission patients also showed higher baseline levels of sputum eotaxin-1, TSLP, IL-5, EPX, and IgE protein, compared with patients who did not achieve remission (P = .046, P = .04, P = .002, P = .001, and P = .006, respectively).

Overall, EPX and IL-5 measures showed the best combination of sensitivity and specificity, as well as the best area under the curve, the researchers write.

Patients in remission were significantly more likely to be men (8 of 11 patients), a finding that reflected previous studies, the researchers write. The finding of eosinophilic inflammation associated with stronger response to anti–IL-5 therapy also reflected previous studies, but the current study showed that “with a comparable blood eosinophil level at baseline before biotherapy, the response can be highly variable.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size and the lack of a formal definition of remission. Other research needs include an analysis based on nonresponse or suboptimal response predictors, the researchers note.

The results suggest that sputum type 2 markers are potential predictors of remission after anti–IL-5 treatment in adults with severe eosinophilic asthma, although the results must be validated in a larger, multicenter cohort, they conclude.

The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca. Several coauthors have relationships with these companies. Dr. Moermans has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved sarilumab (Kevzara) on March 1 for the treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) in adults who have had an inadequate response to corticosteroids or could not tolerate a corticosteroid taper, joint developers Sanofi and Regeneron announced. The drug is the first and only FDA-approved biologic treatment for this inflammatory rheumatic disease. 

The FDA previously approved sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, in May 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who do not respond well or have an intolerance to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), like methotrexate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA approval for this new indication was based on results from the multicenter, phase 3 SAPHYR trial in patients with corticosteroid-resistant, active PMR. In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 59 participants received 200 mg of sarilumab plus a 14-week taper of corticosteroid treatment and 58 participants received placebo every 2 weeks along with a 52-week taper of corticosteroid treatment.

After 1 year, 28% of sarilumab patients achieved sustained remission, compared with 10% of the placebo group (P = .0193). This news organization previously reported these trial results in November when they were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The most common adverse events in the sarilumab group were neutropenia (15%), leukopenia (7%), constipation (7%), pruritic rash (5%), myalgia (7%), fatigue (5%), and injection-site pruritus (5%). Two patients had serious adverse reactions of neutropenia, which resolved after discontinuing treatment.

“Polymyalgia rheumatica can be an incapacitating disease, causing painful disease flares in multiple parts of the bodies that leave people fatigued and unable to fully perform everyday activities. Corticosteroids have been the primary treatment to date, but many patients do not adequately respond to steroids or cannot be tapered off steroids, which puts such patients at risk of complications from long-term steroid therapy,” George D. Yancopolous, MD, PhD, president and chief scientific officer at Regeneron, said in the announcement. “With the approval of Kevzara for polymyalgia rheumatica, patients now have an FDA-approved treatment to help offer relief from the disabling symptoms of this disease and long-term dependence on steroids.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved sarilumab (Kevzara) on March 1 for the treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) in adults who have had an inadequate response to corticosteroids or could not tolerate a corticosteroid taper, joint developers Sanofi and Regeneron announced. The drug is the first and only FDA-approved biologic treatment for this inflammatory rheumatic disease. 

The FDA previously approved sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, in May 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who do not respond well or have an intolerance to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), like methotrexate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA approval for this new indication was based on results from the multicenter, phase 3 SAPHYR trial in patients with corticosteroid-resistant, active PMR. In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 59 participants received 200 mg of sarilumab plus a 14-week taper of corticosteroid treatment and 58 participants received placebo every 2 weeks along with a 52-week taper of corticosteroid treatment.

After 1 year, 28% of sarilumab patients achieved sustained remission, compared with 10% of the placebo group (P = .0193). This news organization previously reported these trial results in November when they were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The most common adverse events in the sarilumab group were neutropenia (15%), leukopenia (7%), constipation (7%), pruritic rash (5%), myalgia (7%), fatigue (5%), and injection-site pruritus (5%). Two patients had serious adverse reactions of neutropenia, which resolved after discontinuing treatment.

“Polymyalgia rheumatica can be an incapacitating disease, causing painful disease flares in multiple parts of the bodies that leave people fatigued and unable to fully perform everyday activities. Corticosteroids have been the primary treatment to date, but many patients do not adequately respond to steroids or cannot be tapered off steroids, which puts such patients at risk of complications from long-term steroid therapy,” George D. Yancopolous, MD, PhD, president and chief scientific officer at Regeneron, said in the announcement. “With the approval of Kevzara for polymyalgia rheumatica, patients now have an FDA-approved treatment to help offer relief from the disabling symptoms of this disease and long-term dependence on steroids.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved sarilumab (Kevzara) on March 1 for the treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) in adults who have had an inadequate response to corticosteroids or could not tolerate a corticosteroid taper, joint developers Sanofi and Regeneron announced. The drug is the first and only FDA-approved biologic treatment for this inflammatory rheumatic disease. 

The FDA previously approved sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, in May 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who do not respond well or have an intolerance to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), like methotrexate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA approval for this new indication was based on results from the multicenter, phase 3 SAPHYR trial in patients with corticosteroid-resistant, active PMR. In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 59 participants received 200 mg of sarilumab plus a 14-week taper of corticosteroid treatment and 58 participants received placebo every 2 weeks along with a 52-week taper of corticosteroid treatment.

After 1 year, 28% of sarilumab patients achieved sustained remission, compared with 10% of the placebo group (P = .0193). This news organization previously reported these trial results in November when they were presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The most common adverse events in the sarilumab group were neutropenia (15%), leukopenia (7%), constipation (7%), pruritic rash (5%), myalgia (7%), fatigue (5%), and injection-site pruritus (5%). Two patients had serious adverse reactions of neutropenia, which resolved after discontinuing treatment.

“Polymyalgia rheumatica can be an incapacitating disease, causing painful disease flares in multiple parts of the bodies that leave people fatigued and unable to fully perform everyday activities. Corticosteroids have been the primary treatment to date, but many patients do not adequately respond to steroids or cannot be tapered off steroids, which puts such patients at risk of complications from long-term steroid therapy,” George D. Yancopolous, MD, PhD, president and chief scientific officer at Regeneron, said in the announcement. “With the approval of Kevzara for polymyalgia rheumatica, patients now have an FDA-approved treatment to help offer relief from the disabling symptoms of this disease and long-term dependence on steroids.”

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

Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be challenging to diagnose, and medication-driven episodes of sedation or hypoventilation are often overlooked as causes of acute exacerbations in these conditions, according to a letter published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“We are concerned about the number of patients we have seen with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations who have been prescribed sedative medications,” write Christos V. Chalitsios, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

The authors note that exacerbations are the main complications of both asthma and COPD, and stress the importance of identifying causes and preventive strategies.

Sedatives such as opioids have been shown to depress respiratory drive, reduce muscle tone, and increase the risk of pneumonia, they write. The authors also propose that the risk of sedative-induced aspiration or hypoventilation would be associated with medications including pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline.

Other mechanisms may be involved in the association between sedatives and exacerbations in asthma and COPD. For example, sedative medications can suppress coughing, which may promote airway mucous compaction and possible infection, the authors write.

Most research involving prevention of asthma and COPD exacerbations has not addressed the potential impact of sedatives taken for reasons outside of obstructive lung disease, the authors say.

“Although the risk of sedation and hypoventilation events are known to be increased by opioids and antipsychotic drugs, there has not been a systematic assessment of commonly prescribed medications with potential respiratory side-effects, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin,” they write.

Polypharmacy is increasingly common and results in many patients with asthma or COPD presenting for treatment of acute exacerbations while on a combination of gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and opioids, the authors note; “however, there is little data or disease-specific guidance on how best to manage this problem, which often starts with a prescription in primary care,” they write. Simply stopping sedatives is not an option for many patients given the addictive nature of these drugs and the unlikely resolution of the condition for which the drugs were prescribed, the authors say. However, “cautious dose reduction” of sedatives is possible once patients understand the reason, they add.

Clinicians may be able to suggest reduced doses and alternative treatments to patients with asthma and COPD while highlighting the risk of respiratory depression and polypharmacy – “potentially reducing the number of exacerbations of obstructive lung disease,” the authors conclude.

The study received no outside funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be challenging to diagnose, and medication-driven episodes of sedation or hypoventilation are often overlooked as causes of acute exacerbations in these conditions, according to a letter published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“We are concerned about the number of patients we have seen with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations who have been prescribed sedative medications,” write Christos V. Chalitsios, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

The authors note that exacerbations are the main complications of both asthma and COPD, and stress the importance of identifying causes and preventive strategies.

Sedatives such as opioids have been shown to depress respiratory drive, reduce muscle tone, and increase the risk of pneumonia, they write. The authors also propose that the risk of sedative-induced aspiration or hypoventilation would be associated with medications including pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline.

Other mechanisms may be involved in the association between sedatives and exacerbations in asthma and COPD. For example, sedative medications can suppress coughing, which may promote airway mucous compaction and possible infection, the authors write.

Most research involving prevention of asthma and COPD exacerbations has not addressed the potential impact of sedatives taken for reasons outside of obstructive lung disease, the authors say.

“Although the risk of sedation and hypoventilation events are known to be increased by opioids and antipsychotic drugs, there has not been a systematic assessment of commonly prescribed medications with potential respiratory side-effects, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin,” they write.

Polypharmacy is increasingly common and results in many patients with asthma or COPD presenting for treatment of acute exacerbations while on a combination of gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and opioids, the authors note; “however, there is little data or disease-specific guidance on how best to manage this problem, which often starts with a prescription in primary care,” they write. Simply stopping sedatives is not an option for many patients given the addictive nature of these drugs and the unlikely resolution of the condition for which the drugs were prescribed, the authors say. However, “cautious dose reduction” of sedatives is possible once patients understand the reason, they add.

Clinicians may be able to suggest reduced doses and alternative treatments to patients with asthma and COPD while highlighting the risk of respiratory depression and polypharmacy – “potentially reducing the number of exacerbations of obstructive lung disease,” the authors conclude.

The study received no outside funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be challenging to diagnose, and medication-driven episodes of sedation or hypoventilation are often overlooked as causes of acute exacerbations in these conditions, according to a letter published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“We are concerned about the number of patients we have seen with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations who have been prescribed sedative medications,” write Christos V. Chalitsios, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

The authors note that exacerbations are the main complications of both asthma and COPD, and stress the importance of identifying causes and preventive strategies.

Sedatives such as opioids have been shown to depress respiratory drive, reduce muscle tone, and increase the risk of pneumonia, they write. The authors also propose that the risk of sedative-induced aspiration or hypoventilation would be associated with medications including pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline.

Other mechanisms may be involved in the association between sedatives and exacerbations in asthma and COPD. For example, sedative medications can suppress coughing, which may promote airway mucous compaction and possible infection, the authors write.

Most research involving prevention of asthma and COPD exacerbations has not addressed the potential impact of sedatives taken for reasons outside of obstructive lung disease, the authors say.

“Although the risk of sedation and hypoventilation events are known to be increased by opioids and antipsychotic drugs, there has not been a systematic assessment of commonly prescribed medications with potential respiratory side-effects, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin,” they write.

Polypharmacy is increasingly common and results in many patients with asthma or COPD presenting for treatment of acute exacerbations while on a combination of gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and opioids, the authors note; “however, there is little data or disease-specific guidance on how best to manage this problem, which often starts with a prescription in primary care,” they write. Simply stopping sedatives is not an option for many patients given the addictive nature of these drugs and the unlikely resolution of the condition for which the drugs were prescribed, the authors say. However, “cautious dose reduction” of sedatives is possible once patients understand the reason, they add.

Clinicians may be able to suggest reduced doses and alternative treatments to patients with asthma and COPD while highlighting the risk of respiratory depression and polypharmacy – “potentially reducing the number of exacerbations of obstructive lung disease,” the authors conclude.

The study received no outside funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lille, France – The American College of Physicians has just updated its guidelines for osteoporosis treatment. Bernard Cortet, MD, PhD, chairperson of the Osteoporosis Research and Information Group and head of the rheumatology department at Lille (France) University Hospital, has agreed to compare the new U.S. guidelines to the 2018 French recommendations written under the aegis of the French Society for Rheumatology and GRIO. Dr. Cortet participated in drafting the French recommendations.

Question: The ACP “strongly” recommends initial pharmacologic treatment with bisphosphonate antiresorptive drugs (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate) in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis. Isn’t this what the SFR–GRIO have been recommending for many years?

Answer: The ACP reinforces its stance by arguing that in postmenopausal females with primary osteoporosis, bisphosphonates have the most favorable balance between benefits, harms, patient values and preferences, and cost among the drug classes that were evaluated. In addition to net clinical benefits, bisphosphonates are much cheaper than other pharmacologic treatments and are available in generic oral and injectable formulations.

Our French recommendations specify the choice of drug based on the type of fracture in women and on their bone mineral density (BMD). However, bisphosphonates are definitely given pride of place. When treatment for osteoporosis needs to be started, most of the time, a bisphosphonate is the treatment of choice.

Nevertheless, as also highlighted by the ACP, a more “aggressive” approach must be considered for more severe cases.

In the case of a severe fracture, the French recommendations indicate that all treatments can be prescribed. However, zoledronic acid should be favored as first-line treatment for a hip fracture. In other cases – with or without a nonsevere fracture – the therapeutic indication depends on the BMD values, and in difficult cases, on tools such as FRAX [the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool].

Our guidance strongly recommends opting for an injection in other contexts, such as significant decrease in bone density, presence of comorbidities, poor treatment compliance, brain function disorders, and polymedication.

Q. But it’s not really as simple as prescribing a bisphosphonate, is it?

A. You’re right, many people find the idea of taking bisphosphonates worrying because of associated jaw problems – osteonecrosis of the jaw – or atypical femoral fractures, based on what they’ve read on the Internet, where these serious adverse events are on display front and center with no mention of how often they actually happen and, often, failing to mention how effective bisphosphonates truly are.

These complications are real, but fortunately rare, especially during the first 5 years of treatment. To put this into context, for bisphosphonates, there’s one case of osteonecrosis of the jaw for every 10,000. And for denosumab, there are five cases for every 10,000. For atypical fractures, there’s one case for every 30,000 to 50,000.

Q. The U.S. guidelines also recommend that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab, also an antiresorptive drug – as second-line medical treatment. This is to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women diagnosed with primary osteoporosis and presenting with contraindications or side effects of bisphosphonates. Do you support the use of denosumab as second-line treatment?

A. French legislation classifies it as a second-line treatment, after bisphosphonates. However, there are arguments in favor of prescribing it as first-line treatment in some contexts. If denosumab is to be prescribed – via a twice-yearly subcutaneous injection – full compliance must be observed. If a patient is to stop taking denosumab, an opinion from a medical professional is required before treatment can be discontinued, and then treatment with bisphosphonates must be prescribed.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use either a sclerostin inhibitor – romosozumab – or recombinant human parathyroid hormone – teriparatide – two anabolic agents, followed by a bisphosphonate, with the aim of reducing the risk of fractures. This is only used in women with primary osteoporosis who are at a very high risk of fracture. As romosozumab is not available in France, it’s not really worth discussing its use. Does this strategy seem advisable to you, though?

A. The main issue is what is understood by “women at a very high risk of fracture.” There’s no consensus on the definition of what constitutes a woman at a very high risk of fracture, but we can assume that it involves the combination of low BMD and at least one severe fracture.

The role of anabolic bone treatment, as [the ACP] has defined it, seems logical to me, because in cases of severe osteoporosis with fracture, the risk of recurrence is very high in the next 2-3 years. In a study comparing risedronate and teriparatide in cases of severe osteoporosis, teriparatide was more effective in reducing the recurrence of vertebral fractures.

The favorable opinion of the French National Authority for Health in relation to medical coverage for romosozumab in the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in women under the age of 75 years with a history of severe fractures, a T-score less than –2.5, and no previous history of coronary artery disease dates to 2021. This is because medical coverage for this specific group was not listed in the marketing authorization (MA) description for this drug.

But the review by the Economic Committee for Health Products failed to reach a consensus regarding the price. Today, in theory, romosozumab can be dispensed in France by hospital pharmacies, because it is approved for use in public hospitals. Romosozumab is a very interesting drug for relatively young women, especially those with multiple vertebral fractures. This injectable treatment is more effective than teriparatide in increasing BMD values and more effective than alendronate in preventing the recurrence of fractures.

Regarding medical coverage, as it stands, in cases where patients have a T-score less than or equal to –3, the 2018 SFR–GRIO recommends starting treatment even if the patient has no fractures. In cases with severe fractures combined with very low BMD (T-score ≤ –3), injectable treatments may be used to reach a bone density target (T-score > –2.5 to –2 for the hip) at the end of the treatment plan. [These treatments include] zoledronic acid, denosumab (in case of bisphosphonate failure or intolerance), or a treatment plan with teriparatide (covered by medical insurance if the patient has at least two vertebral fractures) followed by an antiresorptive drug (bisphosphonate or denosumab).

Romosozumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2) that binds to sclerostin and acts as an inhibitor. This increases bone formation because of the activation of [bone lining cells], the production of bone matrix by osteoblasts, and the recruitment of osteochondroprogenitor cells. Moreover, romosozumab causes changes in the expression of osteoclast mediators, which decreases bone resorption. Together, these two effects that increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption lead to the rapid increase of trabecular and cortical bone mass, as well as improvements in bone structure and strength.

Women treated with a bone anabolic agent must take an antiresorptive agent at the end of their treatment so that the benefits from the treatment remain in the long term. The French and U.S. guidelines line up on this point.

In patients with two prevalent vertebral fractures, the U.S. guidelines state that teriparatide can be prescribed as first-line treatment at diagnosis in the absence of any contraindications. We agree on this point as well.

Moreover, in women under the age of 70 years with osteoporosis requiring treatment, French experts recommend prescribing raloxifene, a selective estrogen-receptor modulator. This is if the risk of nonvertebral fracture is low, as defined by the absence of the following criteria: low hip T-score, risk of falling, and history of nonvertebral fracture. Opportunities for its use are limited, and it doesn’t even figure among the U.S. recommendations.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians adopt an individualized approach regarding whether to start medical treatment with a bisphosphonate in women over age 65 years with low bone mass (osteopenia) to reduce the risk of fractures. If treatment is started, they›re of the opinion that a bisphosphonate must be used. What are the recommendations in France?

A. It should be noted that this recommendation by the ACP is conditional because of the low-certainty evidence.

Here’s a brief reminder of important things to note: a T-score between –2.5 and –1 indicates osteopenia; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 indicates osteoporosis; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 with one or several fractures indicates severe osteoporosis. The French recommendations state that treatment is not justified if a patient’s T-score is higher than –2 and there’s no presence of fractures, even with risk factors (and/or multiple falls). For T-scores less than or equal to –2 and higher than –3, the decision to prescribe depends on the specialist.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use bisphosphonates for the initial medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis.

A. The ACP recommends that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab – as second-line medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who present with contraindications or who are experiencing side effects of bisphosphonates. This treatment is not covered by health insurance for men in France.

Between 20% and 25% of clinical osteoporotic fractures occur in men. After age 50 years, men are roughly 20% more likely to experience an osteoporotic fracture in their lifetime. The French recommendations regarding the management and treatment of osteoporosis in men were published in 2021.

In the case of severe fractures (vertebrae, pelvis, upper end of the femur, distal femur, proximal humerus) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –1.

In the case of nonsevere fractures (particularly wrist and ankle) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –2. If there are no fractures, osteoporosis treatment is recommended in men at risk of bone fragility or of falling and if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –3. In patients who had a fracture of the upper end of the femur attributable to bone fragility, zoledronic acid is recommended as first-line treatment.

For men with a severe nonvertebral fracture, single vertebral fracture, or nonsevere fracture, two treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: zoledronic acid and risedronate. In men with at least two vertebral fractures, the following treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: teriparatide and risedronate. In this case, teriparatide is prescribed for a period of 18 months. It must be followed by a prescription of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates.

Q. What is your take on the HAS update to the proper use of osteoporosis medication that’s just been published?

A. Like in the 2018 SFR–GRIO guidelines, no update has been made to the section on postmenopausal osteoporosis, except for the HAS introduction to the proper use of romosozumab, even though it’s not covered by health insurance in France.

In accordance with the MA, it doesn’t make sense to include this drug on the list of treatment options available for women with and without fractures, as it’s not included in the HAS-selected list of drugs covered by health insurance in France.

But I’m glad that the HAS has adopted the GRIO and SFR recommendations regarding corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. Preventive treatment for corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis must be considered as soon as the daily dose of corticosteroids reaches or exceeds the equivalent of 7.5 mg of prednisone and when the estimated duration of corticosteroid therapy exceeds 3 months.

In summary, in women and men over the age of 50 years, the intake of the equivalent of 7.5 mg/day or more of prednisone or a history of a low-trauma fracture or being age 70 years or older, even with a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 for one of the two sites, indicates prescribing a bisphosphonate. Teriparatide is indicated if the patient has two vertebral fractures.

This article was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

Lille, France – The American College of Physicians has just updated its guidelines for osteoporosis treatment. Bernard Cortet, MD, PhD, chairperson of the Osteoporosis Research and Information Group and head of the rheumatology department at Lille (France) University Hospital, has agreed to compare the new U.S. guidelines to the 2018 French recommendations written under the aegis of the French Society for Rheumatology and GRIO. Dr. Cortet participated in drafting the French recommendations.

Question: The ACP “strongly” recommends initial pharmacologic treatment with bisphosphonate antiresorptive drugs (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate) in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis. Isn’t this what the SFR–GRIO have been recommending for many years?

Answer: The ACP reinforces its stance by arguing that in postmenopausal females with primary osteoporosis, bisphosphonates have the most favorable balance between benefits, harms, patient values and preferences, and cost among the drug classes that were evaluated. In addition to net clinical benefits, bisphosphonates are much cheaper than other pharmacologic treatments and are available in generic oral and injectable formulations.

Our French recommendations specify the choice of drug based on the type of fracture in women and on their bone mineral density (BMD). However, bisphosphonates are definitely given pride of place. When treatment for osteoporosis needs to be started, most of the time, a bisphosphonate is the treatment of choice.

Nevertheless, as also highlighted by the ACP, a more “aggressive” approach must be considered for more severe cases.

In the case of a severe fracture, the French recommendations indicate that all treatments can be prescribed. However, zoledronic acid should be favored as first-line treatment for a hip fracture. In other cases – with or without a nonsevere fracture – the therapeutic indication depends on the BMD values, and in difficult cases, on tools such as FRAX [the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool].

Our guidance strongly recommends opting for an injection in other contexts, such as significant decrease in bone density, presence of comorbidities, poor treatment compliance, brain function disorders, and polymedication.

Q. But it’s not really as simple as prescribing a bisphosphonate, is it?

A. You’re right, many people find the idea of taking bisphosphonates worrying because of associated jaw problems – osteonecrosis of the jaw – or atypical femoral fractures, based on what they’ve read on the Internet, where these serious adverse events are on display front and center with no mention of how often they actually happen and, often, failing to mention how effective bisphosphonates truly are.

These complications are real, but fortunately rare, especially during the first 5 years of treatment. To put this into context, for bisphosphonates, there’s one case of osteonecrosis of the jaw for every 10,000. And for denosumab, there are five cases for every 10,000. For atypical fractures, there’s one case for every 30,000 to 50,000.

Q. The U.S. guidelines also recommend that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab, also an antiresorptive drug – as second-line medical treatment. This is to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women diagnosed with primary osteoporosis and presenting with contraindications or side effects of bisphosphonates. Do you support the use of denosumab as second-line treatment?

A. French legislation classifies it as a second-line treatment, after bisphosphonates. However, there are arguments in favor of prescribing it as first-line treatment in some contexts. If denosumab is to be prescribed – via a twice-yearly subcutaneous injection – full compliance must be observed. If a patient is to stop taking denosumab, an opinion from a medical professional is required before treatment can be discontinued, and then treatment with bisphosphonates must be prescribed.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use either a sclerostin inhibitor – romosozumab – or recombinant human parathyroid hormone – teriparatide – two anabolic agents, followed by a bisphosphonate, with the aim of reducing the risk of fractures. This is only used in women with primary osteoporosis who are at a very high risk of fracture. As romosozumab is not available in France, it’s not really worth discussing its use. Does this strategy seem advisable to you, though?

A. The main issue is what is understood by “women at a very high risk of fracture.” There’s no consensus on the definition of what constitutes a woman at a very high risk of fracture, but we can assume that it involves the combination of low BMD and at least one severe fracture.

The role of anabolic bone treatment, as [the ACP] has defined it, seems logical to me, because in cases of severe osteoporosis with fracture, the risk of recurrence is very high in the next 2-3 years. In a study comparing risedronate and teriparatide in cases of severe osteoporosis, teriparatide was more effective in reducing the recurrence of vertebral fractures.

The favorable opinion of the French National Authority for Health in relation to medical coverage for romosozumab in the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in women under the age of 75 years with a history of severe fractures, a T-score less than –2.5, and no previous history of coronary artery disease dates to 2021. This is because medical coverage for this specific group was not listed in the marketing authorization (MA) description for this drug.

But the review by the Economic Committee for Health Products failed to reach a consensus regarding the price. Today, in theory, romosozumab can be dispensed in France by hospital pharmacies, because it is approved for use in public hospitals. Romosozumab is a very interesting drug for relatively young women, especially those with multiple vertebral fractures. This injectable treatment is more effective than teriparatide in increasing BMD values and more effective than alendronate in preventing the recurrence of fractures.

Regarding medical coverage, as it stands, in cases where patients have a T-score less than or equal to –3, the 2018 SFR–GRIO recommends starting treatment even if the patient has no fractures. In cases with severe fractures combined with very low BMD (T-score ≤ –3), injectable treatments may be used to reach a bone density target (T-score > –2.5 to –2 for the hip) at the end of the treatment plan. [These treatments include] zoledronic acid, denosumab (in case of bisphosphonate failure or intolerance), or a treatment plan with teriparatide (covered by medical insurance if the patient has at least two vertebral fractures) followed by an antiresorptive drug (bisphosphonate or denosumab).

Romosozumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2) that binds to sclerostin and acts as an inhibitor. This increases bone formation because of the activation of [bone lining cells], the production of bone matrix by osteoblasts, and the recruitment of osteochondroprogenitor cells. Moreover, romosozumab causes changes in the expression of osteoclast mediators, which decreases bone resorption. Together, these two effects that increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption lead to the rapid increase of trabecular and cortical bone mass, as well as improvements in bone structure and strength.

Women treated with a bone anabolic agent must take an antiresorptive agent at the end of their treatment so that the benefits from the treatment remain in the long term. The French and U.S. guidelines line up on this point.

In patients with two prevalent vertebral fractures, the U.S. guidelines state that teriparatide can be prescribed as first-line treatment at diagnosis in the absence of any contraindications. We agree on this point as well.

Moreover, in women under the age of 70 years with osteoporosis requiring treatment, French experts recommend prescribing raloxifene, a selective estrogen-receptor modulator. This is if the risk of nonvertebral fracture is low, as defined by the absence of the following criteria: low hip T-score, risk of falling, and history of nonvertebral fracture. Opportunities for its use are limited, and it doesn’t even figure among the U.S. recommendations.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians adopt an individualized approach regarding whether to start medical treatment with a bisphosphonate in women over age 65 years with low bone mass (osteopenia) to reduce the risk of fractures. If treatment is started, they›re of the opinion that a bisphosphonate must be used. What are the recommendations in France?

A. It should be noted that this recommendation by the ACP is conditional because of the low-certainty evidence.

Here’s a brief reminder of important things to note: a T-score between –2.5 and –1 indicates osteopenia; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 indicates osteoporosis; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 with one or several fractures indicates severe osteoporosis. The French recommendations state that treatment is not justified if a patient’s T-score is higher than –2 and there’s no presence of fractures, even with risk factors (and/or multiple falls). For T-scores less than or equal to –2 and higher than –3, the decision to prescribe depends on the specialist.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use bisphosphonates for the initial medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis.

A. The ACP recommends that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab – as second-line medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who present with contraindications or who are experiencing side effects of bisphosphonates. This treatment is not covered by health insurance for men in France.

Between 20% and 25% of clinical osteoporotic fractures occur in men. After age 50 years, men are roughly 20% more likely to experience an osteoporotic fracture in their lifetime. The French recommendations regarding the management and treatment of osteoporosis in men were published in 2021.

In the case of severe fractures (vertebrae, pelvis, upper end of the femur, distal femur, proximal humerus) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –1.

In the case of nonsevere fractures (particularly wrist and ankle) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –2. If there are no fractures, osteoporosis treatment is recommended in men at risk of bone fragility or of falling and if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –3. In patients who had a fracture of the upper end of the femur attributable to bone fragility, zoledronic acid is recommended as first-line treatment.

For men with a severe nonvertebral fracture, single vertebral fracture, or nonsevere fracture, two treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: zoledronic acid and risedronate. In men with at least two vertebral fractures, the following treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: teriparatide and risedronate. In this case, teriparatide is prescribed for a period of 18 months. It must be followed by a prescription of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates.

Q. What is your take on the HAS update to the proper use of osteoporosis medication that’s just been published?

A. Like in the 2018 SFR–GRIO guidelines, no update has been made to the section on postmenopausal osteoporosis, except for the HAS introduction to the proper use of romosozumab, even though it’s not covered by health insurance in France.

In accordance with the MA, it doesn’t make sense to include this drug on the list of treatment options available for women with and without fractures, as it’s not included in the HAS-selected list of drugs covered by health insurance in France.

But I’m glad that the HAS has adopted the GRIO and SFR recommendations regarding corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. Preventive treatment for corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis must be considered as soon as the daily dose of corticosteroids reaches or exceeds the equivalent of 7.5 mg of prednisone and when the estimated duration of corticosteroid therapy exceeds 3 months.

In summary, in women and men over the age of 50 years, the intake of the equivalent of 7.5 mg/day or more of prednisone or a history of a low-trauma fracture or being age 70 years or older, even with a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 for one of the two sites, indicates prescribing a bisphosphonate. Teriparatide is indicated if the patient has two vertebral fractures.

This article was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

Lille, France – The American College of Physicians has just updated its guidelines for osteoporosis treatment. Bernard Cortet, MD, PhD, chairperson of the Osteoporosis Research and Information Group and head of the rheumatology department at Lille (France) University Hospital, has agreed to compare the new U.S. guidelines to the 2018 French recommendations written under the aegis of the French Society for Rheumatology and GRIO. Dr. Cortet participated in drafting the French recommendations.

Question: The ACP “strongly” recommends initial pharmacologic treatment with bisphosphonate antiresorptive drugs (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate) in postmenopausal females diagnosed with primary osteoporosis. Isn’t this what the SFR–GRIO have been recommending for many years?

Answer: The ACP reinforces its stance by arguing that in postmenopausal females with primary osteoporosis, bisphosphonates have the most favorable balance between benefits, harms, patient values and preferences, and cost among the drug classes that were evaluated. In addition to net clinical benefits, bisphosphonates are much cheaper than other pharmacologic treatments and are available in generic oral and injectable formulations.

Our French recommendations specify the choice of drug based on the type of fracture in women and on their bone mineral density (BMD). However, bisphosphonates are definitely given pride of place. When treatment for osteoporosis needs to be started, most of the time, a bisphosphonate is the treatment of choice.

Nevertheless, as also highlighted by the ACP, a more “aggressive” approach must be considered for more severe cases.

In the case of a severe fracture, the French recommendations indicate that all treatments can be prescribed. However, zoledronic acid should be favored as first-line treatment for a hip fracture. In other cases – with or without a nonsevere fracture – the therapeutic indication depends on the BMD values, and in difficult cases, on tools such as FRAX [the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool].

Our guidance strongly recommends opting for an injection in other contexts, such as significant decrease in bone density, presence of comorbidities, poor treatment compliance, brain function disorders, and polymedication.

Q. But it’s not really as simple as prescribing a bisphosphonate, is it?

A. You’re right, many people find the idea of taking bisphosphonates worrying because of associated jaw problems – osteonecrosis of the jaw – or atypical femoral fractures, based on what they’ve read on the Internet, where these serious adverse events are on display front and center with no mention of how often they actually happen and, often, failing to mention how effective bisphosphonates truly are.

These complications are real, but fortunately rare, especially during the first 5 years of treatment. To put this into context, for bisphosphonates, there’s one case of osteonecrosis of the jaw for every 10,000. And for denosumab, there are five cases for every 10,000. For atypical fractures, there’s one case for every 30,000 to 50,000.

Q. The U.S. guidelines also recommend that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab, also an antiresorptive drug – as second-line medical treatment. This is to reduce the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women diagnosed with primary osteoporosis and presenting with contraindications or side effects of bisphosphonates. Do you support the use of denosumab as second-line treatment?

A. French legislation classifies it as a second-line treatment, after bisphosphonates. However, there are arguments in favor of prescribing it as first-line treatment in some contexts. If denosumab is to be prescribed – via a twice-yearly subcutaneous injection – full compliance must be observed. If a patient is to stop taking denosumab, an opinion from a medical professional is required before treatment can be discontinued, and then treatment with bisphosphonates must be prescribed.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use either a sclerostin inhibitor – romosozumab – or recombinant human parathyroid hormone – teriparatide – two anabolic agents, followed by a bisphosphonate, with the aim of reducing the risk of fractures. This is only used in women with primary osteoporosis who are at a very high risk of fracture. As romosozumab is not available in France, it’s not really worth discussing its use. Does this strategy seem advisable to you, though?

A. The main issue is what is understood by “women at a very high risk of fracture.” There’s no consensus on the definition of what constitutes a woman at a very high risk of fracture, but we can assume that it involves the combination of low BMD and at least one severe fracture.

The role of anabolic bone treatment, as [the ACP] has defined it, seems logical to me, because in cases of severe osteoporosis with fracture, the risk of recurrence is very high in the next 2-3 years. In a study comparing risedronate and teriparatide in cases of severe osteoporosis, teriparatide was more effective in reducing the recurrence of vertebral fractures.

The favorable opinion of the French National Authority for Health in relation to medical coverage for romosozumab in the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in women under the age of 75 years with a history of severe fractures, a T-score less than –2.5, and no previous history of coronary artery disease dates to 2021. This is because medical coverage for this specific group was not listed in the marketing authorization (MA) description for this drug.

But the review by the Economic Committee for Health Products failed to reach a consensus regarding the price. Today, in theory, romosozumab can be dispensed in France by hospital pharmacies, because it is approved for use in public hospitals. Romosozumab is a very interesting drug for relatively young women, especially those with multiple vertebral fractures. This injectable treatment is more effective than teriparatide in increasing BMD values and more effective than alendronate in preventing the recurrence of fractures.

Regarding medical coverage, as it stands, in cases where patients have a T-score less than or equal to –3, the 2018 SFR–GRIO recommends starting treatment even if the patient has no fractures. In cases with severe fractures combined with very low BMD (T-score ≤ –3), injectable treatments may be used to reach a bone density target (T-score > –2.5 to –2 for the hip) at the end of the treatment plan. [These treatments include] zoledronic acid, denosumab (in case of bisphosphonate failure or intolerance), or a treatment plan with teriparatide (covered by medical insurance if the patient has at least two vertebral fractures) followed by an antiresorptive drug (bisphosphonate or denosumab).

Romosozumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2) that binds to sclerostin and acts as an inhibitor. This increases bone formation because of the activation of [bone lining cells], the production of bone matrix by osteoblasts, and the recruitment of osteochondroprogenitor cells. Moreover, romosozumab causes changes in the expression of osteoclast mediators, which decreases bone resorption. Together, these two effects that increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption lead to the rapid increase of trabecular and cortical bone mass, as well as improvements in bone structure and strength.

Women treated with a bone anabolic agent must take an antiresorptive agent at the end of their treatment so that the benefits from the treatment remain in the long term. The French and U.S. guidelines line up on this point.

In patients with two prevalent vertebral fractures, the U.S. guidelines state that teriparatide can be prescribed as first-line treatment at diagnosis in the absence of any contraindications. We agree on this point as well.

Moreover, in women under the age of 70 years with osteoporosis requiring treatment, French experts recommend prescribing raloxifene, a selective estrogen-receptor modulator. This is if the risk of nonvertebral fracture is low, as defined by the absence of the following criteria: low hip T-score, risk of falling, and history of nonvertebral fracture. Opportunities for its use are limited, and it doesn’t even figure among the U.S. recommendations.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians adopt an individualized approach regarding whether to start medical treatment with a bisphosphonate in women over age 65 years with low bone mass (osteopenia) to reduce the risk of fractures. If treatment is started, they›re of the opinion that a bisphosphonate must be used. What are the recommendations in France?

A. It should be noted that this recommendation by the ACP is conditional because of the low-certainty evidence.

Here’s a brief reminder of important things to note: a T-score between –2.5 and –1 indicates osteopenia; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 indicates osteoporosis; a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 with one or several fractures indicates severe osteoporosis. The French recommendations state that treatment is not justified if a patient’s T-score is higher than –2 and there’s no presence of fractures, even with risk factors (and/or multiple falls). For T-scores less than or equal to –2 and higher than –3, the decision to prescribe depends on the specialist.

Q. The ACP recommends that clinicians use bisphosphonates for the initial medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis.

A. The ACP recommends that clinicians use a RANK ligand inhibitor – denosumab – as second-line medical treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in men diagnosed with primary osteoporosis who present with contraindications or who are experiencing side effects of bisphosphonates. This treatment is not covered by health insurance for men in France.

Between 20% and 25% of clinical osteoporotic fractures occur in men. After age 50 years, men are roughly 20% more likely to experience an osteoporotic fracture in their lifetime. The French recommendations regarding the management and treatment of osteoporosis in men were published in 2021.

In the case of severe fractures (vertebrae, pelvis, upper end of the femur, distal femur, proximal humerus) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –1.

In the case of nonsevere fractures (particularly wrist and ankle) attributable to bone fragility, osteoporosis treatment is recommended if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –2. If there are no fractures, osteoporosis treatment is recommended in men at risk of bone fragility or of falling and if one of the T-scores is less than or equal to –3. In patients who had a fracture of the upper end of the femur attributable to bone fragility, zoledronic acid is recommended as first-line treatment.

For men with a severe nonvertebral fracture, single vertebral fracture, or nonsevere fracture, two treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: zoledronic acid and risedronate. In men with at least two vertebral fractures, the following treatments are indicated and covered by health insurance in France: teriparatide and risedronate. In this case, teriparatide is prescribed for a period of 18 months. It must be followed by a prescription of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates.

Q. What is your take on the HAS update to the proper use of osteoporosis medication that’s just been published?

A. Like in the 2018 SFR–GRIO guidelines, no update has been made to the section on postmenopausal osteoporosis, except for the HAS introduction to the proper use of romosozumab, even though it’s not covered by health insurance in France.

In accordance with the MA, it doesn’t make sense to include this drug on the list of treatment options available for women with and without fractures, as it’s not included in the HAS-selected list of drugs covered by health insurance in France.

But I’m glad that the HAS has adopted the GRIO and SFR recommendations regarding corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis. Preventive treatment for corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis must be considered as soon as the daily dose of corticosteroids reaches or exceeds the equivalent of 7.5 mg of prednisone and when the estimated duration of corticosteroid therapy exceeds 3 months.

In summary, in women and men over the age of 50 years, the intake of the equivalent of 7.5 mg/day or more of prednisone or a history of a low-trauma fracture or being age 70 years or older, even with a T-score less than or equal to –2.5 for one of the two sites, indicates prescribing a bisphosphonate. Teriparatide is indicated if the patient has two vertebral fractures.

This article was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

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

SAN DIEGO – A new retrospective analysis of patients with myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody disease (MOGAD) indicates that treatment with immunotherapy is associated with a lower risk of relapse. The authors note that many MOGAD patients never experience a relapse and it is difficult to predict which ones will.

MOGAD can cause optic neuritis, transverse myelitis, and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). It was first described in 2007, and the best approaches to therapy are not yet understood. The new study is at least a starting point for understanding treatment outcomes, according to Philippe Bilodeau, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
 

Predicting which patients will relapse

“I think one of the biggest unanswered clinical questions in MOGAD is trying to determine who’s going to go on to have relapsing MOGAD. About 30% to 40% of patients with MOGAD will never have a second attack. So one of the big questions is: How can we identify patients who would benefit from immunotherapy, and how can we identify patients who will have a more benign disease course and may not need to be started on a treatment,” said Dr. Bilodeau, a neurology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital/Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The researchers analyzed data from 143 patients seen at Massachusetts General or Brigham and Women’s Hospital who had presented with their first attack. Over a follow-up period of 5 years, the relapse rate was 61.8%. The researchers examined various factors, including age of onset, high MOG titer, attack type, and male sex, and found that only the latter came close to predicting relapse, though it fell short of clinical significance (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; P = .07).

However, treatment with mycophenolate, azathioprine, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), rituximab, or tocilizumab strongly predicted a lower probability of relapse (HR, 0.25; P < .0001).
 

The most effective treatment for relapsing MOGAD

In a separate poster, his team examined a subset of the cohort of 88 patients who were treated with mycophenolate mofetil, B-cell depletion, rituximab, or IV immunoglobulins (IVIG) during a first or second relapse, as well as an analysis of every relapse experienced by any patient during the course of their disease. “Using a negative binomial regression, we looked at the annualized relapse rates and incidence rate ratios between the different treatments. No matter how you looked at the data – even if you looked at total time on IVIG, if you looked at time on monotherapy, excluding if they were on prednisone at the same time if they were on both IVIG and rituximab, if you only consider patients that were on high dose IVIG – IVIG was by far the best treatment and rituximab was always the least effective, and mycophenolate was always between IVIG and rituximab. So I think in that cohort, we can say with some confidence that IVIG is the most effective treatment for relapsing MOGAD,” said Dr. Bilodeau.

Other studies had suggested efficacy of individual treatments, but “I think what hadn’t been done is taking one cohort and comparing those treatments head to head, so that’s what we were trying to do,” said Dr. Bilodeau.

Both studies have the usual caveats of a retrospective study and so cannot prove causality. “We need to find more covariates to make sure that there’s no confounding (factor) explaining this and to make sure that there aren’t other demographic or clinical factors that explain the association. But as it stands, I think at this time starting treatment with immunotherapy is the only thing that we know will reduce the risk of having a future relapse. There’s a lot of further analysis that we need to do,” said Dr. Bilodeau.

He said that the study also provided some preliminary insight into treatment of pediatric disease. “We have interesting data from that analysis that pediatric-onset MOGAD actually had a particularly good response to [mycophenolate], more so than in adults,” he said.

“At this point, I think a rational approach if you have someone coming in with a first relapse is, you have to assess their risk tolerance. If they’re a very risk-averse patient, I think it’s reasonable to start them on treatment. I think it’s reasonable to monitor their titer. There’s some data that if they seroconvert to negative, you might be able to stop immunotherapy. If someone has established relapsing disease, and they have adult onset [disease], IVIG should be the first-line treatment. If they’re pediatric onset, either [mycophenolate] or IVIG are probably good first line treatments,” he said.
 

‘A good beginning’

The studies are a good beginning to getting a better understanding of MOGAD treatment, according to Michael Cossoy, MD, who attended the poster session and was asked to comment on the study.

“It’s interesting because MOG antibody-associated disease is so relatively new that we don’t have a great idea yet about who needs to be treated. Should we put them on some immunosuppressive therapy or should we wait? At the moment this is a bit of a tautology. You know that if you put people on therapy from the very first event, some of those people are not going to have a second event. And some of the people are, but you’ve decreased the risk of them having that second (event) if your treatment is effective. So that’s what they’ve shown, which is great. But the question is, can you predict who’s going to have a second event and know who to put on treatment and not put on treatment? It’s too early to know, but this is a good start,” said Dr. Cossoy, assistant professor of ophthalmology at the University of Manitoba.

Dr. Bilodeau and Dr. Cossoy have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – A new retrospective analysis of patients with myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody disease (MOGAD) indicates that treatment with immunotherapy is associated with a lower risk of relapse. The authors note that many MOGAD patients never experience a relapse and it is difficult to predict which ones will.

MOGAD can cause optic neuritis, transverse myelitis, and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). It was first described in 2007, and the best approaches to therapy are not yet understood. The new study is at least a starting point for understanding treatment outcomes, according to Philippe Bilodeau, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
 

Predicting which patients will relapse

“I think one of the biggest unanswered clinical questions in MOGAD is trying to determine who’s going to go on to have relapsing MOGAD. About 30% to 40% of patients with MOGAD will never have a second attack. So one of the big questions is: How can we identify patients who would benefit from immunotherapy, and how can we identify patients who will have a more benign disease course and may not need to be started on a treatment,” said Dr. Bilodeau, a neurology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital/Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The researchers analyzed data from 143 patients seen at Massachusetts General or Brigham and Women’s Hospital who had presented with their first attack. Over a follow-up period of 5 years, the relapse rate was 61.8%. The researchers examined various factors, including age of onset, high MOG titer, attack type, and male sex, and found that only the latter came close to predicting relapse, though it fell short of clinical significance (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; P = .07).

However, treatment with mycophenolate, azathioprine, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), rituximab, or tocilizumab strongly predicted a lower probability of relapse (HR, 0.25; P < .0001).
 

The most effective treatment for relapsing MOGAD

In a separate poster, his team examined a subset of the cohort of 88 patients who were treated with mycophenolate mofetil, B-cell depletion, rituximab, or IV immunoglobulins (IVIG) during a first or second relapse, as well as an analysis of every relapse experienced by any patient during the course of their disease. “Using a negative binomial regression, we looked at the annualized relapse rates and incidence rate ratios between the different treatments. No matter how you looked at the data – even if you looked at total time on IVIG, if you looked at time on monotherapy, excluding if they were on prednisone at the same time if they were on both IVIG and rituximab, if you only consider patients that were on high dose IVIG – IVIG was by far the best treatment and rituximab was always the least effective, and mycophenolate was always between IVIG and rituximab. So I think in that cohort, we can say with some confidence that IVIG is the most effective treatment for relapsing MOGAD,” said Dr. Bilodeau.

Other studies had suggested efficacy of individual treatments, but “I think what hadn’t been done is taking one cohort and comparing those treatments head to head, so that’s what we were trying to do,” said Dr. Bilodeau.

Both studies have the usual caveats of a retrospective study and so cannot prove causality. “We need to find more covariates to make sure that there’s no confounding (factor) explaining this and to make sure that there aren’t other demographic or clinical factors that explain the association. But as it stands, I think at this time starting treatment with immunotherapy is the only thing that we know will reduce the risk of having a future relapse. There’s a lot of further analysis that we need to do,” said Dr. Bilodeau.

He said that the study also provided some preliminary insight into treatment of pediatric disease. “We have interesting data from that analysis that pediatric-onset MOGAD actually had a particularly good response to [mycophenolate], more so than in adults,” he said.

“At this point, I think a rational approach if you have someone coming in with a first relapse is, you have to assess their risk tolerance. If they’re a very risk-averse patient, I think it’s reasonable to start them on treatment. I think it’s reasonable to monitor their titer. There’s some data that if they seroconvert to negative, you might be able to stop immunotherapy. If someone has established relapsing disease, and they have adult onset [disease], IVIG should be the first-line treatment. If they’re pediatric onset, either [mycophenolate] or IVIG are probably good first line treatments,” he said.
 

‘A good beginning’

The studies are a good beginning to getting a better understanding of MOGAD treatment, according to Michael Cossoy, MD, who attended the poster session and was asked to comment on the study.

“It’s interesting because MOG antibody-associated disease is so relatively new that we don’t have a great idea yet about who needs to be treated. Should we put them on some immunosuppressive therapy or should we wait? At the moment this is a bit of a tautology. You know that if you put people on therapy from the very first event, some of those people are not going to have a second event. And some of the people are, but you’ve decreased the risk of them having that second (event) if your treatment is effective. So that’s what they’ve shown, which is great. But the question is, can you predict who’s going to have a second event and know who to put on treatment and not put on treatment? It’s too early to know, but this is a good start,” said Dr. Cossoy, assistant professor of ophthalmology at the University of Manitoba.

Dr. Bilodeau and Dr. Cossoy have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – A new retrospective analysis of patients with myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody disease (MOGAD) indicates that treatment with immunotherapy is associated with a lower risk of relapse. The authors note that many MOGAD patients never experience a relapse and it is difficult to predict which ones will.

MOGAD can cause optic neuritis, transverse myelitis, and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). It was first described in 2007, and the best approaches to therapy are not yet understood. The new study is at least a starting point for understanding treatment outcomes, according to Philippe Bilodeau, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
 

Predicting which patients will relapse

“I think one of the biggest unanswered clinical questions in MOGAD is trying to determine who’s going to go on to have relapsing MOGAD. About 30% to 40% of patients with MOGAD will never have a second attack. So one of the big questions is: How can we identify patients who would benefit from immunotherapy, and how can we identify patients who will have a more benign disease course and may not need to be started on a treatment,” said Dr. Bilodeau, a neurology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital/Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The researchers analyzed data from 143 patients seen at Massachusetts General or Brigham and Women’s Hospital who had presented with their first attack. Over a follow-up period of 5 years, the relapse rate was 61.8%. The researchers examined various factors, including age of onset, high MOG titer, attack type, and male sex, and found that only the latter came close to predicting relapse, though it fell short of clinical significance (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; P = .07).

However, treatment with mycophenolate, azathioprine, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), rituximab, or tocilizumab strongly predicted a lower probability of relapse (HR, 0.25; P < .0001).
 

The most effective treatment for relapsing MOGAD

In a separate poster, his team examined a subset of the cohort of 88 patients who were treated with mycophenolate mofetil, B-cell depletion, rituximab, or IV immunoglobulins (IVIG) during a first or second relapse, as well as an analysis of every relapse experienced by any patient during the course of their disease. “Using a negative binomial regression, we looked at the annualized relapse rates and incidence rate ratios between the different treatments. No matter how you looked at the data – even if you looked at total time on IVIG, if you looked at time on monotherapy, excluding if they were on prednisone at the same time if they were on both IVIG and rituximab, if you only consider patients that were on high dose IVIG – IVIG was by far the best treatment and rituximab was always the least effective, and mycophenolate was always between IVIG and rituximab. So I think in that cohort, we can say with some confidence that IVIG is the most effective treatment for relapsing MOGAD,” said Dr. Bilodeau.

Other studies had suggested efficacy of individual treatments, but “I think what hadn’t been done is taking one cohort and comparing those treatments head to head, so that’s what we were trying to do,” said Dr. Bilodeau.

Both studies have the usual caveats of a retrospective study and so cannot prove causality. “We need to find more covariates to make sure that there’s no confounding (factor) explaining this and to make sure that there aren’t other demographic or clinical factors that explain the association. But as it stands, I think at this time starting treatment with immunotherapy is the only thing that we know will reduce the risk of having a future relapse. There’s a lot of further analysis that we need to do,” said Dr. Bilodeau.

He said that the study also provided some preliminary insight into treatment of pediatric disease. “We have interesting data from that analysis that pediatric-onset MOGAD actually had a particularly good response to [mycophenolate], more so than in adults,” he said.

“At this point, I think a rational approach if you have someone coming in with a first relapse is, you have to assess their risk tolerance. If they’re a very risk-averse patient, I think it’s reasonable to start them on treatment. I think it’s reasonable to monitor their titer. There’s some data that if they seroconvert to negative, you might be able to stop immunotherapy. If someone has established relapsing disease, and they have adult onset [disease], IVIG should be the first-line treatment. If they’re pediatric onset, either [mycophenolate] or IVIG are probably good first line treatments,” he said.
 

‘A good beginning’

The studies are a good beginning to getting a better understanding of MOGAD treatment, according to Michael Cossoy, MD, who attended the poster session and was asked to comment on the study.

“It’s interesting because MOG antibody-associated disease is so relatively new that we don’t have a great idea yet about who needs to be treated. Should we put them on some immunosuppressive therapy or should we wait? At the moment this is a bit of a tautology. You know that if you put people on therapy from the very first event, some of those people are not going to have a second event. And some of the people are, but you’ve decreased the risk of them having that second (event) if your treatment is effective. So that’s what they’ve shown, which is great. But the question is, can you predict who’s going to have a second event and know who to put on treatment and not put on treatment? It’s too early to know, but this is a good start,” said Dr. Cossoy, assistant professor of ophthalmology at the University of Manitoba.

Dr. Bilodeau and Dr. Cossoy have no relevant financial disclosures.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a series telling these stories.

In December 2017, I was a second-year urology resident at Cleveland Clinic. I’d gone to New Delhi to attend my best friend’s wedding. My flight back was New Delhi to Paris to JFK via Air France. I didn’t sleep on the first flight. So, on the second, I wanted to get some rest, because I had to go back to work the next day. I put on a movie and tried to snooze. As the saying goes in residency, you sleep when you can.

About 3 hours later, a flight attendant made an announcement in French, but I didn’t really hear it. Then they announced in English that they needed a physician. I noticed some flight attendants walking frantically around the economy cabin asking, “Is there a doctor on the plane?” Turns out there were two – the woman sitting next to me happened to be a pediatrician with Doctors Without Borders. I volunteered.

The flight attendant told me a woman was having abdominal pain. I thought it would be something straightforward. Usually, medical emergencies on planes involve chest pain or a panic attack or a vasovagal syncopal episode. Well, I was in for a ride that day.

The woman in pain was traveling from Nigeria. She told me about the abdominal pain. Then she lifted her blanket – she was pregnant. She said she was 37 or 38 weeks in. I said, “Okay, if you’re having this significant abdominal pain, then I need to examine you.” So we decided to move her to the first-class cabin, which was empty (I never did ask why – but it was good we had room to work).

Next step, I went back to my seat and asked the pediatrician if she could assist. My plan was to simply get the passenger through the flight, and as soon as we landed, she would go to the hospital.

There was room to lie down in first class. The pediatrician and I examined her, and she appeared fine. She was traveling with her 4-year-old daughter, and the flight attendants were taking care of her. Everything was okay.

The pilot came back and asked if we would need an emergency landing. I asked him how far it was to JFK – 4 hours. He said the closest place to land would be the Azores Islands, which is Portuguese territory, 2 hours away.

The problem: Even if we made it to the Azores, the hospital there was a very basic facility with no obstetric care available. And by the time the ambulance picked her up and got her there, it would still be 2 or 3 hours total. I said, “No, let’s just observe and continue our course.” Inside my head, I was hoping and praying to God that was the right decision.

Within an hour, everything changed.

The woman’s pain got worse, and she started having contractions. Then her water broke.

Things progressed quickly from there. The contractions progressively got worse and worse. The interval between them got smaller and smaller. The next time we examined her, we could see the baby’s head beginning to crown.

At that point, we had to decide – are we going to deliver? We were in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean. There was nothing around us. We were 35,000 feet in the air, surrounded by blue.

The crew wanted us to sign a Good Samaritan agreement. So, we did that. And then I said, “Okay, let’s just go for it.”

We got the plane’s medical kit. They had IV fluids, so I started an IV. I was able to monitor the woman’s blood pressure. They had the usual drugs for doing ACLS [advanced cardiac life support], running the code, and things like that. But they didn’t have a suturing kit or a laceration kit. They didn’t have a scalpel. There was nothing else.

Honestly, there was a lot of panic going through my head. I started thinking about what could go wrong. I’d done an ob.gyn. rotation in medical school and delivered seven babies before it was over. But a plane – even the first-class cabin – is in no way, shape, or form like a delivery room. I was really scared she would hemorrhage out or something.

So, internally, I was having a meltdown. Sij, you have to keep it together right now, because there’s no one else that’s going to do this. Just give it your best shot. And that’s what I did.

I asked the pilot to go to an altitude that would minimize any turbulence, and we were very lucky that the notorious North Atlantic air wasn’t choppy.

More luck: This was the passenger’s second baby, and I was counting on second deliveries being easier. The pediatrician, the flight attendants, and I came together as a team. Two flight attendants had given birth before, so they held the patient’s hand and guided her to push. I was “downstairs” waiting to catch.

She was in some pain. At this point, usually people get an epidural. I kept thinking about what drugs were safe in pregnancy, but I wasn’t sure. I don’t know if they even had morphine or anything on the plane. We gave her some Tylenol.

It didn’t take long. After about 30 minutes, the baby’s head emerged. I was able to navigate it out, avoiding any shoulder dystocia. There’s a certain technique that you learn in medical school, which thankfully came back to me. I caught it – it was a boy born right there in a first-class seat.

I gave him to the pediatrician, and she did the Apgar score, calculating his breathing and appearance. Then my job was to make sure there were no postpartum complications.

I ended up using a piece of string in the kit to tie around the umbilical cord, and then I cut it with scissors. After that, the woman was able to deliver the placenta. She did have some vaginal bleeding, but that resolved by just holding pressure.

The baby was fine. Mom was doing great. No complications. It was a miracle. I was the right person at the right place at the right time. I just think it was something from God.

The pilot made an announcement, “We’re en route to JFK, and there’s an additional passenger on this plane now.”

When we landed, I had very little time because I had to catch my flight to Cleveland. I didn’t even process what had happened.

A few days later, I got this package from Air France with a very expensive bottle of champagne along with a travel voucher. I heard from the mom by email – she and baby were doing fine.

Eventually, the media relations people at Cleveland Clinic heard about the incident, and it became a story that went viral. That was very weird, because I’m usually someone who’s private. All through my residency, people would introduce me with, “Remember that guy who delivered a baby on a plane? That’s him.”

I’m so thankful for everyone who was on that team. It was very beautiful because it was people from different cultures, backgrounds, and faiths who came together to achieve something so miraculous. The patient was Nigerian. The flight attendants were French. The pediatrician and I were American.

That just shows you the power of teamwork and how humanity can come together. Medicine, surgery – everything, in fact – is a team sport.

Sij Hemal, MD, graduated from urology residency at the Cleveland Clinic and is currently a robotic urologic oncology and minimally invasive surgery fellow at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a series telling these stories.

In December 2017, I was a second-year urology resident at Cleveland Clinic. I’d gone to New Delhi to attend my best friend’s wedding. My flight back was New Delhi to Paris to JFK via Air France. I didn’t sleep on the first flight. So, on the second, I wanted to get some rest, because I had to go back to work the next day. I put on a movie and tried to snooze. As the saying goes in residency, you sleep when you can.

About 3 hours later, a flight attendant made an announcement in French, but I didn’t really hear it. Then they announced in English that they needed a physician. I noticed some flight attendants walking frantically around the economy cabin asking, “Is there a doctor on the plane?” Turns out there were two – the woman sitting next to me happened to be a pediatrician with Doctors Without Borders. I volunteered.

The flight attendant told me a woman was having abdominal pain. I thought it would be something straightforward. Usually, medical emergencies on planes involve chest pain or a panic attack or a vasovagal syncopal episode. Well, I was in for a ride that day.

The woman in pain was traveling from Nigeria. She told me about the abdominal pain. Then she lifted her blanket – she was pregnant. She said she was 37 or 38 weeks in. I said, “Okay, if you’re having this significant abdominal pain, then I need to examine you.” So we decided to move her to the first-class cabin, which was empty (I never did ask why – but it was good we had room to work).

Next step, I went back to my seat and asked the pediatrician if she could assist. My plan was to simply get the passenger through the flight, and as soon as we landed, she would go to the hospital.

There was room to lie down in first class. The pediatrician and I examined her, and she appeared fine. She was traveling with her 4-year-old daughter, and the flight attendants were taking care of her. Everything was okay.

The pilot came back and asked if we would need an emergency landing. I asked him how far it was to JFK – 4 hours. He said the closest place to land would be the Azores Islands, which is Portuguese territory, 2 hours away.

The problem: Even if we made it to the Azores, the hospital there was a very basic facility with no obstetric care available. And by the time the ambulance picked her up and got her there, it would still be 2 or 3 hours total. I said, “No, let’s just observe and continue our course.” Inside my head, I was hoping and praying to God that was the right decision.

Within an hour, everything changed.

The woman’s pain got worse, and she started having contractions. Then her water broke.

Things progressed quickly from there. The contractions progressively got worse and worse. The interval between them got smaller and smaller. The next time we examined her, we could see the baby’s head beginning to crown.

At that point, we had to decide – are we going to deliver? We were in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean. There was nothing around us. We were 35,000 feet in the air, surrounded by blue.

The crew wanted us to sign a Good Samaritan agreement. So, we did that. And then I said, “Okay, let’s just go for it.”

We got the plane’s medical kit. They had IV fluids, so I started an IV. I was able to monitor the woman’s blood pressure. They had the usual drugs for doing ACLS [advanced cardiac life support], running the code, and things like that. But they didn’t have a suturing kit or a laceration kit. They didn’t have a scalpel. There was nothing else.

Honestly, there was a lot of panic going through my head. I started thinking about what could go wrong. I’d done an ob.gyn. rotation in medical school and delivered seven babies before it was over. But a plane – even the first-class cabin – is in no way, shape, or form like a delivery room. I was really scared she would hemorrhage out or something.

So, internally, I was having a meltdown. Sij, you have to keep it together right now, because there’s no one else that’s going to do this. Just give it your best shot. And that’s what I did.

I asked the pilot to go to an altitude that would minimize any turbulence, and we were very lucky that the notorious North Atlantic air wasn’t choppy.

More luck: This was the passenger’s second baby, and I was counting on second deliveries being easier. The pediatrician, the flight attendants, and I came together as a team. Two flight attendants had given birth before, so they held the patient’s hand and guided her to push. I was “downstairs” waiting to catch.

She was in some pain. At this point, usually people get an epidural. I kept thinking about what drugs were safe in pregnancy, but I wasn’t sure. I don’t know if they even had morphine or anything on the plane. We gave her some Tylenol.

It didn’t take long. After about 30 minutes, the baby’s head emerged. I was able to navigate it out, avoiding any shoulder dystocia. There’s a certain technique that you learn in medical school, which thankfully came back to me. I caught it – it was a boy born right there in a first-class seat.

I gave him to the pediatrician, and she did the Apgar score, calculating his breathing and appearance. Then my job was to make sure there were no postpartum complications.

I ended up using a piece of string in the kit to tie around the umbilical cord, and then I cut it with scissors. After that, the woman was able to deliver the placenta. She did have some vaginal bleeding, but that resolved by just holding pressure.

The baby was fine. Mom was doing great. No complications. It was a miracle. I was the right person at the right place at the right time. I just think it was something from God.

The pilot made an announcement, “We’re en route to JFK, and there’s an additional passenger on this plane now.”

When we landed, I had very little time because I had to catch my flight to Cleveland. I didn’t even process what had happened.

A few days later, I got this package from Air France with a very expensive bottle of champagne along with a travel voucher. I heard from the mom by email – she and baby were doing fine.

Eventually, the media relations people at Cleveland Clinic heard about the incident, and it became a story that went viral. That was very weird, because I’m usually someone who’s private. All through my residency, people would introduce me with, “Remember that guy who delivered a baby on a plane? That’s him.”

I’m so thankful for everyone who was on that team. It was very beautiful because it was people from different cultures, backgrounds, and faiths who came together to achieve something so miraculous. The patient was Nigerian. The flight attendants were French. The pediatrician and I were American.

That just shows you the power of teamwork and how humanity can come together. Medicine, surgery – everything, in fact – is a team sport.

Sij Hemal, MD, graduated from urology residency at the Cleveland Clinic and is currently a robotic urologic oncology and minimally invasive surgery fellow at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a series telling these stories.

In December 2017, I was a second-year urology resident at Cleveland Clinic. I’d gone to New Delhi to attend my best friend’s wedding. My flight back was New Delhi to Paris to JFK via Air France. I didn’t sleep on the first flight. So, on the second, I wanted to get some rest, because I had to go back to work the next day. I put on a movie and tried to snooze. As the saying goes in residency, you sleep when you can.

About 3 hours later, a flight attendant made an announcement in French, but I didn’t really hear it. Then they announced in English that they needed a physician. I noticed some flight attendants walking frantically around the economy cabin asking, “Is there a doctor on the plane?” Turns out there were two – the woman sitting next to me happened to be a pediatrician with Doctors Without Borders. I volunteered.

The flight attendant told me a woman was having abdominal pain. I thought it would be something straightforward. Usually, medical emergencies on planes involve chest pain or a panic attack or a vasovagal syncopal episode. Well, I was in for a ride that day.

The woman in pain was traveling from Nigeria. She told me about the abdominal pain. Then she lifted her blanket – she was pregnant. She said she was 37 or 38 weeks in. I said, “Okay, if you’re having this significant abdominal pain, then I need to examine you.” So we decided to move her to the first-class cabin, which was empty (I never did ask why – but it was good we had room to work).

Next step, I went back to my seat and asked the pediatrician if she could assist. My plan was to simply get the passenger through the flight, and as soon as we landed, she would go to the hospital.

There was room to lie down in first class. The pediatrician and I examined her, and she appeared fine. She was traveling with her 4-year-old daughter, and the flight attendants were taking care of her. Everything was okay.

The pilot came back and asked if we would need an emergency landing. I asked him how far it was to JFK – 4 hours. He said the closest place to land would be the Azores Islands, which is Portuguese territory, 2 hours away.

The problem: Even if we made it to the Azores, the hospital there was a very basic facility with no obstetric care available. And by the time the ambulance picked her up and got her there, it would still be 2 or 3 hours total. I said, “No, let’s just observe and continue our course.” Inside my head, I was hoping and praying to God that was the right decision.

Within an hour, everything changed.

The woman’s pain got worse, and she started having contractions. Then her water broke.

Things progressed quickly from there. The contractions progressively got worse and worse. The interval between them got smaller and smaller. The next time we examined her, we could see the baby’s head beginning to crown.

At that point, we had to decide – are we going to deliver? We were in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean. There was nothing around us. We were 35,000 feet in the air, surrounded by blue.

The crew wanted us to sign a Good Samaritan agreement. So, we did that. And then I said, “Okay, let’s just go for it.”

We got the plane’s medical kit. They had IV fluids, so I started an IV. I was able to monitor the woman’s blood pressure. They had the usual drugs for doing ACLS [advanced cardiac life support], running the code, and things like that. But they didn’t have a suturing kit or a laceration kit. They didn’t have a scalpel. There was nothing else.

Honestly, there was a lot of panic going through my head. I started thinking about what could go wrong. I’d done an ob.gyn. rotation in medical school and delivered seven babies before it was over. But a plane – even the first-class cabin – is in no way, shape, or form like a delivery room. I was really scared she would hemorrhage out or something.

So, internally, I was having a meltdown. Sij, you have to keep it together right now, because there’s no one else that’s going to do this. Just give it your best shot. And that’s what I did.

I asked the pilot to go to an altitude that would minimize any turbulence, and we were very lucky that the notorious North Atlantic air wasn’t choppy.

More luck: This was the passenger’s second baby, and I was counting on second deliveries being easier. The pediatrician, the flight attendants, and I came together as a team. Two flight attendants had given birth before, so they held the patient’s hand and guided her to push. I was “downstairs” waiting to catch.

She was in some pain. At this point, usually people get an epidural. I kept thinking about what drugs were safe in pregnancy, but I wasn’t sure. I don’t know if they even had morphine or anything on the plane. We gave her some Tylenol.

It didn’t take long. After about 30 minutes, the baby’s head emerged. I was able to navigate it out, avoiding any shoulder dystocia. There’s a certain technique that you learn in medical school, which thankfully came back to me. I caught it – it was a boy born right there in a first-class seat.

I gave him to the pediatrician, and she did the Apgar score, calculating his breathing and appearance. Then my job was to make sure there were no postpartum complications.

I ended up using a piece of string in the kit to tie around the umbilical cord, and then I cut it with scissors. After that, the woman was able to deliver the placenta. She did have some vaginal bleeding, but that resolved by just holding pressure.

The baby was fine. Mom was doing great. No complications. It was a miracle. I was the right person at the right place at the right time. I just think it was something from God.

The pilot made an announcement, “We’re en route to JFK, and there’s an additional passenger on this plane now.”

When we landed, I had very little time because I had to catch my flight to Cleveland. I didn’t even process what had happened.

A few days later, I got this package from Air France with a very expensive bottle of champagne along with a travel voucher. I heard from the mom by email – she and baby were doing fine.

Eventually, the media relations people at Cleveland Clinic heard about the incident, and it became a story that went viral. That was very weird, because I’m usually someone who’s private. All through my residency, people would introduce me with, “Remember that guy who delivered a baby on a plane? That’s him.”

I’m so thankful for everyone who was on that team. It was very beautiful because it was people from different cultures, backgrounds, and faiths who came together to achieve something so miraculous. The patient was Nigerian. The flight attendants were French. The pediatrician and I were American.

That just shows you the power of teamwork and how humanity can come together. Medicine, surgery – everything, in fact – is a team sport.

Sij Hemal, MD, graduated from urology residency at the Cleveland Clinic and is currently a robotic urologic oncology and minimally invasive surgery fellow at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

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

A post hoc analysis of the ShortHER trial, including 784 patients with hormone-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) early breast cancer who received adjuvant trastuzumab plus chemotherapy, showed that adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) was associated with better outcomes than tamoxifen (TAM) or TAM and AI (TAM-AI) in this population. Disease-free survival rates at 8 years were 86.4% for AI vs 79.7% for the TAM/TAM-AI groups, with an absolute difference of 6.7% (log-rank P = .013). This effect was seen independently of menopausal status in a multivariate analysis.

In the exploratory analysis focusing on the premenopausal patients, the addition of gonadotropin-releasing hormone to ET was associated with a significantly better disease-free survival. This was also noted in an exploratory subgroup analysis of the SOFT trial,^[1] which showed greater benefit from the addition of ovarian suppression to TAM, as compared with TAM alone, among women with HER2+ disease (hazard ratio 0.41; 95% CI 0.22-0.75).

It is important to note that not all patients in the ShortHER trial received the standard-of-care duration of adjuvant trastuzumab; half of them received only 9-week treatment as opposed to the standard 12 months of adjuvant therapy. It is unclear whether this difference in adjuvant therapy could have affected the results, although the disease-free survival multivariate analysis showed no significant effect of the treatment arm on the role of ET. More studies are needed to verify the optimal adjuvant ET for patients with HR+/HER2+ breast cancer, especially in premenopausal patients.

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Offers No Survival Advantage in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

There is insufficient evidence that contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) improves survival in patients with unilateral triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). A multi-institutional database study, including 796 patients with TNBC, of which 15.5% underwent CPM, showed that CPM did not offer survival benefit to patients with unilateral TNBC. Women who underwent CPM were more likely to be White (P < .001), younger (P < .001), and had had genetic testing performed (P < .001). While there was a borderline improvement in 5-year unadjusted overall survival for patients undergoing CPM compared with no CPM overall (95.1% vs 85.0%; P = .05), no significant improvement was observed for local recurrence-free survival (P = .40) or distant recurrence-free survival (P = .37). Very few (n = 15/673, 2.2%) of the no-CPM patients developed a new primary breast cancer; 3 of the 15 patients were known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Among the genetic mutation carriers, 5-year overall survival was 97.2% for CPM vs 84.1% for no CPM (P = .35). This study did not demonstrate any statistically significant survival difference between CPM compared with no CPM, regardless of the presence of a BRCA mutation, although prior studies have shown improved outcomes for CPM in BRCA mutation carriers.^[2] Larger prospective studies are needed to evaluate the potential benefit of CPM among patients with TNBC, especially patients with BRCA1/2 mutations.

Adding Endocrine Therapy to Dual Anti-HER2 Targeted Therapy Beneficial in HER2+/HR+ Metastatic Breast Cancer

The current first-line standard of care for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer is dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy plus chemotherapy, with consideration for maintenance treatment with anti-HER2 therapy and ET for patients with HR+ and HER2+ metastatic breast cancer. The potential benefit of adding ET for patients with HR+/HER2+ metastatic breast cancer has been reported previously, but data overall are limited. This study analyzed the real-world data of 147 patients with HR+/HER2+ metastatic breast cancer from a prospective registry and who received first-line chemotherapy plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab with (n = 91) or without (n = 56) concurrent ET. The findings showed that adding ET resulted in a significant improvement in 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio 0.59; P = .031) and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.52; P = .018) compared with not adding ET. No new safety concerns were identified when combining HER2+ targeted therapy and ET. While this is a small retrospective analysis, results are certainly encouraging and support the addition of ET to dual anti-HER2 therapy as maintenance therapy post chemotherapy in this subset of patients.

High PD-L2 Levels May Predict Worse Clinical Outcomes in ER+ Breast Cancer

Programmed cell death-1 ligand-2 (PD-L2) is a second ligand for programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and inhibits T-cell activation. A retrospective study including patients with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer looked at PD-L2 protein levels in cancer cells and stromal cells of therapy-naive, locoregional ER+ breast cancer in the main study cohort (n = 684) and in an independent validation cohort (n = 273), and correlated findings with PFS. High levels of PD-L2 protein were present in up to one third (33%) of ER+ tumors and were associated with shorter PFS in the entire cohort of patients with ER+ breast cancer (hazard ratio 2.0; P < .001) and in the subgroup of patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio 3.4; P < .001). A multivariable analysis showed that high levels of PD-L2 were an independent prognostic marker in ER+ patients. These findings suggest that high PD-L2 is associated with unfavorable prognosis in ER+ breast cancer and may be a potential biomarker of response to checkpoint inhibitors.

Additional References

1. Francis PA, Pagani O, Fleming GF, et al for the SOFT and TEXT Investigators and the International Breast Cancer Study Group. Tailoring adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:122-137. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1803164
2. Li X, You R, Wang X, et al. Effectiveness of prophylactic surgeries in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:3971-3981. Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1465

A post hoc analysis of the ShortHER trial, including 784 patients with hormone-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) early breast cancer who received adjuvant trastuzumab plus chemotherapy, showed that adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) was associated with better outcomes than tamoxifen (TAM) or TAM and AI (TAM-AI) in this population. Disease-free survival rates at 8 years were 86.4% for AI vs 79.7% for the TAM/TAM-AI groups, with an absolute difference of 6.7% (log-rank P = .013). This effect was seen independently of menopausal status in a multivariate analysis.

In the exploratory analysis focusing on the premenopausal patients, the addition of gonadotropin-releasing hormone to ET was associated with a significantly better disease-free survival. This was also noted in an exploratory subgroup analysis of the SOFT trial,^[1] which showed greater benefit from the addition of ovarian suppression to TAM, as compared with TAM alone, among women with HER2+ disease (hazard ratio 0.41; 95% CI 0.22-0.75).

It is important to note that not all patients in the ShortHER trial received the standard-of-care duration of adjuvant trastuzumab; half of them received only 9-week treatment as opposed to the standard 12 months of adjuvant therapy. It is unclear whether this difference in adjuvant therapy could have affected the results, although the disease-free survival multivariate analysis showed no significant effect of the treatment arm on the role of ET. More studies are needed to verify the optimal adjuvant ET for patients with HR+/HER2+ breast cancer, especially in premenopausal patients.

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Offers No Survival Advantage in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

There is insufficient evidence that contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) improves survival in patients with unilateral triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). A multi-institutional database study, including 796 patients with TNBC, of which 15.5% underwent CPM, showed that CPM did not offer survival benefit to patients with unilateral TNBC. Women who underwent CPM were more likely to be White (P < .001), younger (P < .001), and had had genetic testing performed (P < .001). While there was a borderline improvement in 5-year unadjusted overall survival for patients undergoing CPM compared with no CPM overall (95.1% vs 85.0%; P = .05), no significant improvement was observed for local recurrence-free survival (P = .40) or distant recurrence-free survival (P = .37). Very few (n = 15/673, 2.2%) of the no-CPM patients developed a new primary breast cancer; 3 of the 15 patients were known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Among the genetic mutation carriers, 5-year overall survival was 97.2% for CPM vs 84.1% for no CPM (P = .35). This study did not demonstrate any statistically significant survival difference between CPM compared with no CPM, regardless of the presence of a BRCA mutation, although prior studies have shown improved outcomes for CPM in BRCA mutation carriers.^[2] Larger prospective studies are needed to evaluate the potential benefit of CPM among patients with TNBC, especially patients with BRCA1/2 mutations.

Adding Endocrine Therapy to Dual Anti-HER2 Targeted Therapy Beneficial in HER2+/HR+ Metastatic Breast Cancer

The current first-line standard of care for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer is dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy plus chemotherapy, with consideration for maintenance treatment with anti-HER2 therapy and ET for patients with HR+ and HER2+ metastatic breast cancer. The potential benefit of adding ET for patients with HR+/HER2+ metastatic breast cancer has been reported previously, but data overall are limited. This study analyzed the real-world data of 147 patients with HR+/HER2+ metastatic breast cancer from a prospective registry and who received first-line chemotherapy plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab with (n = 91) or without (n = 56) concurrent ET. The findings showed that adding ET resulted in a significant improvement in 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio 0.59; P = .031) and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.52; P = .018) compared with not adding ET. No new safety concerns were identified when combining HER2+ targeted therapy and ET. While this is a small retrospective analysis, results are certainly encouraging and support the addition of ET to dual anti-HER2 therapy as maintenance therapy post chemotherapy in this subset of patients.

High PD-L2 Levels May Predict Worse Clinical Outcomes in ER+ Breast Cancer

Programmed cell death-1 ligand-2 (PD-L2) is a second ligand for programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and inhibits T-cell activation. A retrospective study including patients with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer looked at PD-L2 protein levels in cancer cells and stromal cells of therapy-naive, locoregional ER+ breast cancer in the main study cohort (n = 684) and in an independent validation cohort (n = 273), and correlated findings with PFS. High levels of PD-L2 protein were present in up to one third (33%) of ER+ tumors and were associated with shorter PFS in the entire cohort of patients with ER+ breast cancer (hazard ratio 2.0; P < .001) and in the subgroup of patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio 3.4; P < .001). A multivariable analysis showed that high levels of PD-L2 were an independent prognostic marker in ER+ patients. These findings suggest that high PD-L2 is associated with unfavorable prognosis in ER+ breast cancer and may be a potential biomarker of response to checkpoint inhibitors.

Additional References

1. Francis PA, Pagani O, Fleming GF, et al for the SOFT and TEXT Investigators and the International Breast Cancer Study Group. Tailoring adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:122-137. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1803164
2. Li X, You R, Wang X, et al. Effectiveness of prophylactic surgeries in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:3971-3981. Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1465

A post hoc analysis of the ShortHER trial, including 784 patients with hormone-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) early breast cancer who received adjuvant trastuzumab plus chemotherapy, showed that adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) was associated with better outcomes than tamoxifen (TAM) or TAM and AI (TAM-AI) in this population. Disease-free survival rates at 8 years were 86.4% for AI vs 79.7% for the TAM/TAM-AI groups, with an absolute difference of 6.7% (log-rank P = .013). This effect was seen independently of menopausal status in a multivariate analysis.

In the exploratory analysis focusing on the premenopausal patients, the addition of gonadotropin-releasing hormone to ET was associated with a significantly better disease-free survival. This was also noted in an exploratory subgroup analysis of the SOFT trial,^[1] which showed greater benefit from the addition of ovarian suppression to TAM, as compared with TAM alone, among women with HER2+ disease (hazard ratio 0.41; 95% CI 0.22-0.75).

It is important to note that not all patients in the ShortHER trial received the standard-of-care duration of adjuvant trastuzumab; half of them received only 9-week treatment as opposed to the standard 12 months of adjuvant therapy. It is unclear whether this difference in adjuvant therapy could have affected the results, although the disease-free survival multivariate analysis showed no significant effect of the treatment arm on the role of ET. More studies are needed to verify the optimal adjuvant ET for patients with HR+/HER2+ breast cancer, especially in premenopausal patients.

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Offers No Survival Advantage in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

There is insufficient evidence that contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) improves survival in patients with unilateral triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). A multi-institutional database study, including 796 patients with TNBC, of which 15.5% underwent CPM, showed that CPM did not offer survival benefit to patients with unilateral TNBC. Women who underwent CPM were more likely to be White (P < .001), younger (P < .001), and had had genetic testing performed (P < .001). While there was a borderline improvement in 5-year unadjusted overall survival for patients undergoing CPM compared with no CPM overall (95.1% vs 85.0%; P = .05), no significant improvement was observed for local recurrence-free survival (P = .40) or distant recurrence-free survival (P = .37). Very few (n = 15/673, 2.2%) of the no-CPM patients developed a new primary breast cancer; 3 of the 15 patients were known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Among the genetic mutation carriers, 5-year overall survival was 97.2% for CPM vs 84.1% for no CPM (P = .35). This study did not demonstrate any statistically significant survival difference between CPM compared with no CPM, regardless of the presence of a BRCA mutation, although prior studies have shown improved outcomes for CPM in BRCA mutation carriers.^[2] Larger prospective studies are needed to evaluate the potential benefit of CPM among patients with TNBC, especially patients with BRCA1/2 mutations.

Adding Endocrine Therapy to Dual Anti-HER2 Targeted Therapy Beneficial in HER2+/HR+ Metastatic Breast Cancer

The current first-line standard of care for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer is dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy plus chemotherapy, with consideration for maintenance treatment with anti-HER2 therapy and ET for patients with HR+ and HER2+ metastatic breast cancer. The potential benefit of adding ET for patients with HR+/HER2+ metastatic breast cancer has been reported previously, but data overall are limited. This study analyzed the real-world data of 147 patients with HR+/HER2+ metastatic breast cancer from a prospective registry and who received first-line chemotherapy plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab with (n = 91) or without (n = 56) concurrent ET. The findings showed that adding ET resulted in a significant improvement in 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio 0.59; P = .031) and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.52; P = .018) compared with not adding ET. No new safety concerns were identified when combining HER2+ targeted therapy and ET. While this is a small retrospective analysis, results are certainly encouraging and support the addition of ET to dual anti-HER2 therapy as maintenance therapy post chemotherapy in this subset of patients.

High PD-L2 Levels May Predict Worse Clinical Outcomes in ER+ Breast Cancer

Programmed cell death-1 ligand-2 (PD-L2) is a second ligand for programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and inhibits T-cell activation. A retrospective study including patients with estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer looked at PD-L2 protein levels in cancer cells and stromal cells of therapy-naive, locoregional ER+ breast cancer in the main study cohort (n = 684) and in an independent validation cohort (n = 273), and correlated findings with PFS. High levels of PD-L2 protein were present in up to one third (33%) of ER+ tumors and were associated with shorter PFS in the entire cohort of patients with ER+ breast cancer (hazard ratio 2.0; P < .001) and in the subgroup of patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio 3.4; P < .001). A multivariable analysis showed that high levels of PD-L2 were an independent prognostic marker in ER+ patients. These findings suggest that high PD-L2 is associated with unfavorable prognosis in ER+ breast cancer and may be a potential biomarker of response to checkpoint inhibitors.

Additional References

1. Francis PA, Pagani O, Fleming GF, et al for the SOFT and TEXT Investigators and the International Breast Cancer Study Group. Tailoring adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:122-137. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1803164
2. Li X, You R, Wang X, et al. Effectiveness of prophylactic surgeries in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:3971-3981. Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1465

Treatment strategies designed to improve or maintain efficacy while minimizing toxicity are desired by both patients and healthcare providers. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) represents a therapeutic option for certain patients with luminal breast cancers who may not be candidates for chemotherapy because of comorbidities or preferences to avoid certain treatments. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated tumor or nodal downstaging with NET, as well as the ability of genomic assays to predict clinical response to NET and its association with breast-conserving therapy (BCT).^[4,5] The phase 2 ACOSOG Z1031 trial reported outcomes among 509 women with clinical stage II or III estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (AI; exemestane, letrozole, or anastrozole) for 16-18 weeks before surgery. A total of 67.2% of patients had BCT, and of the patients thought to require mastectomy or have inoperable breast cancer at presentation (N = 226), 50.4% were able to have BCT. The pCR rate was low (1%); however, the 5-year cumulative incidence rate for local-regional recurrence was estimated at 1.53% (Hunt et al). This study supports the consideration of NET for select patients, demonstrating a favorable impact on surgery and local-regional recurrence rates. It is also thought-provoking in terms of identifying predictors of response to NET and other novel therapies that can be combined with endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant space.

The CLEOPATRA trial has established a regimen of docetaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab as standard first-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer with superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with a docetaxel/trastuzumab regimen. Crosstalk between HER2 and ER signaling pathways has been implicated in resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies. Real-world data have shown that the addition of endocrine therapy to first-line dual anti-HER2-targeted therapy post chemotherapy in HER+/hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer was associated with benefits in PFS and OS.^[6] The phase 2 PERTAIN trial randomly assigned 258 patients with HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer to receive pertuzumab/trastuzumab plus an AI or trastuzumab/AI, with induction chemotherapy given at the investigator’s discretion. At a median follow-up of > 6 years, the PFS benefit seen with the addition of pertuzumab was maintained (20.6 vs 15.8 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 0.67; P = .006). Although there was not a statistically significant difference in median OS (60.2 months in the pertuzumab/trastuzumab/AI arm vs 57.2 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 1.05; P = .78), the effect of pertuzumab was potentially amplified in those without induction chemotherapy (26.6 vs 12.5 months) (Arpino et al). These data provide further support for the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab in the first-line treatment setting for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer and suggest that some patients may benefit from dual HER2 blockade with endocrine therapy (without chemotherapy).

Additional References

1. Schmid P, Cortes J, Pusztai L, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:810-821. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910549
2. Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:556-567. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
3. Loibl S, Untch M, Burchardi N, et al. A randomised phase II study investigating durvalumab in addition to an anthracycline taxane-based neoadjuvant therapy in early triple-negative breast cancer: Clinical results and biomarker analysis of GeparNuevo study. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1279-1288. Doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz158
4. Cao L, Sugumar K, Keller E, et al. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy as an alternative to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients: Pathologic and surgical outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:5730-5741. Doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-10459-3
5. Iwata H, Masuda N, Yamamoto Y, et al. Validation of the 21-gene test as a predictor of clinical response to neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for ER+, HER2-negative breast cancer: The TransNEOS study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173:123-133. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4964-y
6. Loft M, Lok SW, De Boer R, et al. Addition of endocrine therapy to dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy in initial treatment of HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;198:67-74. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06856-1

Treatment strategies designed to improve or maintain efficacy while minimizing toxicity are desired by both patients and healthcare providers. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) represents a therapeutic option for certain patients with luminal breast cancers who may not be candidates for chemotherapy because of comorbidities or preferences to avoid certain treatments. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated tumor or nodal downstaging with NET, as well as the ability of genomic assays to predict clinical response to NET and its association with breast-conserving therapy (BCT).^[4,5] The phase 2 ACOSOG Z1031 trial reported outcomes among 509 women with clinical stage II or III estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (AI; exemestane, letrozole, or anastrozole) for 16-18 weeks before surgery. A total of 67.2% of patients had BCT, and of the patients thought to require mastectomy or have inoperable breast cancer at presentation (N = 226), 50.4% were able to have BCT. The pCR rate was low (1%); however, the 5-year cumulative incidence rate for local-regional recurrence was estimated at 1.53% (Hunt et al). This study supports the consideration of NET for select patients, demonstrating a favorable impact on surgery and local-regional recurrence rates. It is also thought-provoking in terms of identifying predictors of response to NET and other novel therapies that can be combined with endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant space.

The CLEOPATRA trial has established a regimen of docetaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab as standard first-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer with superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with a docetaxel/trastuzumab regimen. Crosstalk between HER2 and ER signaling pathways has been implicated in resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies. Real-world data have shown that the addition of endocrine therapy to first-line dual anti-HER2-targeted therapy post chemotherapy in HER+/hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer was associated with benefits in PFS and OS.^[6] The phase 2 PERTAIN trial randomly assigned 258 patients with HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer to receive pertuzumab/trastuzumab plus an AI or trastuzumab/AI, with induction chemotherapy given at the investigator’s discretion. At a median follow-up of > 6 years, the PFS benefit seen with the addition of pertuzumab was maintained (20.6 vs 15.8 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 0.67; P = .006). Although there was not a statistically significant difference in median OS (60.2 months in the pertuzumab/trastuzumab/AI arm vs 57.2 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 1.05; P = .78), the effect of pertuzumab was potentially amplified in those without induction chemotherapy (26.6 vs 12.5 months) (Arpino et al). These data provide further support for the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab in the first-line treatment setting for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer and suggest that some patients may benefit from dual HER2 blockade with endocrine therapy (without chemotherapy).

Additional References

1. Schmid P, Cortes J, Pusztai L, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:810-821. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910549
2. Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:556-567. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
3. Loibl S, Untch M, Burchardi N, et al. A randomised phase II study investigating durvalumab in addition to an anthracycline taxane-based neoadjuvant therapy in early triple-negative breast cancer: Clinical results and biomarker analysis of GeparNuevo study. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1279-1288. Doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz158
4. Cao L, Sugumar K, Keller E, et al. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy as an alternative to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients: Pathologic and surgical outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:5730-5741. Doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-10459-3
5. Iwata H, Masuda N, Yamamoto Y, et al. Validation of the 21-gene test as a predictor of clinical response to neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for ER+, HER2-negative breast cancer: The TransNEOS study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173:123-133. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4964-y
6. Loft M, Lok SW, De Boer R, et al. Addition of endocrine therapy to dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy in initial treatment of HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;198:67-74. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06856-1

Treatment strategies designed to improve or maintain efficacy while minimizing toxicity are desired by both patients and healthcare providers. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) represents a therapeutic option for certain patients with luminal breast cancers who may not be candidates for chemotherapy because of comorbidities or preferences to avoid certain treatments. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated tumor or nodal downstaging with NET, as well as the ability of genomic assays to predict clinical response to NET and its association with breast-conserving therapy (BCT).^[4,5] The phase 2 ACOSOG Z1031 trial reported outcomes among 509 women with clinical stage II or III estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (AI; exemestane, letrozole, or anastrozole) for 16-18 weeks before surgery. A total of 67.2% of patients had BCT, and of the patients thought to require mastectomy or have inoperable breast cancer at presentation (N = 226), 50.4% were able to have BCT. The pCR rate was low (1%); however, the 5-year cumulative incidence rate for local-regional recurrence was estimated at 1.53% (Hunt et al). This study supports the consideration of NET for select patients, demonstrating a favorable impact on surgery and local-regional recurrence rates. It is also thought-provoking in terms of identifying predictors of response to NET and other novel therapies that can be combined with endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant space.

The CLEOPATRA trial has established a regimen of docetaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab as standard first-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer with superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with a docetaxel/trastuzumab regimen. Crosstalk between HER2 and ER signaling pathways has been implicated in resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies. Real-world data have shown that the addition of endocrine therapy to first-line dual anti-HER2-targeted therapy post chemotherapy in HER+/hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer was associated with benefits in PFS and OS.^[6] The phase 2 PERTAIN trial randomly assigned 258 patients with HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer to receive pertuzumab/trastuzumab plus an AI or trastuzumab/AI, with induction chemotherapy given at the investigator’s discretion. At a median follow-up of > 6 years, the PFS benefit seen with the addition of pertuzumab was maintained (20.6 vs 15.8 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 0.67; P = .006). Although there was not a statistically significant difference in median OS (60.2 months in the pertuzumab/trastuzumab/AI arm vs 57.2 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 1.05; P = .78), the effect of pertuzumab was potentially amplified in those without induction chemotherapy (26.6 vs 12.5 months) (Arpino et al). These data provide further support for the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab in the first-line treatment setting for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer and suggest that some patients may benefit from dual HER2 blockade with endocrine therapy (without chemotherapy).

Additional References

1. Schmid P, Cortes J, Pusztai L, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:810-821. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910549
2. Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:556-567. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
3. Loibl S, Untch M, Burchardi N, et al. A randomised phase II study investigating durvalumab in addition to an anthracycline taxane-based neoadjuvant therapy in early triple-negative breast cancer: Clinical results and biomarker analysis of GeparNuevo study. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1279-1288. Doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz158
4. Cao L, Sugumar K, Keller E, et al. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy as an alternative to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients: Pathologic and surgical outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:5730-5741. Doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-10459-3
5. Iwata H, Masuda N, Yamamoto Y, et al. Validation of the 21-gene test as a predictor of clinical response to neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for ER+, HER2-negative breast cancer: The TransNEOS study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173:123-133. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4964-y
6. Loft M, Lok SW, De Boer R, et al. Addition of endocrine therapy to dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy in initial treatment of HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;198:67-74. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06856-1

Proinflammatory elements mediated through metabolic pathways related to obesity and increased cellular senescence in CD57 expression in CD8+ T cells are associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), according to a Mexican study. The researchers followed a Mexican cohort of 102 patients 3 months and 6 months after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study’s principal investigator was Diana Gómez-Martín, MD, PhD, of the department of immunology and rheumatology at the Salvador Zubirán National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition, Mexico City. She told this news organization that follow-up of the patients began with the objective of understanding the determinative clinical, genetic, metabolic, and immunological factors in the progression of the acute disease. However, clinical aspects associated with PASC developed in the selected cohort. As a result, the study was extended, and the clinical, metabolic, and immunologic conditions in this single-center Mexican cohort were evaluated 3 months 6 months after the onset of infection.

Dr. Gómez-Martín explained that the immune senescence in CD57 of CD8+ T cells is one of the best-known findings of the present study. If it is confirmed in future studies, it could have important implications. “Its main implication is the possibility of better understanding the physiopathology of the clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19, potentially being used for early detection and to provide follow-up aimed at patients, in addition to eventually developing targeted therapeutic strategies, such as immunometabolism regulation, in certain populations.”
 

Patients with PASC

The study was conducted from August 2020 to August 2021. Investigators recruited 102 patients (median age, 50.5 years; 55% were women) at the Mexico City Temporary Unit with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Of the patients, 44% had mild or moderate COVID-19, 30% had severe cases, and 26% of patients had critical cases. The most frequent comorbidities were obesity (44%), hypertension (24%), and type 2 diabetes (24%). The authors used a questionnaire to assess the presence of symptoms during follow-up. They analyzed immunologic variables at the time of recruitment, as well as levels of cytokines, immunoglobulin G against SARS-CoV-2, and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) at 1, 3, and 6 months. At 6 months’ follow-up, 12.7% of the cohort had symptoms compatible with PASC, which was defined for the study as the presence and report of three or more symptoms at 6 months’ follow-up.

As in similar studies, the authors found that female gender, remaining in intensive care, and having had more symptoms and greater titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies during the acute infection were associated with the development of clinical aspects associated with PASC. Patients who had the disease at 6 months had increased serum levels of interleukin-1 alpha (6.21 pg/mL vs. 2.21 pg/mL), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (55.08 pg/mL vs. 14.68 pg/mL), and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (2,309.40 pg/mL vs. 780 pg/mL). Also, there was a trend toward an increase in serum concentration of interleukin-1 beta, interleukin-6, and interferon-gamma.

Patients whose condition met the definition of persistent PASC had increased expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (42,714 arbitrary units vs. 28,506) 6 months after the acute infection. The authors reported that there was no association between the persistence of PASC and the baseline amount of NETs, TRIM63, and anticellular antibodies. Nor was there an association between PASC and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline and 1 month after COVID-19 diagnosis. Nonetheless, patients with persistent PASC had higher titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgGs 3 months after the onset of COVID-19.

On the basis of previous data, the researchers aimed to construct a preliminary explanatory model to address the clinical and immunologic features associated with persistent PASC 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the univariate analysis, the variables associated with the diagnosis of persistent PASC were the serum levels of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (odds ratio, 1.01), macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha (OR, 1.13), interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (OR, 1.00), interleukin-6 (OR, 1.03), the expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (OR, 1.00), and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG at 1 month (OR, 1.45).

Patients with a diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months were characterized by certain predisposing factors, such as obesity, greater levels of macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 in peripheral blood, greater expression of the senescence CD57 marker in CD8+ T lymphocytes, and persistent symptoms at 3 months.

Using these parameters to construct a predictive model after 3 months, the authors found a sensitivity of 97.7%, specificity of 53.8%, positive predictive value of 93.5%, and a negative predictive value of 77.7% for the diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months.
 

Interpreting CD57

One of the researchers who participated in the study was Luis Martínez-Juárez, MD, MPH, DrPH. He is on the operative solutions team at the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Martínez-Juárez pointed out that one of the contributions of this study was that it specifically examined the Mexican population. He noted that “according to the findings, obesity is not only a comorbidity associated with more severe progressions during acute COVID-19 disease, but also, through inflammation parameters, such as interleukin-6, interferon gamma-induced protein 10, and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha, it’s involved in the development of clinical aspects related to postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín added that finding proinflammatory and obesity parameters in the patients could potentially support the hypothesis of the persistence of virus fragments in adipose tissue as possibly involved in clinical aspects associated with PASC, as some groups have reported in the medical literature.

Angélica Cuapio, MD, DrMed, an immunologist and senior investigator at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who did not participate in the study, said in an interview that the authors’ findings on the sustained increase of the CD57 marker in CD8+ lymphocytes are of notable interest. They may be associated with senescence states or cellular aging or with a stage of chronic viral infections. Therefore, Dr. Cuapio argued, it would have been valuable to include cellular markers of the innate system, such as natural killer cells, since in various infections, an increase in CD57 in lymphocytes is accompanied by an almost proportional increase of this marker in natural killer cells.

“This information would help to determine more accurately if we are talking about a cellular senescence or more about a chronic infection in persistent COVID-19.” The finding is important, but future research is needed in this developing field.

Dr. Cuapio pointed out that the authors found an interesting elevation in interleukin-1 alpha in patients with clinical aspects associated with PASC in a clinically well-characterized population in Mexico. “It is possible that this is a specific marker either of a specific population or location, or this could be an association with a humoral response. Despite the fact that this finding is new and unclear, it is worth investigating. This study is of great value for the scientific community because it’s one more piece in the complex puzzle of clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín noted that the main limitations of the study consist of its single-center design and the small patient sample. Dr. Martínez-Juárez added that the study did not consider reinfections. In future studies, it would be ideal to integrate other molecular assessments associated with various hypotheses of the physiopathology of clinical aspects associated with PASC, such as microbiota alteration, coagulation anomalies, endothelial damage, and dysfunctional neurologic signaling.

The study was supported and funded by the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Gómez-Martín, Dr. Martínez-Juárez, and Dr. Cuapio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Proinflammatory elements mediated through metabolic pathways related to obesity and increased cellular senescence in CD57 expression in CD8+ T cells are associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), according to a Mexican study. The researchers followed a Mexican cohort of 102 patients 3 months and 6 months after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study’s principal investigator was Diana Gómez-Martín, MD, PhD, of the department of immunology and rheumatology at the Salvador Zubirán National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition, Mexico City. She told this news organization that follow-up of the patients began with the objective of understanding the determinative clinical, genetic, metabolic, and immunological factors in the progression of the acute disease. However, clinical aspects associated with PASC developed in the selected cohort. As a result, the study was extended, and the clinical, metabolic, and immunologic conditions in this single-center Mexican cohort were evaluated 3 months 6 months after the onset of infection.

Dr. Gómez-Martín explained that the immune senescence in CD57 of CD8+ T cells is one of the best-known findings of the present study. If it is confirmed in future studies, it could have important implications. “Its main implication is the possibility of better understanding the physiopathology of the clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19, potentially being used for early detection and to provide follow-up aimed at patients, in addition to eventually developing targeted therapeutic strategies, such as immunometabolism regulation, in certain populations.”
 

Patients with PASC

The study was conducted from August 2020 to August 2021. Investigators recruited 102 patients (median age, 50.5 years; 55% were women) at the Mexico City Temporary Unit with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Of the patients, 44% had mild or moderate COVID-19, 30% had severe cases, and 26% of patients had critical cases. The most frequent comorbidities were obesity (44%), hypertension (24%), and type 2 diabetes (24%). The authors used a questionnaire to assess the presence of symptoms during follow-up. They analyzed immunologic variables at the time of recruitment, as well as levels of cytokines, immunoglobulin G against SARS-CoV-2, and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) at 1, 3, and 6 months. At 6 months’ follow-up, 12.7% of the cohort had symptoms compatible with PASC, which was defined for the study as the presence and report of three or more symptoms at 6 months’ follow-up.

As in similar studies, the authors found that female gender, remaining in intensive care, and having had more symptoms and greater titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies during the acute infection were associated with the development of clinical aspects associated with PASC. Patients who had the disease at 6 months had increased serum levels of interleukin-1 alpha (6.21 pg/mL vs. 2.21 pg/mL), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (55.08 pg/mL vs. 14.68 pg/mL), and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (2,309.40 pg/mL vs. 780 pg/mL). Also, there was a trend toward an increase in serum concentration of interleukin-1 beta, interleukin-6, and interferon-gamma.

Patients whose condition met the definition of persistent PASC had increased expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (42,714 arbitrary units vs. 28,506) 6 months after the acute infection. The authors reported that there was no association between the persistence of PASC and the baseline amount of NETs, TRIM63, and anticellular antibodies. Nor was there an association between PASC and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline and 1 month after COVID-19 diagnosis. Nonetheless, patients with persistent PASC had higher titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgGs 3 months after the onset of COVID-19.

On the basis of previous data, the researchers aimed to construct a preliminary explanatory model to address the clinical and immunologic features associated with persistent PASC 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the univariate analysis, the variables associated with the diagnosis of persistent PASC were the serum levels of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (odds ratio, 1.01), macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha (OR, 1.13), interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (OR, 1.00), interleukin-6 (OR, 1.03), the expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (OR, 1.00), and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG at 1 month (OR, 1.45).

Patients with a diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months were characterized by certain predisposing factors, such as obesity, greater levels of macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 in peripheral blood, greater expression of the senescence CD57 marker in CD8+ T lymphocytes, and persistent symptoms at 3 months.

Using these parameters to construct a predictive model after 3 months, the authors found a sensitivity of 97.7%, specificity of 53.8%, positive predictive value of 93.5%, and a negative predictive value of 77.7% for the diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months.
 

Interpreting CD57

One of the researchers who participated in the study was Luis Martínez-Juárez, MD, MPH, DrPH. He is on the operative solutions team at the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Martínez-Juárez pointed out that one of the contributions of this study was that it specifically examined the Mexican population. He noted that “according to the findings, obesity is not only a comorbidity associated with more severe progressions during acute COVID-19 disease, but also, through inflammation parameters, such as interleukin-6, interferon gamma-induced protein 10, and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha, it’s involved in the development of clinical aspects related to postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín added that finding proinflammatory and obesity parameters in the patients could potentially support the hypothesis of the persistence of virus fragments in adipose tissue as possibly involved in clinical aspects associated with PASC, as some groups have reported in the medical literature.

Angélica Cuapio, MD, DrMed, an immunologist and senior investigator at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who did not participate in the study, said in an interview that the authors’ findings on the sustained increase of the CD57 marker in CD8+ lymphocytes are of notable interest. They may be associated with senescence states or cellular aging or with a stage of chronic viral infections. Therefore, Dr. Cuapio argued, it would have been valuable to include cellular markers of the innate system, such as natural killer cells, since in various infections, an increase in CD57 in lymphocytes is accompanied by an almost proportional increase of this marker in natural killer cells.

“This information would help to determine more accurately if we are talking about a cellular senescence or more about a chronic infection in persistent COVID-19.” The finding is important, but future research is needed in this developing field.

Dr. Cuapio pointed out that the authors found an interesting elevation in interleukin-1 alpha in patients with clinical aspects associated with PASC in a clinically well-characterized population in Mexico. “It is possible that this is a specific marker either of a specific population or location, or this could be an association with a humoral response. Despite the fact that this finding is new and unclear, it is worth investigating. This study is of great value for the scientific community because it’s one more piece in the complex puzzle of clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín noted that the main limitations of the study consist of its single-center design and the small patient sample. Dr. Martínez-Juárez added that the study did not consider reinfections. In future studies, it would be ideal to integrate other molecular assessments associated with various hypotheses of the physiopathology of clinical aspects associated with PASC, such as microbiota alteration, coagulation anomalies, endothelial damage, and dysfunctional neurologic signaling.

The study was supported and funded by the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Gómez-Martín, Dr. Martínez-Juárez, and Dr. Cuapio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Proinflammatory elements mediated through metabolic pathways related to obesity and increased cellular senescence in CD57 expression in CD8+ T cells are associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), according to a Mexican study. The researchers followed a Mexican cohort of 102 patients 3 months and 6 months after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The study’s principal investigator was Diana Gómez-Martín, MD, PhD, of the department of immunology and rheumatology at the Salvador Zubirán National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition, Mexico City. She told this news organization that follow-up of the patients began with the objective of understanding the determinative clinical, genetic, metabolic, and immunological factors in the progression of the acute disease. However, clinical aspects associated with PASC developed in the selected cohort. As a result, the study was extended, and the clinical, metabolic, and immunologic conditions in this single-center Mexican cohort were evaluated 3 months 6 months after the onset of infection.

Dr. Gómez-Martín explained that the immune senescence in CD57 of CD8+ T cells is one of the best-known findings of the present study. If it is confirmed in future studies, it could have important implications. “Its main implication is the possibility of better understanding the physiopathology of the clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19, potentially being used for early detection and to provide follow-up aimed at patients, in addition to eventually developing targeted therapeutic strategies, such as immunometabolism regulation, in certain populations.”
 

Patients with PASC

The study was conducted from August 2020 to August 2021. Investigators recruited 102 patients (median age, 50.5 years; 55% were women) at the Mexico City Temporary Unit with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Of the patients, 44% had mild or moderate COVID-19, 30% had severe cases, and 26% of patients had critical cases. The most frequent comorbidities were obesity (44%), hypertension (24%), and type 2 diabetes (24%). The authors used a questionnaire to assess the presence of symptoms during follow-up. They analyzed immunologic variables at the time of recruitment, as well as levels of cytokines, immunoglobulin G against SARS-CoV-2, and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) at 1, 3, and 6 months. At 6 months’ follow-up, 12.7% of the cohort had symptoms compatible with PASC, which was defined for the study as the presence and report of three or more symptoms at 6 months’ follow-up.

As in similar studies, the authors found that female gender, remaining in intensive care, and having had more symptoms and greater titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies during the acute infection were associated with the development of clinical aspects associated with PASC. Patients who had the disease at 6 months had increased serum levels of interleukin-1 alpha (6.21 pg/mL vs. 2.21 pg/mL), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (55.08 pg/mL vs. 14.68 pg/mL), and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (2,309.40 pg/mL vs. 780 pg/mL). Also, there was a trend toward an increase in serum concentration of interleukin-1 beta, interleukin-6, and interferon-gamma.

Patients whose condition met the definition of persistent PASC had increased expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (42,714 arbitrary units vs. 28,506) 6 months after the acute infection. The authors reported that there was no association between the persistence of PASC and the baseline amount of NETs, TRIM63, and anticellular antibodies. Nor was there an association between PASC and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline and 1 month after COVID-19 diagnosis. Nonetheless, patients with persistent PASC had higher titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgGs 3 months after the onset of COVID-19.

On the basis of previous data, the researchers aimed to construct a preliminary explanatory model to address the clinical and immunologic features associated with persistent PASC 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the univariate analysis, the variables associated with the diagnosis of persistent PASC were the serum levels of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (odds ratio, 1.01), macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha (OR, 1.13), interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (OR, 1.00), interleukin-6 (OR, 1.03), the expression of CD57 in CD8+ T cells (OR, 1.00), and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG at 1 month (OR, 1.45).

Patients with a diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months were characterized by certain predisposing factors, such as obesity, greater levels of macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha and interferon gamma-induced protein 10 in peripheral blood, greater expression of the senescence CD57 marker in CD8+ T lymphocytes, and persistent symptoms at 3 months.

Using these parameters to construct a predictive model after 3 months, the authors found a sensitivity of 97.7%, specificity of 53.8%, positive predictive value of 93.5%, and a negative predictive value of 77.7% for the diagnosis of clinical aspects associated with PASC at 6 months.
 

Interpreting CD57

One of the researchers who participated in the study was Luis Martínez-Juárez, MD, MPH, DrPH. He is on the operative solutions team at the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Martínez-Juárez pointed out that one of the contributions of this study was that it specifically examined the Mexican population. He noted that “according to the findings, obesity is not only a comorbidity associated with more severe progressions during acute COVID-19 disease, but also, through inflammation parameters, such as interleukin-6, interferon gamma-induced protein 10, and macrophage inflammatory protein-1 alpha, it’s involved in the development of clinical aspects related to postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín added that finding proinflammatory and obesity parameters in the patients could potentially support the hypothesis of the persistence of virus fragments in adipose tissue as possibly involved in clinical aspects associated with PASC, as some groups have reported in the medical literature.

Angélica Cuapio, MD, DrMed, an immunologist and senior investigator at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who did not participate in the study, said in an interview that the authors’ findings on the sustained increase of the CD57 marker in CD8+ lymphocytes are of notable interest. They may be associated with senescence states or cellular aging or with a stage of chronic viral infections. Therefore, Dr. Cuapio argued, it would have been valuable to include cellular markers of the innate system, such as natural killer cells, since in various infections, an increase in CD57 in lymphocytes is accompanied by an almost proportional increase of this marker in natural killer cells.

“This information would help to determine more accurately if we are talking about a cellular senescence or more about a chronic infection in persistent COVID-19.” The finding is important, but future research is needed in this developing field.

Dr. Cuapio pointed out that the authors found an interesting elevation in interleukin-1 alpha in patients with clinical aspects associated with PASC in a clinically well-characterized population in Mexico. “It is possible that this is a specific marker either of a specific population or location, or this could be an association with a humoral response. Despite the fact that this finding is new and unclear, it is worth investigating. This study is of great value for the scientific community because it’s one more piece in the complex puzzle of clinical aspects associated with postacute sequelae of COVID-19.”

Dr. Gómez-Martín noted that the main limitations of the study consist of its single-center design and the small patient sample. Dr. Martínez-Juárez added that the study did not consider reinfections. In future studies, it would be ideal to integrate other molecular assessments associated with various hypotheses of the physiopathology of clinical aspects associated with PASC, such as microbiota alteration, coagulation anomalies, endothelial damage, and dysfunctional neurologic signaling.

The study was supported and funded by the Carlos Slim Foundation. Dr. Gómez-Martín, Dr. Martínez-Juárez, and Dr. Cuapio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A two-part research study suggests that frequent cannabis is a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD).

In the first part, in an observational study, daily cannabis use was associated with 34% higher odds for CAD, compared with never-users, in a large population-based U.S. cohort. Less frequent use was not associated with increased odds for CAD.

In the second part, people with a genetic susceptibility to cannabis use disorder or severe cannabis dependency had an increased risk for CAD, compared with other people.

Ishan Paranjpe, MD, the study’s lead author, reported these results in a press briefing and will present the study at the upcoming joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation 2023.

“A couple of takeaway points are that daily cannabis use, but not less frequent cannabis use, was associated with CAD” in the large population-based cohort, said Dr. Paranjpe, a resident physician at Stanford (Calif.) University, during the press conference.

“This analysis was adjusted for several possible confounders including age, sex at birth, [body mass index (BMI)], race, education, cigarette use, hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes,” he noted, and even after accounting for these risk factors, the association with heart disease remained.

“And the next thing, using Mendelian randomization, we sort of implied that there might be a causal relationship between cannabis and heart disease. Importantly this effect is independent of alcohol and cigarette use.

“The notion that cannabis is completely benign is probably wrong, and there might be certain risk of certain cardiovascular effects of cannabis we should be more on the lookout for,” Dr. Paranjpe said in an interview.

“Our main conclusion was that prevalent CAD is associated with cannabis consumption,” he added. “Other mechanistic work published in Cell has also shown that cannabis causes vascular inflammation that may lead to CAD.

“Thus, there is growing evidence from both laboratory and population studies that cannabis consumption may be harmful for cardiovascular health,” he said. “However, we still need more work on whether it affects the risk of incident cardiovascular events (i.e., stroke, heart attack) in patient[s] with existing CAD.”
 

ASCVD risk

Invited to comment, Robert L. Page II, PharmD, chair of the writing group for the American Heart Association’s scientific statement Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health, published in 2020, said, “This adds to our hypothesis that if you are using marijuana over a longer period, greater exposure, you’re going to see an increase in the risk” for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

“We’re seeing this increased risk for ASCVD in young adults between ages 18 to 40 – people who think that they’re invincible,” Dr. Page, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an interview.

“The bottom line is that the risk that they are seeing is what has also been documented in other observational studies, and it adds fuel to the fire. We need to be paying close attention to this,” he said.

“Primary care [clinicians], cardiologists, need to address this, particularly in younger adults – because that’s where you’re seeing the highest amount of use.”
 

‘All of Us’ observational study

In the first part of the study, the researchers analyzed data from the “All of Us” cohort comprising adults age 18 and older from 340 inpatient and outpatient sites across the United States.

They identified 57,958 individuals who replied to a questionnaire asking about cannabis use (medicinal or recreational and whether it was edible or used by smoking or vaping) over the past 3 months.

There were 39,678 never-users, 8,749 who used it once or twice, 2,075 who used it monthly, 2,720 who used it weekly, and 4,736 who used it daily.

Of these, 3,506 individuals had CAD, based on medical records.

Only daily users had a significantly higher risk for CAD, compared with never-users (odds ratio, 1.34; P = .001) after adjusting for age, sex, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, BMI, education, insurance status, and cigarette use.

The median age for daily users was 41, whereas the median age for never-users was 59.
 

GWAS analyses

The researchers then performed a Mendelian randomization analysis based on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of cannabis use disorder and of CAD.

“Cannabis use disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis of severe cannabis dependency, equivalent to ‘alcohol use disorder’ for alcohol consumption,” Dr. Paranjpe explained. “The exact definition involves frequent use leading to significant dependence (but does not specify how often it is used).”

The GWAS data for cannabis use disorder came from a recent meta-analysis of three cohorts: the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Substance Use Disorders working group, iPSYCH, and deCODE.

The GWAS statistics for CAD were obtained from the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium.

Cannabis use disorder was associated with significantly increased odds for CAD (OR, 1.05; P = .001), which remained after adjusting for both cigarette and alcohol use (OR, 1.04).

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

A two-part research study suggests that frequent cannabis is a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD).

In the first part, in an observational study, daily cannabis use was associated with 34% higher odds for CAD, compared with never-users, in a large population-based U.S. cohort. Less frequent use was not associated with increased odds for CAD.

In the second part, people with a genetic susceptibility to cannabis use disorder or severe cannabis dependency had an increased risk for CAD, compared with other people.

Ishan Paranjpe, MD, the study’s lead author, reported these results in a press briefing and will present the study at the upcoming joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation 2023.

“A couple of takeaway points are that daily cannabis use, but not less frequent cannabis use, was associated with CAD” in the large population-based cohort, said Dr. Paranjpe, a resident physician at Stanford (Calif.) University, during the press conference.

“This analysis was adjusted for several possible confounders including age, sex at birth, [body mass index (BMI)], race, education, cigarette use, hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes,” he noted, and even after accounting for these risk factors, the association with heart disease remained.

“And the next thing, using Mendelian randomization, we sort of implied that there might be a causal relationship between cannabis and heart disease. Importantly this effect is independent of alcohol and cigarette use.

“The notion that cannabis is completely benign is probably wrong, and there might be certain risk of certain cardiovascular effects of cannabis we should be more on the lookout for,” Dr. Paranjpe said in an interview.

“Our main conclusion was that prevalent CAD is associated with cannabis consumption,” he added. “Other mechanistic work published in Cell has also shown that cannabis causes vascular inflammation that may lead to CAD.

“Thus, there is growing evidence from both laboratory and population studies that cannabis consumption may be harmful for cardiovascular health,” he said. “However, we still need more work on whether it affects the risk of incident cardiovascular events (i.e., stroke, heart attack) in patient[s] with existing CAD.”
 

ASCVD risk

Invited to comment, Robert L. Page II, PharmD, chair of the writing group for the American Heart Association’s scientific statement Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health, published in 2020, said, “This adds to our hypothesis that if you are using marijuana over a longer period, greater exposure, you’re going to see an increase in the risk” for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

“We’re seeing this increased risk for ASCVD in young adults between ages 18 to 40 – people who think that they’re invincible,” Dr. Page, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an interview.

“The bottom line is that the risk that they are seeing is what has also been documented in other observational studies, and it adds fuel to the fire. We need to be paying close attention to this,” he said.

“Primary care [clinicians], cardiologists, need to address this, particularly in younger adults – because that’s where you’re seeing the highest amount of use.”
 

‘All of Us’ observational study

In the first part of the study, the researchers analyzed data from the “All of Us” cohort comprising adults age 18 and older from 340 inpatient and outpatient sites across the United States.

They identified 57,958 individuals who replied to a questionnaire asking about cannabis use (medicinal or recreational and whether it was edible or used by smoking or vaping) over the past 3 months.

There were 39,678 never-users, 8,749 who used it once or twice, 2,075 who used it monthly, 2,720 who used it weekly, and 4,736 who used it daily.

Of these, 3,506 individuals had CAD, based on medical records.

Only daily users had a significantly higher risk for CAD, compared with never-users (odds ratio, 1.34; P = .001) after adjusting for age, sex, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, BMI, education, insurance status, and cigarette use.

The median age for daily users was 41, whereas the median age for never-users was 59.
 

GWAS analyses

The researchers then performed a Mendelian randomization analysis based on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of cannabis use disorder and of CAD.

“Cannabis use disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis of severe cannabis dependency, equivalent to ‘alcohol use disorder’ for alcohol consumption,” Dr. Paranjpe explained. “The exact definition involves frequent use leading to significant dependence (but does not specify how often it is used).”

The GWAS data for cannabis use disorder came from a recent meta-analysis of three cohorts: the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Substance Use Disorders working group, iPSYCH, and deCODE.

The GWAS statistics for CAD were obtained from the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium.

Cannabis use disorder was associated with significantly increased odds for CAD (OR, 1.05; P = .001), which remained after adjusting for both cigarette and alcohol use (OR, 1.04).

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

A two-part research study suggests that frequent cannabis is a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD).

In the first part, in an observational study, daily cannabis use was associated with 34% higher odds for CAD, compared with never-users, in a large population-based U.S. cohort. Less frequent use was not associated with increased odds for CAD.

In the second part, people with a genetic susceptibility to cannabis use disorder or severe cannabis dependency had an increased risk for CAD, compared with other people.

Ishan Paranjpe, MD, the study’s lead author, reported these results in a press briefing and will present the study at the upcoming joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation 2023.

“A couple of takeaway points are that daily cannabis use, but not less frequent cannabis use, was associated with CAD” in the large population-based cohort, said Dr. Paranjpe, a resident physician at Stanford (Calif.) University, during the press conference.

“This analysis was adjusted for several possible confounders including age, sex at birth, [body mass index (BMI)], race, education, cigarette use, hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes,” he noted, and even after accounting for these risk factors, the association with heart disease remained.

“And the next thing, using Mendelian randomization, we sort of implied that there might be a causal relationship between cannabis and heart disease. Importantly this effect is independent of alcohol and cigarette use.

“The notion that cannabis is completely benign is probably wrong, and there might be certain risk of certain cardiovascular effects of cannabis we should be more on the lookout for,” Dr. Paranjpe said in an interview.

“Our main conclusion was that prevalent CAD is associated with cannabis consumption,” he added. “Other mechanistic work published in Cell has also shown that cannabis causes vascular inflammation that may lead to CAD.

“Thus, there is growing evidence from both laboratory and population studies that cannabis consumption may be harmful for cardiovascular health,” he said. “However, we still need more work on whether it affects the risk of incident cardiovascular events (i.e., stroke, heart attack) in patient[s] with existing CAD.”
 

ASCVD risk

Invited to comment, Robert L. Page II, PharmD, chair of the writing group for the American Heart Association’s scientific statement Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health, published in 2020, said, “This adds to our hypothesis that if you are using marijuana over a longer period, greater exposure, you’re going to see an increase in the risk” for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

“We’re seeing this increased risk for ASCVD in young adults between ages 18 to 40 – people who think that they’re invincible,” Dr. Page, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an interview.

“The bottom line is that the risk that they are seeing is what has also been documented in other observational studies, and it adds fuel to the fire. We need to be paying close attention to this,” he said.

“Primary care [clinicians], cardiologists, need to address this, particularly in younger adults – because that’s where you’re seeing the highest amount of use.”
 

‘All of Us’ observational study

In the first part of the study, the researchers analyzed data from the “All of Us” cohort comprising adults age 18 and older from 340 inpatient and outpatient sites across the United States.

They identified 57,958 individuals who replied to a questionnaire asking about cannabis use (medicinal or recreational and whether it was edible or used by smoking or vaping) over the past 3 months.

There were 39,678 never-users, 8,749 who used it once or twice, 2,075 who used it monthly, 2,720 who used it weekly, and 4,736 who used it daily.

Of these, 3,506 individuals had CAD, based on medical records.

Only daily users had a significantly higher risk for CAD, compared with never-users (odds ratio, 1.34; P = .001) after adjusting for age, sex, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, BMI, education, insurance status, and cigarette use.

The median age for daily users was 41, whereas the median age for never-users was 59.
 

GWAS analyses

The researchers then performed a Mendelian randomization analysis based on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of cannabis use disorder and of CAD.

“Cannabis use disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis of severe cannabis dependency, equivalent to ‘alcohol use disorder’ for alcohol consumption,” Dr. Paranjpe explained. “The exact definition involves frequent use leading to significant dependence (but does not specify how often it is used).”

The GWAS data for cannabis use disorder came from a recent meta-analysis of three cohorts: the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Substance Use Disorders working group, iPSYCH, and deCODE.

The GWAS statistics for CAD were obtained from the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium.

Cannabis use disorder was associated with significantly increased odds for CAD (OR, 1.05; P = .001), which remained after adjusting for both cigarette and alcohol use (OR, 1.04).

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