Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary

Takayama et al evaluated 301 Japanese HCC patients who had a Child-Pugh score ≤ 7, no more than 3 HCC nodules (none more than 3 cm in greatest diameter), who were then randomly assigned to undergo either surgery (n=150) or RFA (n=151). The authors reported that though the median procedure duration was longer in the surgery group than in the RFA group (274 versus 40 minutes, P < 0.01) as was the median duration of hospital stay (17 days versus 10 days, P < 0.01), recurrence free survival (RFS) did not differ significantly between the groups. The median RFS was 3.5 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6–5.1) in the surgery group and 3.0 years (95% CI, 2.4–5.6) in the RFA group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67–1.25; P = 0.58). The overall survival (OS) data for this study are not yet mature.

Cao et al looked at outcomes of patients with periportal HCCs who were treated with RFA. They evaluated 233 patients who had a single nodular HCC that was ≤ 5 cm in greatest diameter who underwent RFA with or without transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as first-line therapy. In that group, 56 patients had a periportal HCC. The authors reported that patients with periportal HCCs had worse outcomes. Local recurrence rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were significantly higher with periportal HCCs than with nonperiportal HCCs (15.7, 33.7, and 46.9% vs 6.0, 15.7, and 28.7%, respectively, P = 0.0067). The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates with periportal HCCs were significantly worse than with nonperiportal HCCs (81.3, 65.1 and 42.9% vs 99.3, 90.4 and 78.1%, respectively, P < 0.0001). In the subgroup of HCC ≤ 3 cm, patients with periportal HCCs showed significantly higher local recurrence rates (P = 0.0006) and OS (P < 0.0001) after RFA than patients with single nonperiportal HCCs. Subgroup analyses revealed that tumor size, periportal HCC and AFP ≥ 400ug/ml were independent prognostic factors for tumor progression after RFA. The authors concluded that periportal HCCs have a worse prognosis, and need better treatment options than are currently available.

Lee at al report a retrospective evaluation of Korean patients with HCC who were either treated with RFA or microwave ablation (MWA). Of 150 HCC patients (100 in the RFA group and 50 in the MWA group), the complete response rate, two-year survival rate, and complication rate were similar between the two groups. However, the MWA group had better one- and two-year disease-free survival than the RFA group (P = 0.035 and P = 0.032, respectively). In addition, there were fewer major complications in the MWA group (P = 0.043). In a subgroup analysis, patients with perivascular tumors, high risk of recurrence, and small tumor size (≤3 cm) were more suitable for MWA than RFA. The authors concluded that in patients with HCC, initial treatment with microwave ablation leads to better 1- and 2-year disease-free survival and a lower risk of major complications than RFA.

Takayama et al evaluated 301 Japanese HCC patients who had a Child-Pugh score ≤ 7, no more than 3 HCC nodules (none more than 3 cm in greatest diameter), who were then randomly assigned to undergo either surgery (n=150) or RFA (n=151). The authors reported that though the median procedure duration was longer in the surgery group than in the RFA group (274 versus 40 minutes, P < 0.01) as was the median duration of hospital stay (17 days versus 10 days, P < 0.01), recurrence free survival (RFS) did not differ significantly between the groups. The median RFS was 3.5 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6–5.1) in the surgery group and 3.0 years (95% CI, 2.4–5.6) in the RFA group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67–1.25; P = 0.58). The overall survival (OS) data for this study are not yet mature.

Cao et al looked at outcomes of patients with periportal HCCs who were treated with RFA. They evaluated 233 patients who had a single nodular HCC that was ≤ 5 cm in greatest diameter who underwent RFA with or without transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as first-line therapy. In that group, 56 patients had a periportal HCC. The authors reported that patients with periportal HCCs had worse outcomes. Local recurrence rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were significantly higher with periportal HCCs than with nonperiportal HCCs (15.7, 33.7, and 46.9% vs 6.0, 15.7, and 28.7%, respectively, P = 0.0067). The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates with periportal HCCs were significantly worse than with nonperiportal HCCs (81.3, 65.1 and 42.9% vs 99.3, 90.4 and 78.1%, respectively, P < 0.0001). In the subgroup of HCC ≤ 3 cm, patients with periportal HCCs showed significantly higher local recurrence rates (P = 0.0006) and OS (P < 0.0001) after RFA than patients with single nonperiportal HCCs. Subgroup analyses revealed that tumor size, periportal HCC and AFP ≥ 400ug/ml were independent prognostic factors for tumor progression after RFA. The authors concluded that periportal HCCs have a worse prognosis, and need better treatment options than are currently available.

Lee at al report a retrospective evaluation of Korean patients with HCC who were either treated with RFA or microwave ablation (MWA). Of 150 HCC patients (100 in the RFA group and 50 in the MWA group), the complete response rate, two-year survival rate, and complication rate were similar between the two groups. However, the MWA group had better one- and two-year disease-free survival than the RFA group (P = 0.035 and P = 0.032, respectively). In addition, there were fewer major complications in the MWA group (P = 0.043). In a subgroup analysis, patients with perivascular tumors, high risk of recurrence, and small tumor size (≤3 cm) were more suitable for MWA than RFA. The authors concluded that in patients with HCC, initial treatment with microwave ablation leads to better 1- and 2-year disease-free survival and a lower risk of major complications than RFA.

Takayama et al evaluated 301 Japanese HCC patients who had a Child-Pugh score ≤ 7, no more than 3 HCC nodules (none more than 3 cm in greatest diameter), who were then randomly assigned to undergo either surgery (n=150) or RFA (n=151). The authors reported that though the median procedure duration was longer in the surgery group than in the RFA group (274 versus 40 minutes, P < 0.01) as was the median duration of hospital stay (17 days versus 10 days, P < 0.01), recurrence free survival (RFS) did not differ significantly between the groups. The median RFS was 3.5 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6–5.1) in the surgery group and 3.0 years (95% CI, 2.4–5.6) in the RFA group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67–1.25; P = 0.58). The overall survival (OS) data for this study are not yet mature.

Cao et al looked at outcomes of patients with periportal HCCs who were treated with RFA. They evaluated 233 patients who had a single nodular HCC that was ≤ 5 cm in greatest diameter who underwent RFA with or without transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as first-line therapy. In that group, 56 patients had a periportal HCC. The authors reported that patients with periportal HCCs had worse outcomes. Local recurrence rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were significantly higher with periportal HCCs than with nonperiportal HCCs (15.7, 33.7, and 46.9% vs 6.0, 15.7, and 28.7%, respectively, P = 0.0067). The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates with periportal HCCs were significantly worse than with nonperiportal HCCs (81.3, 65.1 and 42.9% vs 99.3, 90.4 and 78.1%, respectively, P < 0.0001). In the subgroup of HCC ≤ 3 cm, patients with periportal HCCs showed significantly higher local recurrence rates (P = 0.0006) and OS (P < 0.0001) after RFA than patients with single nonperiportal HCCs. Subgroup analyses revealed that tumor size, periportal HCC and AFP ≥ 400ug/ml were independent prognostic factors for tumor progression after RFA. The authors concluded that periportal HCCs have a worse prognosis, and need better treatment options than are currently available.

Lee at al report a retrospective evaluation of Korean patients with HCC who were either treated with RFA or microwave ablation (MWA). Of 150 HCC patients (100 in the RFA group and 50 in the MWA group), the complete response rate, two-year survival rate, and complication rate were similar between the two groups. However, the MWA group had better one- and two-year disease-free survival than the RFA group (P = 0.035 and P = 0.032, respectively). In addition, there were fewer major complications in the MWA group (P = 0.043). In a subgroup analysis, patients with perivascular tumors, high risk of recurrence, and small tumor size (≤3 cm) were more suitable for MWA than RFA. The authors concluded that in patients with HCC, initial treatment with microwave ablation leads to better 1- and 2-year disease-free survival and a lower risk of major complications than RFA.

Takayama et al evaluated 301 Japanese HCC patients who had a Child-Pugh score ≤ 7, no more than 3 HCC nodules (none more than 3 cm in greatest diameter), who were then randomly assigned to undergo either surgery (n=150) or RFA (n=151). The authors reported that though the median procedure duration was longer in the surgery group than in the RFA group (274 versus 40 minutes, P < 0.01) as was the median duration of hospital stay (17 days versus 10 days, P < 0.01), recurrence free survival (RFS) did not differ significantly between the groups. The median RFS was 3.5 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6–5.1) in the surgery group and 3.0 years (95% CI, 2.4–5.6) in the RFA group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67–1.25; P = 0.58). The overall survival (OS) data for this study are not yet mature.

Cao et al looked at outcomes of patients with periportal HCCs who were treated with RFA. They evaluated 233 patients who had a single nodular HCC that was ≤ 5 cm in greatest diameter who underwent RFA with or without transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as first-line therapy. In that group, 56 patients had a periportal HCC. The authors reported that patients with periportal HCCs had worse outcomes. Local recurrence rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were significantly higher with periportal HCCs than with nonperiportal HCCs (15.7, 33.7, and 46.9% vs 6.0, 15.7, and 28.7%, respectively, P = 0.0067). The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates with periportal HCCs were significantly worse than with nonperiportal HCCs (81.3, 65.1 and 42.9% vs 99.3, 90.4 and 78.1%, respectively, P < 0.0001). In the subgroup of HCC ≤ 3 cm, patients with periportal HCCs showed significantly higher local recurrence rates (P = 0.0006) and OS (P < 0.0001) after RFA than patients with single nonperiportal HCCs. Subgroup analyses revealed that tumor size, periportal HCC and AFP ≥ 400ug/ml were independent prognostic factors for tumor progression after RFA. The authors concluded that periportal HCCs have a worse prognosis, and need better treatment options than are currently available.

Lee at al report a retrospective evaluation of Korean patients with HCC who were either treated with RFA or microwave ablation (MWA). Of 150 HCC patients (100 in the RFA group and 50 in the MWA group), the complete response rate, two-year survival rate, and complication rate were similar between the two groups. However, the MWA group had better one- and two-year disease-free survival than the RFA group (P = 0.035 and P = 0.032, respectively). In addition, there were fewer major complications in the MWA group (P = 0.043). In a subgroup analysis, patients with perivascular tumors, high risk of recurrence, and small tumor size (≤3 cm) were more suitable for MWA than RFA. The authors concluded that in patients with HCC, initial treatment with microwave ablation leads to better 1- and 2-year disease-free survival and a lower risk of major complications than RFA.

Takayama et al evaluated 301 Japanese HCC patients who had a Child-Pugh score ≤ 7, no more than 3 HCC nodules (none more than 3 cm in greatest diameter), who were then randomly assigned to undergo either surgery (n=150) or RFA (n=151). The authors reported that though the median procedure duration was longer in the surgery group than in the RFA group (274 versus 40 minutes, P < 0.01) as was the median duration of hospital stay (17 days versus 10 days, P < 0.01), recurrence free survival (RFS) did not differ significantly between the groups. The median RFS was 3.5 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6–5.1) in the surgery group and 3.0 years (95% CI, 2.4–5.6) in the RFA group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67–1.25; P = 0.58). The overall survival (OS) data for this study are not yet mature.

Cao et al looked at outcomes of patients with periportal HCCs who were treated with RFA. They evaluated 233 patients who had a single nodular HCC that was ≤ 5 cm in greatest diameter who underwent RFA with or without transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as first-line therapy. In that group, 56 patients had a periportal HCC. The authors reported that patients with periportal HCCs had worse outcomes. Local recurrence rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were significantly higher with periportal HCCs than with nonperiportal HCCs (15.7, 33.7, and 46.9% vs 6.0, 15.7, and 28.7%, respectively, P = 0.0067). The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates with periportal HCCs were significantly worse than with nonperiportal HCCs (81.3, 65.1 and 42.9% vs 99.3, 90.4 and 78.1%, respectively, P < 0.0001). In the subgroup of HCC ≤ 3 cm, patients with periportal HCCs showed significantly higher local recurrence rates (P = 0.0006) and OS (P < 0.0001) after RFA than patients with single nonperiportal HCCs. Subgroup analyses revealed that tumor size, periportal HCC and AFP ≥ 400ug/ml were independent prognostic factors for tumor progression after RFA. The authors concluded that periportal HCCs have a worse prognosis, and need better treatment options than are currently available.

Lee at al report a retrospective evaluation of Korean patients with HCC who were either treated with RFA or microwave ablation (MWA). Of 150 HCC patients (100 in the RFA group and 50 in the MWA group), the complete response rate, two-year survival rate, and complication rate were similar between the two groups. However, the MWA group had better one- and two-year disease-free survival than the RFA group (P = 0.035 and P = 0.032, respectively). In addition, there were fewer major complications in the MWA group (P = 0.043). In a subgroup analysis, patients with perivascular tumors, high risk of recurrence, and small tumor size (≤3 cm) were more suitable for MWA than RFA. The authors concluded that in patients with HCC, initial treatment with microwave ablation leads to better 1- and 2-year disease-free survival and a lower risk of major complications than RFA.

Takayama et al evaluated 301 Japanese HCC patients who had a Child-Pugh score ≤ 7, no more than 3 HCC nodules (none more than 3 cm in greatest diameter), who were then randomly assigned to undergo either surgery (n=150) or RFA (n=151). The authors reported that though the median procedure duration was longer in the surgery group than in the RFA group (274 versus 40 minutes, P < 0.01) as was the median duration of hospital stay (17 days versus 10 days, P < 0.01), recurrence free survival (RFS) did not differ significantly between the groups. The median RFS was 3.5 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6–5.1) in the surgery group and 3.0 years (95% CI, 2.4–5.6) in the RFA group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67–1.25; P = 0.58). The overall survival (OS) data for this study are not yet mature.

Cao et al looked at outcomes of patients with periportal HCCs who were treated with RFA. They evaluated 233 patients who had a single nodular HCC that was ≤ 5 cm in greatest diameter who underwent RFA with or without transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as first-line therapy. In that group, 56 patients had a periportal HCC. The authors reported that patients with periportal HCCs had worse outcomes. Local recurrence rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were significantly higher with periportal HCCs than with nonperiportal HCCs (15.7, 33.7, and 46.9% vs 6.0, 15.7, and 28.7%, respectively, P = 0.0067). The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates with periportal HCCs were significantly worse than with nonperiportal HCCs (81.3, 65.1 and 42.9% vs 99.3, 90.4 and 78.1%, respectively, P < 0.0001). In the subgroup of HCC ≤ 3 cm, patients with periportal HCCs showed significantly higher local recurrence rates (P = 0.0006) and OS (P < 0.0001) after RFA than patients with single nonperiportal HCCs. Subgroup analyses revealed that tumor size, periportal HCC and AFP ≥ 400ug/ml were independent prognostic factors for tumor progression after RFA. The authors concluded that periportal HCCs have a worse prognosis, and need better treatment options than are currently available.

Lee at al report a retrospective evaluation of Korean patients with HCC who were either treated with RFA or microwave ablation (MWA). Of 150 HCC patients (100 in the RFA group and 50 in the MWA group), the complete response rate, two-year survival rate, and complication rate were similar between the two groups. However, the MWA group had better one- and two-year disease-free survival than the RFA group (P = 0.035 and P = 0.032, respectively). In addition, there were fewer major complications in the MWA group (P = 0.043). In a subgroup analysis, patients with perivascular tumors, high risk of recurrence, and small tumor size (≤3 cm) were more suitable for MWA than RFA. The authors concluded that in patients with HCC, initial treatment with microwave ablation leads to better 1- and 2-year disease-free survival and a lower risk of major complications than RFA.

The STAMPEDE platform included a multiple arm and multiple stage protocol to evaluate abiraterone and enzalutamide in high risk non-metastatic and metastatic disease in separate trials. In the accompanying article by Attard et. al, a meta-analysis of two separate trials conducted as part of the STAMPEDE platform was undertaken. In the first trial, patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer were randomized to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without abiraterone. In the second trial, similar patients were randomized to ADT versus ADT plus abiraterone plus enzalutamide. The primary outcome of metastasis-free survival and secondary outcome of overall survival [OS] were significantly longer for the treatment arms over ADT; however, the addition of enzalutamide to abiraterone did not result in additional benefit. In appropriately selected patients with high risk localized prostate cancer, abiraterone is a reasonable option to consider in appropriately selected patients.

While bone is the most frequent site of metastasis in men with prostate cancer, visceral metastases (predominantly liver or lung) has been associated with worse outcomes. However, lower incidence of visceral metastases makes conduct of studies focused on visceral disease challenging. Baciarello et al conducted a post-hoc analysis of the LATITUDE study (where men with metastatic castrate-sensitive disease were treated with ADT plus abiraterone or ADT alone) in participants with visceral disease. Overall, patients with visceral metastases derived OS benefit (55.4 versus 33 months). Patients with lung metastases had similar OS to the entire cohort; however, those with liver metastases still derived benefit but had lower OS (36.8 versus 25.6 months). These post-hoc findings suggest that liver metastases present unique challenges compare to other metastatic disease sites, but further study is needed.

In the ENZAMET trial, enzalutamide plus ADT was compared to ADT alone in patients with metastatic castrate-sensitive disease, and enzalutamide treatment was associated with improved OS. In the report by Stockler et al, quality of life metrics as assessed by periodic evaluation utilizing standard questionnaires were reported. Patients who received enzalutamide reported more fatigue and lower cognitive and physical function than those receiving placebo. However, the overall quality of life did not decrease. These important quality of life findings, which are increasingly being reported in similar studies, support the overall net benefit of utilization of enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castrate-sensitive disease.

The STAMPEDE platform included a multiple arm and multiple stage protocol to evaluate abiraterone and enzalutamide in high risk non-metastatic and metastatic disease in separate trials. In the accompanying article by Attard et. al, a meta-analysis of two separate trials conducted as part of the STAMPEDE platform was undertaken. In the first trial, patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer were randomized to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without abiraterone. In the second trial, similar patients were randomized to ADT versus ADT plus abiraterone plus enzalutamide. The primary outcome of metastasis-free survival and secondary outcome of overall survival [OS] were significantly longer for the treatment arms over ADT; however, the addition of enzalutamide to abiraterone did not result in additional benefit. In appropriately selected patients with high risk localized prostate cancer, abiraterone is a reasonable option to consider in appropriately selected patients.

While bone is the most frequent site of metastasis in men with prostate cancer, visceral metastases (predominantly liver or lung) has been associated with worse outcomes. However, lower incidence of visceral metastases makes conduct of studies focused on visceral disease challenging. Baciarello et al conducted a post-hoc analysis of the LATITUDE study (where men with metastatic castrate-sensitive disease were treated with ADT plus abiraterone or ADT alone) in participants with visceral disease. Overall, patients with visceral metastases derived OS benefit (55.4 versus 33 months). Patients with lung metastases had similar OS to the entire cohort; however, those with liver metastases still derived benefit but had lower OS (36.8 versus 25.6 months). These post-hoc findings suggest that liver metastases present unique challenges compare to other metastatic disease sites, but further study is needed.

In the ENZAMET trial, enzalutamide plus ADT was compared to ADT alone in patients with metastatic castrate-sensitive disease, and enzalutamide treatment was associated with improved OS. In the report by Stockler et al, quality of life metrics as assessed by periodic evaluation utilizing standard questionnaires were reported. Patients who received enzalutamide reported more fatigue and lower cognitive and physical function than those receiving placebo. However, the overall quality of life did not decrease. These important quality of life findings, which are increasingly being reported in similar studies, support the overall net benefit of utilization of enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castrate-sensitive disease.

The STAMPEDE platform included a multiple arm and multiple stage protocol to evaluate abiraterone and enzalutamide in high risk non-metastatic and metastatic disease in separate trials. In the accompanying article by Attard et. al, a meta-analysis of two separate trials conducted as part of the STAMPEDE platform was undertaken. In the first trial, patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer were randomized to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without abiraterone. In the second trial, similar patients were randomized to ADT versus ADT plus abiraterone plus enzalutamide. The primary outcome of metastasis-free survival and secondary outcome of overall survival [OS] were significantly longer for the treatment arms over ADT; however, the addition of enzalutamide to abiraterone did not result in additional benefit. In appropriately selected patients with high risk localized prostate cancer, abiraterone is a reasonable option to consider in appropriately selected patients.

While bone is the most frequent site of metastasis in men with prostate cancer, visceral metastases (predominantly liver or lung) has been associated with worse outcomes. However, lower incidence of visceral metastases makes conduct of studies focused on visceral disease challenging. Baciarello et al conducted a post-hoc analysis of the LATITUDE study (where men with metastatic castrate-sensitive disease were treated with ADT plus abiraterone or ADT alone) in participants with visceral disease. Overall, patients with visceral metastases derived OS benefit (55.4 versus 33 months). Patients with lung metastases had similar OS to the entire cohort; however, those with liver metastases still derived benefit but had lower OS (36.8 versus 25.6 months). These post-hoc findings suggest that liver metastases present unique challenges compare to other metastatic disease sites, but further study is needed.

In the ENZAMET trial, enzalutamide plus ADT was compared to ADT alone in patients with metastatic castrate-sensitive disease, and enzalutamide treatment was associated with improved OS. In the report by Stockler et al, quality of life metrics as assessed by periodic evaluation utilizing standard questionnaires were reported. Patients who received enzalutamide reported more fatigue and lower cognitive and physical function than those receiving placebo. However, the overall quality of life did not decrease. These important quality of life findings, which are increasingly being reported in similar studies, support the overall net benefit of utilization of enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castrate-sensitive disease.

Several recent RA studies have addressed aspects of systemic illness other than joint pain and inflammation, including sleep, fatigue, psychosocial burden, and well-being. A cohort study by Lyne et al¹ evaluated sleep duration and quality in 3,265 patients in the Swedish EIRA registry from 1-12 years after RA diagnosis. About 40% had problems in at least one sleep domain and the frequency of sleep problems increased somewhat with disease duration, but the strongest correlations with poor sleep were pain and functional impairment, suggesting that the overall activity of the RA was most important. Further research on improving sleep quality with improved control of disease activity would be helpful in supporting this hypothesis.

A systematic review by Shamail et al² examined mental health outcomes in patients with RA taking Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, limiting the review to studies reporting SF-36 mental health outcomes. The resulting 19 studies encompassed over 14,000 patients and did demonstrate clinically meaningful changes in SF-36 scores compared to baseline in patients treated with JAK inhibitors. When compared to changes with placebo or disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment, JAK inhibitors appeared to have a benefit, though few studies showed a clinically meaningful difference. Given that other studies have shown improvement in mental health outcomes with other classes of RA treatments, it is not clear that this is an effect of the JAK inhibitor class rather than related to overall improvement in quality of life.

Fatigue is a prevalent concern among patients with RA and may significantly impact quality of life; its origins in RA are not well-understood but thought to be related to inflammation. A UK study of an inception cohort by Ifeseman et al³ examines fatigue in early RA; about 75% of participants reported a decreased vitality score compared to the mean in the UK general population. Of the approximately 729 study participants in the longitudinal analysis, trajectory modeling was used to identify two groups of people: one with an “average” vitality score and another with a score that was significantly reduced compared to average. This group had worse disease activity scores, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores, and pain, though as with the other studies mentioned above, it is not clear if fatigue is a feature of worse control of RA or related to ongoing central sensitization or “non-inflammatory” mechanisms.

Doumen et al⁴ analyzed interaction between psychosocial variables and disease activity in an early RA cohort and found that better baseline short form-36 (SF-36) scores as well as other measures of psychosocial burden and coping were associated with sustained Disease Activity Score 28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-Reactive Protein (DAS-28-CRP) remission, while negative illness perception was associated with lower probability of sustained remission. Of the 287 patients who achieved DAS-28-CRP remission at week 16, the 231 patients who had a low psychosocial burden were more likely to remain in remission. Causality and direction are not established in this small study, so while evaluating psychosocial needs is relevant, as with the other studies mentioned above, caution must be used in attributing lack of improvement in disease activity to psychosocial burden or mood disorders.

References

1. Lyne L et al. Sleep problems in rheumatoid arthritis over 12 years from diagnosis: results from the Swedish EIRA study. RMD Open. 2022;8:e001800 (Jan 5).
2. Shamail GMH et al. Association between janus kinase inhibitors therapy and mental health outcome in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 13).
3. Ifesemen OS et al. Fatigue in early rheumatoid arthritis: data from the Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Network. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021;keab861 (Dec 27).
4. Doumen M et al. Psychosocial burden predicts sustained remission in early rheumatoid arthritis: unraveling the complex interplay of wellbeing and disease activity. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021 (Dec 20).

Several recent RA studies have addressed aspects of systemic illness other than joint pain and inflammation, including sleep, fatigue, psychosocial burden, and well-being. A cohort study by Lyne et al¹ evaluated sleep duration and quality in 3,265 patients in the Swedish EIRA registry from 1-12 years after RA diagnosis. About 40% had problems in at least one sleep domain and the frequency of sleep problems increased somewhat with disease duration, but the strongest correlations with poor sleep were pain and functional impairment, suggesting that the overall activity of the RA was most important. Further research on improving sleep quality with improved control of disease activity would be helpful in supporting this hypothesis.

A systematic review by Shamail et al² examined mental health outcomes in patients with RA taking Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, limiting the review to studies reporting SF-36 mental health outcomes. The resulting 19 studies encompassed over 14,000 patients and did demonstrate clinically meaningful changes in SF-36 scores compared to baseline in patients treated with JAK inhibitors. When compared to changes with placebo or disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment, JAK inhibitors appeared to have a benefit, though few studies showed a clinically meaningful difference. Given that other studies have shown improvement in mental health outcomes with other classes of RA treatments, it is not clear that this is an effect of the JAK inhibitor class rather than related to overall improvement in quality of life.

Fatigue is a prevalent concern among patients with RA and may significantly impact quality of life; its origins in RA are not well-understood but thought to be related to inflammation. A UK study of an inception cohort by Ifeseman et al³ examines fatigue in early RA; about 75% of participants reported a decreased vitality score compared to the mean in the UK general population. Of the approximately 729 study participants in the longitudinal analysis, trajectory modeling was used to identify two groups of people: one with an “average” vitality score and another with a score that was significantly reduced compared to average. This group had worse disease activity scores, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores, and pain, though as with the other studies mentioned above, it is not clear if fatigue is a feature of worse control of RA or related to ongoing central sensitization or “non-inflammatory” mechanisms.

Doumen et al⁴ analyzed interaction between psychosocial variables and disease activity in an early RA cohort and found that better baseline short form-36 (SF-36) scores as well as other measures of psychosocial burden and coping were associated with sustained Disease Activity Score 28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-Reactive Protein (DAS-28-CRP) remission, while negative illness perception was associated with lower probability of sustained remission. Of the 287 patients who achieved DAS-28-CRP remission at week 16, the 231 patients who had a low psychosocial burden were more likely to remain in remission. Causality and direction are not established in this small study, so while evaluating psychosocial needs is relevant, as with the other studies mentioned above, caution must be used in attributing lack of improvement in disease activity to psychosocial burden or mood disorders.

References

1. Lyne L et al. Sleep problems in rheumatoid arthritis over 12 years from diagnosis: results from the Swedish EIRA study. RMD Open. 2022;8:e001800 (Jan 5).
2. Shamail GMH et al. Association between janus kinase inhibitors therapy and mental health outcome in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 13).
3. Ifesemen OS et al. Fatigue in early rheumatoid arthritis: data from the Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Network. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021;keab861 (Dec 27).
4. Doumen M et al. Psychosocial burden predicts sustained remission in early rheumatoid arthritis: unraveling the complex interplay of wellbeing and disease activity. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021 (Dec 20).

Several recent RA studies have addressed aspects of systemic illness other than joint pain and inflammation, including sleep, fatigue, psychosocial burden, and well-being. A cohort study by Lyne et al¹ evaluated sleep duration and quality in 3,265 patients in the Swedish EIRA registry from 1-12 years after RA diagnosis. About 40% had problems in at least one sleep domain and the frequency of sleep problems increased somewhat with disease duration, but the strongest correlations with poor sleep were pain and functional impairment, suggesting that the overall activity of the RA was most important. Further research on improving sleep quality with improved control of disease activity would be helpful in supporting this hypothesis.

A systematic review by Shamail et al² examined mental health outcomes in patients with RA taking Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, limiting the review to studies reporting SF-36 mental health outcomes. The resulting 19 studies encompassed over 14,000 patients and did demonstrate clinically meaningful changes in SF-36 scores compared to baseline in patients treated with JAK inhibitors. When compared to changes with placebo or disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment, JAK inhibitors appeared to have a benefit, though few studies showed a clinically meaningful difference. Given that other studies have shown improvement in mental health outcomes with other classes of RA treatments, it is not clear that this is an effect of the JAK inhibitor class rather than related to overall improvement in quality of life.

Fatigue is a prevalent concern among patients with RA and may significantly impact quality of life; its origins in RA are not well-understood but thought to be related to inflammation. A UK study of an inception cohort by Ifeseman et al³ examines fatigue in early RA; about 75% of participants reported a decreased vitality score compared to the mean in the UK general population. Of the approximately 729 study participants in the longitudinal analysis, trajectory modeling was used to identify two groups of people: one with an “average” vitality score and another with a score that was significantly reduced compared to average. This group had worse disease activity scores, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores, and pain, though as with the other studies mentioned above, it is not clear if fatigue is a feature of worse control of RA or related to ongoing central sensitization or “non-inflammatory” mechanisms.

Doumen et al⁴ analyzed interaction between psychosocial variables and disease activity in an early RA cohort and found that better baseline short form-36 (SF-36) scores as well as other measures of psychosocial burden and coping were associated with sustained Disease Activity Score 28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-Reactive Protein (DAS-28-CRP) remission, while negative illness perception was associated with lower probability of sustained remission. Of the 287 patients who achieved DAS-28-CRP remission at week 16, the 231 patients who had a low psychosocial burden were more likely to remain in remission. Causality and direction are not established in this small study, so while evaluating psychosocial needs is relevant, as with the other studies mentioned above, caution must be used in attributing lack of improvement in disease activity to psychosocial burden or mood disorders.

References

1. Lyne L et al. Sleep problems in rheumatoid arthritis over 12 years from diagnosis: results from the Swedish EIRA study. RMD Open. 2022;8:e001800 (Jan 5).
2. Shamail GMH et al. Association between janus kinase inhibitors therapy and mental health outcome in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 13).
3. Ifesemen OS et al. Fatigue in early rheumatoid arthritis: data from the Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Network. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021;keab861 (Dec 27).
4. Doumen M et al. Psychosocial burden predicts sustained remission in early rheumatoid arthritis: unraveling the complex interplay of wellbeing and disease activity. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021 (Dec 20).

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

References

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

Breast cancer diagnosis and treatment in young women can present unique challenges based on their life stage, including potential impact on fertility and future pregnancy. The role of GnRH analogues for ovarian protection during chemotherapy has been shown in both the POEMS-SWOG S0230 and PROMISE-GIM6 studies. Zong and colleagues conducted a phase 3 trial in China among premenopausal women with stage I-III breast cancer receiving cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy, with randomization to GnRHa + chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone. Among 301 patients eligible for primary endpoint analysis, the premature ovarian insufficiency rate at 12 months was 10.3% for the GnRHa group vs 44.5% for the control group (odds ratio 0.23; P < 0.001). The rate of ovarian function recovery was also 46.4% higher in the GnRHa group. Furthermore, although survival outcomes were similar between groups, in patients <35 years of age, the tumor-free survival was higher in the GnRHa group vs control (93% vs 62%, P = 0.004) (Zong et al). These data reinforce the role of GnRHa as a means to reduce POI risk and support ovarian function recovery in young women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. Measures of fertility and timing of pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis continue to be areas of active research.

The treatment landscape for early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer continues to rapidly evolve with efforts to enhance efficacy and minimize toxicity for patients. The phase 3 KAITLIN study included 1846 patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer (node-positive or node-negative, hormone receptor-negative and ≥T2 primary tumor) with randomization after surgery to adjuvant AC followed by taxane + trastuzumab + pertuzumab (AC-THP) or AC followed by T-DM1 + pertuzumab (AC-KP). In both the overall and node-positive populations, there was no significant difference in IDFS between the arms (stratified HR 0.98 and 0.97, respectively). In the overall population, the 3-year IDFS was 93.1% for AC-KP and 94.2% for AC-THP. Treatment completion rates were lower for AC-KP vs AC-THP (65.0% vs 88.4%), with T-DM1 discontinuation driven mostly by lab abnormalities (elevated liver function tests and thrombocytopenia) (Krop et al). Many patients diagnosed with early HER2-positive breast cancer (specifically those with tumors >2cm or node-positive) are treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy + HER2-targeted therapy with subsequent tailoring of adjuvant treatment pending response, including use of T-DM1 if residual disease present. Future escalation and de-escalation strategies are being explored to further optimize outcomes and decrease side effects.

The addition of CDK 4/6 inhibitors to endocrine therapy has led to improved survival outcomes for patients diagnosed with advanced HR-positive-HER2-negative breast cancer. Lu and colleagues presented exploratory updated OS results among 672 patients with extended follow-up (median 53.5 months) from MONALEESA-7, which was a phase 3 randomized trial of ribociclib + endocrine therapy vs endocrine therapy alone among peri/pre-menopausal patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Median OS was 58.7 months vs 48.0 months for the ribociclib and placebo arms, respectively (HR 0.76), and a more pronounced benefit was seen in patients <40 years of age (median OS 51.3 months vs 40.5 months for ribociclib vs placebo arm; HR 0.65) (Lu et al). Furthermore, there was a significant delay in time to chemotherapy with ribociclib vs placebo (50.9 months vs 36.8 months; HR 0.69) which can certainly impact quality of life. A prior pooled analysis of the various MONALEESA trials demonstrated consistent PFS benefit with ribociclib across all intrinsic breast cancer subtypes, with the exception of basal-like and a more pronounced favorable impact in HER2-enriched. Future research to elucidate differences among CDK 4/6 inhibitors, influence of breast cancer subtype on their effect and how this can be translated to routine clinical practice are warranted.

Breast cancer diagnosis and treatment in young women can present unique challenges based on their life stage, including potential impact on fertility and future pregnancy. The role of GnRH analogues for ovarian protection during chemotherapy has been shown in both the POEMS-SWOG S0230 and PROMISE-GIM6 studies. Zong and colleagues conducted a phase 3 trial in China among premenopausal women with stage I-III breast cancer receiving cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy, with randomization to GnRHa + chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone. Among 301 patients eligible for primary endpoint analysis, the premature ovarian insufficiency rate at 12 months was 10.3% for the GnRHa group vs 44.5% for the control group (odds ratio 0.23; P < 0.001). The rate of ovarian function recovery was also 46.4% higher in the GnRHa group. Furthermore, although survival outcomes were similar between groups, in patients <35 years of age, the tumor-free survival was higher in the GnRHa group vs control (93% vs 62%, P = 0.004) (Zong et al). These data reinforce the role of GnRHa as a means to reduce POI risk and support ovarian function recovery in young women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. Measures of fertility and timing of pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis continue to be areas of active research.

The treatment landscape for early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer continues to rapidly evolve with efforts to enhance efficacy and minimize toxicity for patients. The phase 3 KAITLIN study included 1846 patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer (node-positive or node-negative, hormone receptor-negative and ≥T2 primary tumor) with randomization after surgery to adjuvant AC followed by taxane + trastuzumab + pertuzumab (AC-THP) or AC followed by T-DM1 + pertuzumab (AC-KP). In both the overall and node-positive populations, there was no significant difference in IDFS between the arms (stratified HR 0.98 and 0.97, respectively). In the overall population, the 3-year IDFS was 93.1% for AC-KP and 94.2% for AC-THP. Treatment completion rates were lower for AC-KP vs AC-THP (65.0% vs 88.4%), with T-DM1 discontinuation driven mostly by lab abnormalities (elevated liver function tests and thrombocytopenia) (Krop et al). Many patients diagnosed with early HER2-positive breast cancer (specifically those with tumors >2cm or node-positive) are treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy + HER2-targeted therapy with subsequent tailoring of adjuvant treatment pending response, including use of T-DM1 if residual disease present. Future escalation and de-escalation strategies are being explored to further optimize outcomes and decrease side effects.

The addition of CDK 4/6 inhibitors to endocrine therapy has led to improved survival outcomes for patients diagnosed with advanced HR-positive-HER2-negative breast cancer. Lu and colleagues presented exploratory updated OS results among 672 patients with extended follow-up (median 53.5 months) from MONALEESA-7, which was a phase 3 randomized trial of ribociclib + endocrine therapy vs endocrine therapy alone among peri/pre-menopausal patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Median OS was 58.7 months vs 48.0 months for the ribociclib and placebo arms, respectively (HR 0.76), and a more pronounced benefit was seen in patients <40 years of age (median OS 51.3 months vs 40.5 months for ribociclib vs placebo arm; HR 0.65) (Lu et al). Furthermore, there was a significant delay in time to chemotherapy with ribociclib vs placebo (50.9 months vs 36.8 months; HR 0.69) which can certainly impact quality of life. A prior pooled analysis of the various MONALEESA trials demonstrated consistent PFS benefit with ribociclib across all intrinsic breast cancer subtypes, with the exception of basal-like and a more pronounced favorable impact in HER2-enriched. Future research to elucidate differences among CDK 4/6 inhibitors, influence of breast cancer subtype on their effect and how this can be translated to routine clinical practice are warranted.

Breast cancer diagnosis and treatment in young women can present unique challenges based on their life stage, including potential impact on fertility and future pregnancy. The role of GnRH analogues for ovarian protection during chemotherapy has been shown in both the POEMS-SWOG S0230 and PROMISE-GIM6 studies. Zong and colleagues conducted a phase 3 trial in China among premenopausal women with stage I-III breast cancer receiving cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy, with randomization to GnRHa + chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone. Among 301 patients eligible for primary endpoint analysis, the premature ovarian insufficiency rate at 12 months was 10.3% for the GnRHa group vs 44.5% for the control group (odds ratio 0.23; P < 0.001). The rate of ovarian function recovery was also 46.4% higher in the GnRHa group. Furthermore, although survival outcomes were similar between groups, in patients <35 years of age, the tumor-free survival was higher in the GnRHa group vs control (93% vs 62%, P = 0.004) (Zong et al). These data reinforce the role of GnRHa as a means to reduce POI risk and support ovarian function recovery in young women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. Measures of fertility and timing of pregnancy after breast cancer diagnosis continue to be areas of active research.

The treatment landscape for early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer continues to rapidly evolve with efforts to enhance efficacy and minimize toxicity for patients. The phase 3 KAITLIN study included 1846 patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer (node-positive or node-negative, hormone receptor-negative and ≥T2 primary tumor) with randomization after surgery to adjuvant AC followed by taxane + trastuzumab + pertuzumab (AC-THP) or AC followed by T-DM1 + pertuzumab (AC-KP). In both the overall and node-positive populations, there was no significant difference in IDFS between the arms (stratified HR 0.98 and 0.97, respectively). In the overall population, the 3-year IDFS was 93.1% for AC-KP and 94.2% for AC-THP. Treatment completion rates were lower for AC-KP vs AC-THP (65.0% vs 88.4%), with T-DM1 discontinuation driven mostly by lab abnormalities (elevated liver function tests and thrombocytopenia) (Krop et al). Many patients diagnosed with early HER2-positive breast cancer (specifically those with tumors >2cm or node-positive) are treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy + HER2-targeted therapy with subsequent tailoring of adjuvant treatment pending response, including use of T-DM1 if residual disease present. Future escalation and de-escalation strategies are being explored to further optimize outcomes and decrease side effects.

The addition of CDK 4/6 inhibitors to endocrine therapy has led to improved survival outcomes for patients diagnosed with advanced HR-positive-HER2-negative breast cancer. Lu and colleagues presented exploratory updated OS results among 672 patients with extended follow-up (median 53.5 months) from MONALEESA-7, which was a phase 3 randomized trial of ribociclib + endocrine therapy vs endocrine therapy alone among peri/pre-menopausal patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Median OS was 58.7 months vs 48.0 months for the ribociclib and placebo arms, respectively (HR 0.76), and a more pronounced benefit was seen in patients <40 years of age (median OS 51.3 months vs 40.5 months for ribociclib vs placebo arm; HR 0.65) (Lu et al). Furthermore, there was a significant delay in time to chemotherapy with ribociclib vs placebo (50.9 months vs 36.8 months; HR 0.69) which can certainly impact quality of life. A prior pooled analysis of the various MONALEESA trials demonstrated consistent PFS benefit with ribociclib across all intrinsic breast cancer subtypes, with the exception of basal-like and a more pronounced favorable impact in HER2-enriched. Future research to elucidate differences among CDK 4/6 inhibitors, influence of breast cancer subtype on their effect and how this can be translated to routine clinical practice are warranted.

For many years, sorafenib was the only FDA-approved systemic treatment for patients with uHCC. Initial case reports of remarkable responses of tumors to immunotherapy, and results of the Phase I/II CheckMate-040 clinical trial, led to the September 2017 FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with uHCC after progression on sorafenib. Thereafter, several randomized clinical trials comparing sorafenib to immunotherapy and immunotherapy combinations were initiated, including the comparison of nivolumab to sorafenib. In June 2019 it was announced that this trial did not reach its prespecified endpoint, and the FDA approval for the uHCC indication was voluntarily withdrawn. In December 2021, Yau et al published the final results of the CheckMate-459 randomized trial that included 743 adult patients with advanced HCC randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (n=371) or sorafenib (n=372) in the first line setting.  The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The median OS was 16.4 months (95% CI 13.9–18.4) with nivolumab and 14.7 months (11.9–17.2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.72–1.02]; P = 0.075; minimum follow-up 22.8 months). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. The authors concluded that though first-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve OS compared with sorafenib, single-agent nivolumab might be considered a treatment option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors or antiangiogenic drugs are not safe.

Cheng et al reported an update on the outcomes of the IMbrave150 study, 12 months after the primary analysis. This study established atezolizumab and bevacizumab as the current standard of care for the initial systemic treatment of patients with uHCC. The median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive P < 0.001). The overall response rate (ORR) was 30% with atezolizumab/bevacizumab, while treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 72 (46%) of 156 receiving sorafenib. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. Therefore, atezolizumab/bevacizumab remains the first-line standard of care for patients with uHCC.

Finally, Jácome et al undertook a combined analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials (KEYNOTE-240, CheckMate-459, and IMbrave150), with 1,657 patients with uHCC and who were treated with either immunotherapy (n=985) or sorafenib (in the first-line setting) or placebo (in the sorafenib-refractory setting) (n=672). The conclusion of the meta-analysis was that checkpoint inhibitors were associated with superior OS (HR, 0.75; P = .006), progression-free survival (HR, 0.74; P = .03), and ORR (odds ratio [OR], 2.82; P < .001) and lower odds of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (OR, 0.44; P = .04) than the comparators, confirming that immunotherapy remains an integral part of the treatment of patients with uHCC.

For many years, sorafenib was the only FDA-approved systemic treatment for patients with uHCC. Initial case reports of remarkable responses of tumors to immunotherapy, and results of the Phase I/II CheckMate-040 clinical trial, led to the September 2017 FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with uHCC after progression on sorafenib. Thereafter, several randomized clinical trials comparing sorafenib to immunotherapy and immunotherapy combinations were initiated, including the comparison of nivolumab to sorafenib. In June 2019 it was announced that this trial did not reach its prespecified endpoint, and the FDA approval for the uHCC indication was voluntarily withdrawn. In December 2021, Yau et al published the final results of the CheckMate-459 randomized trial that included 743 adult patients with advanced HCC randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (n=371) or sorafenib (n=372) in the first line setting.  The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The median OS was 16.4 months (95% CI 13.9–18.4) with nivolumab and 14.7 months (11.9–17.2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.72–1.02]; P = 0.075; minimum follow-up 22.8 months). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. The authors concluded that though first-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve OS compared with sorafenib, single-agent nivolumab might be considered a treatment option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors or antiangiogenic drugs are not safe.

Cheng et al reported an update on the outcomes of the IMbrave150 study, 12 months after the primary analysis. This study established atezolizumab and bevacizumab as the current standard of care for the initial systemic treatment of patients with uHCC. The median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive P < 0.001). The overall response rate (ORR) was 30% with atezolizumab/bevacizumab, while treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 72 (46%) of 156 receiving sorafenib. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. Therefore, atezolizumab/bevacizumab remains the first-line standard of care for patients with uHCC.

Finally, Jácome et al undertook a combined analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials (KEYNOTE-240, CheckMate-459, and IMbrave150), with 1,657 patients with uHCC and who were treated with either immunotherapy (n=985) or sorafenib (in the first-line setting) or placebo (in the sorafenib-refractory setting) (n=672). The conclusion of the meta-analysis was that checkpoint inhibitors were associated with superior OS (HR, 0.75; P = .006), progression-free survival (HR, 0.74; P = .03), and ORR (odds ratio [OR], 2.82; P < .001) and lower odds of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (OR, 0.44; P = .04) than the comparators, confirming that immunotherapy remains an integral part of the treatment of patients with uHCC.

For many years, sorafenib was the only FDA-approved systemic treatment for patients with uHCC. Initial case reports of remarkable responses of tumors to immunotherapy, and results of the Phase I/II CheckMate-040 clinical trial, led to the September 2017 FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with uHCC after progression on sorafenib. Thereafter, several randomized clinical trials comparing sorafenib to immunotherapy and immunotherapy combinations were initiated, including the comparison of nivolumab to sorafenib. In June 2019 it was announced that this trial did not reach its prespecified endpoint, and the FDA approval for the uHCC indication was voluntarily withdrawn. In December 2021, Yau et al published the final results of the CheckMate-459 randomized trial that included 743 adult patients with advanced HCC randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (n=371) or sorafenib (n=372) in the first line setting.  The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The median OS was 16.4 months (95% CI 13.9–18.4) with nivolumab and 14.7 months (11.9–17.2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.72–1.02]; P = 0.075; minimum follow-up 22.8 months). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. The authors concluded that though first-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve OS compared with sorafenib, single-agent nivolumab might be considered a treatment option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors or antiangiogenic drugs are not safe.

Cheng et al reported an update on the outcomes of the IMbrave150 study, 12 months after the primary analysis. This study established atezolizumab and bevacizumab as the current standard of care for the initial systemic treatment of patients with uHCC. The median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive P < 0.001). The overall response rate (ORR) was 30% with atezolizumab/bevacizumab, while treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 72 (46%) of 156 receiving sorafenib. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. Therefore, atezolizumab/bevacizumab remains the first-line standard of care for patients with uHCC.

Finally, Jácome et al undertook a combined analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials (KEYNOTE-240, CheckMate-459, and IMbrave150), with 1,657 patients with uHCC and who were treated with either immunotherapy (n=985) or sorafenib (in the first-line setting) or placebo (in the sorafenib-refractory setting) (n=672). The conclusion of the meta-analysis was that checkpoint inhibitors were associated with superior OS (HR, 0.75; P = .006), progression-free survival (HR, 0.74; P = .03), and ORR (odds ratio [OR], 2.82; P < .001) and lower odds of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (OR, 0.44; P = .04) than the comparators, confirming that immunotherapy remains an integral part of the treatment of patients with uHCC.

For many years, sorafenib was the only FDA-approved systemic treatment for patients with uHCC. Initial case reports of remarkable responses of tumors to immunotherapy, and results of the Phase I/II CheckMate-040 clinical trial, led to the September 2017 FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with uHCC after progression on sorafenib. Thereafter, several randomized clinical trials comparing sorafenib to immunotherapy and immunotherapy combinations were initiated, including the comparison of nivolumab to sorafenib. In June 2019 it was announced that this trial did not reach its prespecified endpoint, and the FDA approval for the uHCC indication was voluntarily withdrawn. In December 2021, Yau et al published the final results of the CheckMate-459 randomized trial that included 743 adult patients with advanced HCC randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (n=371) or sorafenib (n=372) in the first line setting.  The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The median OS was 16.4 months (95% CI 13.9–18.4) with nivolumab and 14.7 months (11.9–17.2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.72–1.02]; P = 0.075; minimum follow-up 22.8 months). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. The authors concluded that though first-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve OS compared with sorafenib, single-agent nivolumab might be considered a treatment option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors or antiangiogenic drugs are not safe.

Cheng et al reported an update on the outcomes of the IMbrave150 study, 12 months after the primary analysis. This study established atezolizumab and bevacizumab as the current standard of care for the initial systemic treatment of patients with uHCC. The median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive P < 0.001). The overall response rate (ORR) was 30% with atezolizumab/bevacizumab, while treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 72 (46%) of 156 receiving sorafenib. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. Therefore, atezolizumab/bevacizumab remains the first-line standard of care for patients with uHCC.

Finally, Jácome et al undertook a combined analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials (KEYNOTE-240, CheckMate-459, and IMbrave150), with 1,657 patients with uHCC and who were treated with either immunotherapy (n=985) or sorafenib (in the first-line setting) or placebo (in the sorafenib-refractory setting) (n=672). The conclusion of the meta-analysis was that checkpoint inhibitors were associated with superior OS (HR, 0.75; P = .006), progression-free survival (HR, 0.74; P = .03), and ORR (odds ratio [OR], 2.82; P < .001) and lower odds of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (OR, 0.44; P = .04) than the comparators, confirming that immunotherapy remains an integral part of the treatment of patients with uHCC.

For many years, sorafenib was the only FDA-approved systemic treatment for patients with uHCC. Initial case reports of remarkable responses of tumors to immunotherapy, and results of the Phase I/II CheckMate-040 clinical trial, led to the September 2017 FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with uHCC after progression on sorafenib. Thereafter, several randomized clinical trials comparing sorafenib to immunotherapy and immunotherapy combinations were initiated, including the comparison of nivolumab to sorafenib. In June 2019 it was announced that this trial did not reach its prespecified endpoint, and the FDA approval for the uHCC indication was voluntarily withdrawn. In December 2021, Yau et al published the final results of the CheckMate-459 randomized trial that included 743 adult patients with advanced HCC randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (n=371) or sorafenib (n=372) in the first line setting.  The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The median OS was 16.4 months (95% CI 13.9–18.4) with nivolumab and 14.7 months (11.9–17.2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.72–1.02]; P = 0.075; minimum follow-up 22.8 months). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. The authors concluded that though first-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve OS compared with sorafenib, single-agent nivolumab might be considered a treatment option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors or antiangiogenic drugs are not safe.

Cheng et al reported an update on the outcomes of the IMbrave150 study, 12 months after the primary analysis. This study established atezolizumab and bevacizumab as the current standard of care for the initial systemic treatment of patients with uHCC. The median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive P < 0.001). The overall response rate (ORR) was 30% with atezolizumab/bevacizumab, while treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 72 (46%) of 156 receiving sorafenib. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. Therefore, atezolizumab/bevacizumab remains the first-line standard of care for patients with uHCC.

Finally, Jácome et al undertook a combined analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials (KEYNOTE-240, CheckMate-459, and IMbrave150), with 1,657 patients with uHCC and who were treated with either immunotherapy (n=985) or sorafenib (in the first-line setting) or placebo (in the sorafenib-refractory setting) (n=672). The conclusion of the meta-analysis was that checkpoint inhibitors were associated with superior OS (HR, 0.75; P = .006), progression-free survival (HR, 0.74; P = .03), and ORR (odds ratio [OR], 2.82; P < .001) and lower odds of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (OR, 0.44; P = .04) than the comparators, confirming that immunotherapy remains an integral part of the treatment of patients with uHCC.

For many years, sorafenib was the only FDA-approved systemic treatment for patients with uHCC. Initial case reports of remarkable responses of tumors to immunotherapy, and results of the Phase I/II CheckMate-040 clinical trial, led to the September 2017 FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with uHCC after progression on sorafenib. Thereafter, several randomized clinical trials comparing sorafenib to immunotherapy and immunotherapy combinations were initiated, including the comparison of nivolumab to sorafenib. In June 2019 it was announced that this trial did not reach its prespecified endpoint, and the FDA approval for the uHCC indication was voluntarily withdrawn. In December 2021, Yau et al published the final results of the CheckMate-459 randomized trial that included 743 adult patients with advanced HCC randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (n=371) or sorafenib (n=372) in the first line setting.  The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The median OS was 16.4 months (95% CI 13.9–18.4) with nivolumab and 14.7 months (11.9–17.2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.72–1.02]; P = 0.075; minimum follow-up 22.8 months). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. The authors concluded that though first-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve OS compared with sorafenib, single-agent nivolumab might be considered a treatment option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors or antiangiogenic drugs are not safe.

Cheng et al reported an update on the outcomes of the IMbrave150 study, 12 months after the primary analysis. This study established atezolizumab and bevacizumab as the current standard of care for the initial systemic treatment of patients with uHCC. The median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive P < 0.001). The overall response rate (ORR) was 30% with atezolizumab/bevacizumab, while treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 72 (46%) of 156 receiving sorafenib. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. Therefore, atezolizumab/bevacizumab remains the first-line standard of care for patients with uHCC.

Finally, Jácome et al undertook a combined analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials (KEYNOTE-240, CheckMate-459, and IMbrave150), with 1,657 patients with uHCC and who were treated with either immunotherapy (n=985) or sorafenib (in the first-line setting) or placebo (in the sorafenib-refractory setting) (n=672). The conclusion of the meta-analysis was that checkpoint inhibitors were associated with superior OS (HR, 0.75; P = .006), progression-free survival (HR, 0.74; P = .03), and ORR (odds ratio [OR], 2.82; P < .001) and lower odds of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (OR, 0.44; P = .04) than the comparators, confirming that immunotherapy remains an integral part of the treatment of patients with uHCC.

Along with long-standing concerns about immunodeficiency and use of immunosuppressive medication in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are juxtaposed concerns about their additional risk of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Several studies have reported a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic disease, though few have compared this risk to the general population. This cohort study by Wang et al.¹ examines the risk of COVID-19 in people with RA compared to people with OA and the general population based on an electronic medical record database in the UK. The rate of COVID-19 was higher among people with RA than the general population, with a hazard ratio of 1.42 for confirmed COVID-19 cases, while the rate among people with OA was not increased. This finding confirms suspicions, though, due to the study design, it does not lend additional insight into nuances given the lack of information about RA treatment and activity as in prior studies.

Also of concern in the midst of the pandemic is the effect of RA and its treatment on response to vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. The rapid development of mRNA vaccines has been a boon, but research on vaccine response in people with rheumatic disease has suggested that certain medications can impact antibody formation. Iancovici et al.² examined antibody and B cell responses after vaccination in people with RA being treated with Janus kinase (JAK)-inhibitors or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors and in healthy volunteers. Though the study is flawed as responses were not assessed at the same timepoint after vaccination in all subjects and limited due to the heterogeneity of treatment and small numbers of subjects, antibody production and other assays were decreased in RA subjects, suggesting reduced humoral immunity. Whether a pause in JAK inhibitor treatment, as recommended by the American College of Rheumatology, makes an appreciable difference in these assessments of vaccine response is as yet unknown. Further, given the limited data, it is unclear whether having RA on its own, rather than the treatments involved, was the causative factor. Research is already underway on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in people with RA and other rheumatic diseases, but studies such as these also imply a relative immunodeficiency due to the diseases and their treatment that could extend to other vaccines or infections.

In addition to impacts on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response, treatment with JAK inhibitors is known to increase risk of herpes zoster (HZ). A post hoc analysis of pooled data from 21 RA and 3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib trials by Winthrop et al.³ evaluated the number and severity of HZ infections. Interestingly, HZ infections occurred more frequently in participants in the RA clinical trials, with about 11% having an infection compared to 5% in the PsA studies, once again highlighting a potential immunodeficiency particular to people with RA. Most patients had mild to moderate infections, but a small proportion of patients (<5%) had severe infections. Given the possibility of a reduced vaccine response, though unknown, after HZ vaccination in people with RA, consideration should be given not only to vaccination prior to initiation of JAK inhibitor therapy, but to assessment of vaccine efficacy and the ideal dosing schedules in these patients.

References

1. Wang Y et al. Increased risk of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a general population-based cohort study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021(Dec 7). 
2. Iancovici L et al. Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors show reduced humoral immune responses following BNT162b2 vaccination. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021:keab879 (Nov 25).
3. Winthrop KL et al. Clinical management of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis receiving tofacitinib treatment. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 6).

Along with long-standing concerns about immunodeficiency and use of immunosuppressive medication in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are juxtaposed concerns about their additional risk of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Several studies have reported a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic disease, though few have compared this risk to the general population. This cohort study by Wang et al.¹ examines the risk of COVID-19 in people with RA compared to people with OA and the general population based on an electronic medical record database in the UK. The rate of COVID-19 was higher among people with RA than the general population, with a hazard ratio of 1.42 for confirmed COVID-19 cases, while the rate among people with OA was not increased. This finding confirms suspicions, though, due to the study design, it does not lend additional insight into nuances given the lack of information about RA treatment and activity as in prior studies.

Also of concern in the midst of the pandemic is the effect of RA and its treatment on response to vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. The rapid development of mRNA vaccines has been a boon, but research on vaccine response in people with rheumatic disease has suggested that certain medications can impact antibody formation. Iancovici et al.² examined antibody and B cell responses after vaccination in people with RA being treated with Janus kinase (JAK)-inhibitors or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors and in healthy volunteers. Though the study is flawed as responses were not assessed at the same timepoint after vaccination in all subjects and limited due to the heterogeneity of treatment and small numbers of subjects, antibody production and other assays were decreased in RA subjects, suggesting reduced humoral immunity. Whether a pause in JAK inhibitor treatment, as recommended by the American College of Rheumatology, makes an appreciable difference in these assessments of vaccine response is as yet unknown. Further, given the limited data, it is unclear whether having RA on its own, rather than the treatments involved, was the causative factor. Research is already underway on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in people with RA and other rheumatic diseases, but studies such as these also imply a relative immunodeficiency due to the diseases and their treatment that could extend to other vaccines or infections.

In addition to impacts on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response, treatment with JAK inhibitors is known to increase risk of herpes zoster (HZ). A post hoc analysis of pooled data from 21 RA and 3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib trials by Winthrop et al.³ evaluated the number and severity of HZ infections. Interestingly, HZ infections occurred more frequently in participants in the RA clinical trials, with about 11% having an infection compared to 5% in the PsA studies, once again highlighting a potential immunodeficiency particular to people with RA. Most patients had mild to moderate infections, but a small proportion of patients (<5%) had severe infections. Given the possibility of a reduced vaccine response, though unknown, after HZ vaccination in people with RA, consideration should be given not only to vaccination prior to initiation of JAK inhibitor therapy, but to assessment of vaccine efficacy and the ideal dosing schedules in these patients.

References

1. Wang Y et al. Increased risk of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a general population-based cohort study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021(Dec 7). 
2. Iancovici L et al. Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors show reduced humoral immune responses following BNT162b2 vaccination. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021:keab879 (Nov 25).
3. Winthrop KL et al. Clinical management of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis receiving tofacitinib treatment. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 6).

Along with long-standing concerns about immunodeficiency and use of immunosuppressive medication in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are juxtaposed concerns about their additional risk of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Several studies have reported a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with rheumatic disease, though few have compared this risk to the general population. This cohort study by Wang et al.¹ examines the risk of COVID-19 in people with RA compared to people with OA and the general population based on an electronic medical record database in the UK. The rate of COVID-19 was higher among people with RA than the general population, with a hazard ratio of 1.42 for confirmed COVID-19 cases, while the rate among people with OA was not increased. This finding confirms suspicions, though, due to the study design, it does not lend additional insight into nuances given the lack of information about RA treatment and activity as in prior studies.

Also of concern in the midst of the pandemic is the effect of RA and its treatment on response to vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. The rapid development of mRNA vaccines has been a boon, but research on vaccine response in people with rheumatic disease has suggested that certain medications can impact antibody formation. Iancovici et al.² examined antibody and B cell responses after vaccination in people with RA being treated with Janus kinase (JAK)-inhibitors or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors and in healthy volunteers. Though the study is flawed as responses were not assessed at the same timepoint after vaccination in all subjects and limited due to the heterogeneity of treatment and small numbers of subjects, antibody production and other assays were decreased in RA subjects, suggesting reduced humoral immunity. Whether a pause in JAK inhibitor treatment, as recommended by the American College of Rheumatology, makes an appreciable difference in these assessments of vaccine response is as yet unknown. Further, given the limited data, it is unclear whether having RA on its own, rather than the treatments involved, was the causative factor. Research is already underway on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response in people with RA and other rheumatic diseases, but studies such as these also imply a relative immunodeficiency due to the diseases and their treatment that could extend to other vaccines or infections.

In addition to impacts on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine response, treatment with JAK inhibitors is known to increase risk of herpes zoster (HZ). A post hoc analysis of pooled data from 21 RA and 3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib trials by Winthrop et al.³ evaluated the number and severity of HZ infections. Interestingly, HZ infections occurred more frequently in participants in the RA clinical trials, with about 11% having an infection compared to 5% in the PsA studies, once again highlighting a potential immunodeficiency particular to people with RA. Most patients had mild to moderate infections, but a small proportion of patients (<5%) had severe infections. Given the possibility of a reduced vaccine response, though unknown, after HZ vaccination in people with RA, consideration should be given not only to vaccination prior to initiation of JAK inhibitor therapy, but to assessment of vaccine efficacy and the ideal dosing schedules in these patients.

References

1. Wang Y et al. Increased risk of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a general population-based cohort study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021(Dec 7). 
2. Iancovici L et al. Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors show reduced humoral immune responses following BNT162b2 vaccination. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021:keab879 (Nov 25).
3. Winthrop KL et al. Clinical management of herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis receiving tofacitinib treatment. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 (Dec 6).

A new era of evidence-based practice for atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most common diseases of childhood and still very common in adults worldwide. AD is also a very burdensome disease with considerable patient-burden. Despite the enormous population- and patient- burden, there remain many unmet needs in the management of AD. In addition, many treatments commonly used in AD had scant or mixed evidence regarding their efficacy and safety. For example, topical corticosteroids (TCS) are the workhorse for treatment in AD and most other inflammatory skin diseases. Yet, virtually everything we know about the efficacy of TCS comes from vasoconstriction proxy assays with almost no studies formally studying the efficacy of TCS in AD. Similarly, many therapies used off-label to treat more severe AD, such as phototherapy or allergen immunotherapy have inconsistent evidence to guide their use. Well, things are finally changing and the evidence is coming in at a frenzied pace. Development of multiple novel therapeutics in AD led to renewed interest in studying the efficacy and safety of older therapies as well.

• Phototherapy is an important treatment modality in AD patients who have an inadequate response to topical therapy. Many different modalities and devices were used to treat AD over the years, including narrowband ultraviolet B (NBUVB) and ultraviolet A (UVA)-1. NBUVB is the most commonly used approach in the United States and some other regions of the world. Ben Mordehai et al. published the results of a retrospective cohort study of 390 Israeli patients with moderate-severe AD treated with NBUVB therapy between 2000-2017 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Overall, 55.4% achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear. Facial involvement, occurrence of adverse effects, fewer treatments, and pretreatment immunoglobulin E levels >4000 IU/ml were associated with poorer clinical response to NBUVB. Median duration of response was 12 months with more relapses in children (<18 years).

• House dust mites (HDM) were previously shown to be triggers of AD via Immunoglobulin E dependent and independent mechanisms. Unfortunately, HDM avoidance is challenging for patients and has not proven to be reliably effective in clinical trials. Previous studies examined different approaches for immunotherapy to HDM with mixed results. Langer et al. published the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of HDM sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) or placebo for 18 months in 91 children and adults with AD and positive skin test result and/or Immunoglobulin E to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. After 18 months, patients treated with HDM SLIT achieved greater reductions in the SCOring AD (SCORAD) index and were more likely to achieve an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear compared to placebo. Headache and abdominal pain were the most common adverse events reported by both groups. Efficacy of HDM SLIT in this study was relatively modest. Nevertheless, it appears to be a safe therapy and a reasonable adjunctive therapy in patients with AD whose disease is believed to be triggered by HDM.

• We are fortunate to have multiple non-steroidal topical therapies for atopic dermatitis, including crisaborole ointment, pimecrolimus cream and tacrolimus ointment. A number of questions remain about how these therapies compare with each other and with topical corticosteroids.  Some of these questions were answered in two recent studies.
  • Thom et al. compared individual data from two phase 3 studies of crisaborole ointment with previously published data for topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus in patients ≥2 years with mild-to-moderate AD using an approach referred to as unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison. By week 6, the odds of achieving Investigator’s Static Global Assessment score of 0/1 was higher for crisaborole ointment vs. pimecrolimus cream and tacrolimus 0.03% ointment.
  • Salava et al. followed 152 children age 1-3 years with moderate-severe AD for 36 months. They found no significant differences of topical tacrolimus 0.03% or 0.1% ointment vs. low or mid potency topical corticosteroids on AD severity (as judged by the eczema area and severity index), skin or other infections, and various cytokine levels.

While these data do not replace the need for head-to-head studies, they do provide important context about comparative efficacy and safety of the various topical agents in our toolbox.

References

1. Ben Mordehai Y et al. Long-Term Narrowband UV-B Efficacy in Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2021 (Nov 27).
2. Langer SS et al. Efficacy of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy in patients with atopic dermatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021 (Nov 9).
3. Thom H et al. Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Crisaborole Ointment 2% vs. Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors in the Treatment of Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Atopic Dermatitis Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 (Dec 8).
4. Salava A et al. Safety of tacrolimus 0.03% and 0.1% ointments in young children with atopic dermatitis - a 36-month follow-up study. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2021 (Nov 19).

A new era of evidence-based practice for atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most common diseases of childhood and still very common in adults worldwide. AD is also a very burdensome disease with considerable patient-burden. Despite the enormous population- and patient- burden, there remain many unmet needs in the management of AD. In addition, many treatments commonly used in AD had scant or mixed evidence regarding their efficacy and safety. For example, topical corticosteroids (TCS) are the workhorse for treatment in AD and most other inflammatory skin diseases. Yet, virtually everything we know about the efficacy of TCS comes from vasoconstriction proxy assays with almost no studies formally studying the efficacy of TCS in AD. Similarly, many therapies used off-label to treat more severe AD, such as phototherapy or allergen immunotherapy have inconsistent evidence to guide their use. Well, things are finally changing and the evidence is coming in at a frenzied pace. Development of multiple novel therapeutics in AD led to renewed interest in studying the efficacy and safety of older therapies as well.

• Phototherapy is an important treatment modality in AD patients who have an inadequate response to topical therapy. Many different modalities and devices were used to treat AD over the years, including narrowband ultraviolet B (NBUVB) and ultraviolet A (UVA)-1. NBUVB is the most commonly used approach in the United States and some other regions of the world. Ben Mordehai et al. published the results of a retrospective cohort study of 390 Israeli patients with moderate-severe AD treated with NBUVB therapy between 2000-2017 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Overall, 55.4% achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear. Facial involvement, occurrence of adverse effects, fewer treatments, and pretreatment immunoglobulin E levels >4000 IU/ml were associated with poorer clinical response to NBUVB. Median duration of response was 12 months with more relapses in children (<18 years).

• House dust mites (HDM) were previously shown to be triggers of AD via Immunoglobulin E dependent and independent mechanisms. Unfortunately, HDM avoidance is challenging for patients and has not proven to be reliably effective in clinical trials. Previous studies examined different approaches for immunotherapy to HDM with mixed results. Langer et al. published the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of HDM sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) or placebo for 18 months in 91 children and adults with AD and positive skin test result and/or Immunoglobulin E to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. After 18 months, patients treated with HDM SLIT achieved greater reductions in the SCOring AD (SCORAD) index and were more likely to achieve an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear compared to placebo. Headache and abdominal pain were the most common adverse events reported by both groups. Efficacy of HDM SLIT in this study was relatively modest. Nevertheless, it appears to be a safe therapy and a reasonable adjunctive therapy in patients with AD whose disease is believed to be triggered by HDM.

• We are fortunate to have multiple non-steroidal topical therapies for atopic dermatitis, including crisaborole ointment, pimecrolimus cream and tacrolimus ointment. A number of questions remain about how these therapies compare with each other and with topical corticosteroids.  Some of these questions were answered in two recent studies.
  • Thom et al. compared individual data from two phase 3 studies of crisaborole ointment with previously published data for topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus in patients ≥2 years with mild-to-moderate AD using an approach referred to as unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison. By week 6, the odds of achieving Investigator’s Static Global Assessment score of 0/1 was higher for crisaborole ointment vs. pimecrolimus cream and tacrolimus 0.03% ointment.
  • Salava et al. followed 152 children age 1-3 years with moderate-severe AD for 36 months. They found no significant differences of topical tacrolimus 0.03% or 0.1% ointment vs. low or mid potency topical corticosteroids on AD severity (as judged by the eczema area and severity index), skin or other infections, and various cytokine levels.

While these data do not replace the need for head-to-head studies, they do provide important context about comparative efficacy and safety of the various topical agents in our toolbox.

References

1. Ben Mordehai Y et al. Long-Term Narrowband UV-B Efficacy in Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2021 (Nov 27).
2. Langer SS et al. Efficacy of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy in patients with atopic dermatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021 (Nov 9).
3. Thom H et al. Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Crisaborole Ointment 2% vs. Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors in the Treatment of Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Atopic Dermatitis Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 (Dec 8).
4. Salava A et al. Safety of tacrolimus 0.03% and 0.1% ointments in young children with atopic dermatitis - a 36-month follow-up study. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2021 (Nov 19).

A new era of evidence-based practice for atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most common diseases of childhood and still very common in adults worldwide. AD is also a very burdensome disease with considerable patient-burden. Despite the enormous population- and patient- burden, there remain many unmet needs in the management of AD. In addition, many treatments commonly used in AD had scant or mixed evidence regarding their efficacy and safety. For example, topical corticosteroids (TCS) are the workhorse for treatment in AD and most other inflammatory skin diseases. Yet, virtually everything we know about the efficacy of TCS comes from vasoconstriction proxy assays with almost no studies formally studying the efficacy of TCS in AD. Similarly, many therapies used off-label to treat more severe AD, such as phototherapy or allergen immunotherapy have inconsistent evidence to guide their use. Well, things are finally changing and the evidence is coming in at a frenzied pace. Development of multiple novel therapeutics in AD led to renewed interest in studying the efficacy and safety of older therapies as well.

• Phototherapy is an important treatment modality in AD patients who have an inadequate response to topical therapy. Many different modalities and devices were used to treat AD over the years, including narrowband ultraviolet B (NBUVB) and ultraviolet A (UVA)-1. NBUVB is the most commonly used approach in the United States and some other regions of the world. Ben Mordehai et al. published the results of a retrospective cohort study of 390 Israeli patients with moderate-severe AD treated with NBUVB therapy between 2000-2017 with ≥3 years of follow-up. Overall, 55.4% achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear. Facial involvement, occurrence of adverse effects, fewer treatments, and pretreatment immunoglobulin E levels >4000 IU/ml were associated with poorer clinical response to NBUVB. Median duration of response was 12 months with more relapses in children (<18 years).

• House dust mites (HDM) were previously shown to be triggers of AD via Immunoglobulin E dependent and independent mechanisms. Unfortunately, HDM avoidance is challenging for patients and has not proven to be reliably effective in clinical trials. Previous studies examined different approaches for immunotherapy to HDM with mixed results. Langer et al. published the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of HDM sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) or placebo for 18 months in 91 children and adults with AD and positive skin test result and/or Immunoglobulin E to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. After 18 months, patients treated with HDM SLIT achieved greater reductions in the SCOring AD (SCORAD) index and were more likely to achieve an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear compared to placebo. Headache and abdominal pain were the most common adverse events reported by both groups. Efficacy of HDM SLIT in this study was relatively modest. Nevertheless, it appears to be a safe therapy and a reasonable adjunctive therapy in patients with AD whose disease is believed to be triggered by HDM.

• We are fortunate to have multiple non-steroidal topical therapies for atopic dermatitis, including crisaborole ointment, pimecrolimus cream and tacrolimus ointment. A number of questions remain about how these therapies compare with each other and with topical corticosteroids.  Some of these questions were answered in two recent studies.
  • Thom et al. compared individual data from two phase 3 studies of crisaborole ointment with previously published data for topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus in patients ≥2 years with mild-to-moderate AD using an approach referred to as unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison. By week 6, the odds of achieving Investigator’s Static Global Assessment score of 0/1 was higher for crisaborole ointment vs. pimecrolimus cream and tacrolimus 0.03% ointment.
  • Salava et al. followed 152 children age 1-3 years with moderate-severe AD for 36 months. They found no significant differences of topical tacrolimus 0.03% or 0.1% ointment vs. low or mid potency topical corticosteroids on AD severity (as judged by the eczema area and severity index), skin or other infections, and various cytokine levels.

While these data do not replace the need for head-to-head studies, they do provide important context about comparative efficacy and safety of the various topical agents in our toolbox.

References

1. Ben Mordehai Y et al. Long-Term Narrowband UV-B Efficacy in Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2021 (Nov 27).
2. Langer SS et al. Efficacy of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy in patients with atopic dermatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021 (Nov 9).
3. Thom H et al. Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Crisaborole Ointment 2% vs. Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors in the Treatment of Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Atopic Dermatitis Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 (Dec 8).
4. Salava A et al. Safety of tacrolimus 0.03% and 0.1% ointments in young children with atopic dermatitis - a 36-month follow-up study. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2021 (Nov 19).