Twelve years after the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program was introduced in the United States, the overall prevalence of cancer-causing HPV strains covered by the vaccine dropped by 85% among females – 90% among vaccinated females and 74% among unvaccinated females – a strong sign of herd immunity, a new analysis of a nationally representative database is showing.

“HPV vaccination is working well,” Hannah Rosenblum, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization in an email.

“Twelve years after introduction of HPV vaccination in the United States, national data demonstrate increasing impact among females and strong herd effects among unvaccinated females,” she added. “[Although] vaccination coverage and completion of the recommended dose in the United States is lower than coverage with other adolescent vaccinations, HPV vaccination is the best way to prevent HPV infections that can lead to several cancers in both females and males.”

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

NHANES survey

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the four HPV types in the quadrivalent vaccine before 2003 and 2006 (the pre-vaccine era) and then again between 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 (the vaccine era). For females, they analyzed demographic and HPV prevalence data across each 4-year era.

“Analyses were limited to sexually experienced participants, to ensure that all those included had an opportunity for HPV exposure, and to participants aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected cervicovaginal specimens,” the authors explain.

This resulted in a sample size of 3,197 females. Demographic and HPV prevalence data were also collected from males but only during the 2013-2016 era, because those are the only years for which male HPV typing data are available in NHANES. Again, analyses were limited to sexually experienced males aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected penile specimens, which resulted in a sample size of 661 males.

Over the 12 years of follow-up for females, there was a steady increase in females reporting having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine – from slightly over 25% during 2007-12 to 59% during 2015-2018. The percentage of males who reported having at least one HPV dose also increased, from 29.5% in 2016 to 34.5% in 2018.

During the earliest vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of the four HPV strains covered by the vaccine was 7.3% among vaccinated females, compared with 20.4% among unvaccinated females. “By 2015 to 2018, the prevalence was 2.8% (prevalence ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.39). The prevalence of the four vaccine-covered types was only 1.9% in vaccinated females, compared with 4.8% in unvaccinated females (PR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.11-1.41).

In contrast, the prevalence of HPV types that were not covered by the vaccine showed little change – from 51.1% in the pre-vaccine era to 47.6% during 2015-2018 (PR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08). The authors considered this a good sign because it indicates that vaccine-type HPV infections are not being replaced with other oncogenic HPV infections. Between 2013 and 2016, the difference in the prevalence of the four HPV vaccine types was smaller at 1.8% among vaccinated males and 3.5% among unvaccinated males (PR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.11-2.20).

Again, the prevalence of non-HPV vaccine types was not significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated males: 30.7% versus 34.3%.

During the vaccine era, effectiveness for females ranged from 60% to 84%. For males, vaccine effectiveness could only be evaluated for the single 4-year period from 2013 to 2016, and it was estimated at 51%. Dr. Rosenblum noted that vaccine efficacy estimates were lower on this national survey than the almost 100% efficacy rates observed in clinical trials in both males and females.

“This might be due in part to many participants receiving the vaccine at an older age than is recommended when they could have been infected [with HPV] at the time of vaccination,” Dr. Rosenblum said. She also noted that because males were incorporated into the HPV vaccination program years after females, they likely also experienced strong herd effects from the vaccine, making it challenging to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

Dr. Rosenblum also noted that there have already been documented declines in cervical precancers and high-grade vulvar and vaginal precancers, as well as genital warts and juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. At the same time, the incidence of cervical precancers has recently declined among U.S. females in their late teens and early 20s – “likely reflecting the impact of vaccination,” she said.

“This study is good news for the United States HPV vaccination program, and all efforts are needed to ensure that children and adolescents receive routinely recommended vaccinations [including vaccination against HPV],” Dr. Rosenblum added.
 

Editorial comment

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues point out that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in HPV vaccination programs and has reversed much of the progress made in recent years. “During the pandemic, providers and health systems have deprioritized adolescent vaccination and particularly HPV vaccination, which in turn has led to more severe drops for HPV vaccination than for other adolescent vaccinations, and for adolescent vaccination, compared with early childhood and adult vaccinations,” Dr. Perkins and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

Thus, the need to compensate for the cumulative deficit of missed vaccinations over the past 2 years has created a “serious and urgent threat” to cancer prevention efforts – “a shortfall from which it may take a decade to recover,” the editorialists predict. To try and reverse this trend, several practices have been shown to improve HPV vaccination rates.

The first is a strong provider recommendation such as, “Your child is due for an HPV vaccine today.” The second is to give standing orders to allow nurses and medical assistants to administer vaccinations without requiring intervention by a physician. Lastly, programs to remind patients when vaccines are due and to recall them for appointments also work well.

“Using evidence-based methods and redoubling our efforts to prioritize HPV vaccination will be crucial to ensuring that we do not lose a generation to preventable HPV-associated cancer,” write Dr. Perkins and colleagues.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Twelve years after the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program was introduced in the United States, the overall prevalence of cancer-causing HPV strains covered by the vaccine dropped by 85% among females – 90% among vaccinated females and 74% among unvaccinated females – a strong sign of herd immunity, a new analysis of a nationally representative database is showing.

“HPV vaccination is working well,” Hannah Rosenblum, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization in an email.

“Twelve years after introduction of HPV vaccination in the United States, national data demonstrate increasing impact among females and strong herd effects among unvaccinated females,” she added. “[Although] vaccination coverage and completion of the recommended dose in the United States is lower than coverage with other adolescent vaccinations, HPV vaccination is the best way to prevent HPV infections that can lead to several cancers in both females and males.”

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

NHANES survey

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the four HPV types in the quadrivalent vaccine before 2003 and 2006 (the pre-vaccine era) and then again between 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 (the vaccine era). For females, they analyzed demographic and HPV prevalence data across each 4-year era.

“Analyses were limited to sexually experienced participants, to ensure that all those included had an opportunity for HPV exposure, and to participants aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected cervicovaginal specimens,” the authors explain.

This resulted in a sample size of 3,197 females. Demographic and HPV prevalence data were also collected from males but only during the 2013-2016 era, because those are the only years for which male HPV typing data are available in NHANES. Again, analyses were limited to sexually experienced males aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected penile specimens, which resulted in a sample size of 661 males.

Over the 12 years of follow-up for females, there was a steady increase in females reporting having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine – from slightly over 25% during 2007-12 to 59% during 2015-2018. The percentage of males who reported having at least one HPV dose also increased, from 29.5% in 2016 to 34.5% in 2018.

During the earliest vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of the four HPV strains covered by the vaccine was 7.3% among vaccinated females, compared with 20.4% among unvaccinated females. “By 2015 to 2018, the prevalence was 2.8% (prevalence ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.39). The prevalence of the four vaccine-covered types was only 1.9% in vaccinated females, compared with 4.8% in unvaccinated females (PR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.11-1.41).

In contrast, the prevalence of HPV types that were not covered by the vaccine showed little change – from 51.1% in the pre-vaccine era to 47.6% during 2015-2018 (PR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08). The authors considered this a good sign because it indicates that vaccine-type HPV infections are not being replaced with other oncogenic HPV infections. Between 2013 and 2016, the difference in the prevalence of the four HPV vaccine types was smaller at 1.8% among vaccinated males and 3.5% among unvaccinated males (PR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.11-2.20).

Again, the prevalence of non-HPV vaccine types was not significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated males: 30.7% versus 34.3%.

During the vaccine era, effectiveness for females ranged from 60% to 84%. For males, vaccine effectiveness could only be evaluated for the single 4-year period from 2013 to 2016, and it was estimated at 51%. Dr. Rosenblum noted that vaccine efficacy estimates were lower on this national survey than the almost 100% efficacy rates observed in clinical trials in both males and females.

“This might be due in part to many participants receiving the vaccine at an older age than is recommended when they could have been infected [with HPV] at the time of vaccination,” Dr. Rosenblum said. She also noted that because males were incorporated into the HPV vaccination program years after females, they likely also experienced strong herd effects from the vaccine, making it challenging to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

Dr. Rosenblum also noted that there have already been documented declines in cervical precancers and high-grade vulvar and vaginal precancers, as well as genital warts and juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. At the same time, the incidence of cervical precancers has recently declined among U.S. females in their late teens and early 20s – “likely reflecting the impact of vaccination,” she said.

“This study is good news for the United States HPV vaccination program, and all efforts are needed to ensure that children and adolescents receive routinely recommended vaccinations [including vaccination against HPV],” Dr. Rosenblum added.
 

Editorial comment

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues point out that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in HPV vaccination programs and has reversed much of the progress made in recent years. “During the pandemic, providers and health systems have deprioritized adolescent vaccination and particularly HPV vaccination, which in turn has led to more severe drops for HPV vaccination than for other adolescent vaccinations, and for adolescent vaccination, compared with early childhood and adult vaccinations,” Dr. Perkins and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

Thus, the need to compensate for the cumulative deficit of missed vaccinations over the past 2 years has created a “serious and urgent threat” to cancer prevention efforts – “a shortfall from which it may take a decade to recover,” the editorialists predict. To try and reverse this trend, several practices have been shown to improve HPV vaccination rates.

The first is a strong provider recommendation such as, “Your child is due for an HPV vaccine today.” The second is to give standing orders to allow nurses and medical assistants to administer vaccinations without requiring intervention by a physician. Lastly, programs to remind patients when vaccines are due and to recall them for appointments also work well.

“Using evidence-based methods and redoubling our efforts to prioritize HPV vaccination will be crucial to ensuring that we do not lose a generation to preventable HPV-associated cancer,” write Dr. Perkins and colleagues.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Twelve years after the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program was introduced in the United States, the overall prevalence of cancer-causing HPV strains covered by the vaccine dropped by 85% among females – 90% among vaccinated females and 74% among unvaccinated females – a strong sign of herd immunity, a new analysis of a nationally representative database is showing.

“HPV vaccination is working well,” Hannah Rosenblum, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization in an email.

“Twelve years after introduction of HPV vaccination in the United States, national data demonstrate increasing impact among females and strong herd effects among unvaccinated females,” she added. “[Although] vaccination coverage and completion of the recommended dose in the United States is lower than coverage with other adolescent vaccinations, HPV vaccination is the best way to prevent HPV infections that can lead to several cancers in both females and males.”

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

NHANES survey

The authors used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine the four HPV types in the quadrivalent vaccine before 2003 and 2006 (the pre-vaccine era) and then again between 2007-2010, 2011-2014, and 2015-2018 (the vaccine era). For females, they analyzed demographic and HPV prevalence data across each 4-year era.

“Analyses were limited to sexually experienced participants, to ensure that all those included had an opportunity for HPV exposure, and to participants aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected cervicovaginal specimens,” the authors explain.

This resulted in a sample size of 3,197 females. Demographic and HPV prevalence data were also collected from males but only during the 2013-2016 era, because those are the only years for which male HPV typing data are available in NHANES. Again, analyses were limited to sexually experienced males aged 14-24 years with adequate self-collected penile specimens, which resulted in a sample size of 661 males.

Over the 12 years of follow-up for females, there was a steady increase in females reporting having received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine – from slightly over 25% during 2007-12 to 59% during 2015-2018. The percentage of males who reported having at least one HPV dose also increased, from 29.5% in 2016 to 34.5% in 2018.

During the earliest vaccine era (2007-2010), the prevalence of the four HPV strains covered by the vaccine was 7.3% among vaccinated females, compared with 20.4% among unvaccinated females. “By 2015 to 2018, the prevalence was 2.8% (prevalence ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.39). The prevalence of the four vaccine-covered types was only 1.9% in vaccinated females, compared with 4.8% in unvaccinated females (PR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.11-1.41).

In contrast, the prevalence of HPV types that were not covered by the vaccine showed little change – from 51.1% in the pre-vaccine era to 47.6% during 2015-2018 (PR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08). The authors considered this a good sign because it indicates that vaccine-type HPV infections are not being replaced with other oncogenic HPV infections. Between 2013 and 2016, the difference in the prevalence of the four HPV vaccine types was smaller at 1.8% among vaccinated males and 3.5% among unvaccinated males (PR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.11-2.20).

Again, the prevalence of non-HPV vaccine types was not significantly different between vaccinated and unvaccinated males: 30.7% versus 34.3%.

During the vaccine era, effectiveness for females ranged from 60% to 84%. For males, vaccine effectiveness could only be evaluated for the single 4-year period from 2013 to 2016, and it was estimated at 51%. Dr. Rosenblum noted that vaccine efficacy estimates were lower on this national survey than the almost 100% efficacy rates observed in clinical trials in both males and females.

“This might be due in part to many participants receiving the vaccine at an older age than is recommended when they could have been infected [with HPV] at the time of vaccination,” Dr. Rosenblum said. She also noted that because males were incorporated into the HPV vaccination program years after females, they likely also experienced strong herd effects from the vaccine, making it challenging to estimate vaccine effectiveness.

Dr. Rosenblum also noted that there have already been documented declines in cervical precancers and high-grade vulvar and vaginal precancers, as well as genital warts and juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. At the same time, the incidence of cervical precancers has recently declined among U.S. females in their late teens and early 20s – “likely reflecting the impact of vaccination,” she said.

“This study is good news for the United States HPV vaccination program, and all efforts are needed to ensure that children and adolescents receive routinely recommended vaccinations [including vaccination against HPV],” Dr. Rosenblum added.
 

Editorial comment

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues point out that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in HPV vaccination programs and has reversed much of the progress made in recent years. “During the pandemic, providers and health systems have deprioritized adolescent vaccination and particularly HPV vaccination, which in turn has led to more severe drops for HPV vaccination than for other adolescent vaccinations, and for adolescent vaccination, compared with early childhood and adult vaccinations,” Dr. Perkins and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

Thus, the need to compensate for the cumulative deficit of missed vaccinations over the past 2 years has created a “serious and urgent threat” to cancer prevention efforts – “a shortfall from which it may take a decade to recover,” the editorialists predict. To try and reverse this trend, several practices have been shown to improve HPV vaccination rates.

The first is a strong provider recommendation such as, “Your child is due for an HPV vaccine today.” The second is to give standing orders to allow nurses and medical assistants to administer vaccinations without requiring intervention by a physician. Lastly, programs to remind patients when vaccines are due and to recall them for appointments also work well.

“Using evidence-based methods and redoubling our efforts to prioritize HPV vaccination will be crucial to ensuring that we do not lose a generation to preventable HPV-associated cancer,” write Dr. Perkins and colleagues.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new law will ban certain infant sleep products blamed for the deaths of more than 200 babies in the United States.

On May 16, President Joe Biden signed legislation that prohibits the manufacture and sale of crib bumpers or inclined sleepers for infants, due to the risk of suffocation, according to CBS News.

H.R. 3182, or the Safe Sleep for Babies Act of 2021, notes that sleepers and bumpers will be considered “banned hazardous products” under the Consumer Product Safety Act. It gives manufacturers and retailers 180 days to comply with the new rule.

“The dangers posed to babies have been apparent for years,” Teresa Murray, who directs the consumer watchdog office for the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, said in a statement.

“It’s unfortunate that this law could take months to take effect,” she said. “Parents and caregivers need to recognize the dangers of these products and get them out of their homes now.”

H.R. 3182 defines inclined sleepers as products that have a sleep surface slanted greater than 10 degrees and are intended for babies up to 1 year old. Crib bumpers include any material that is designed to cover the sides of a crib, which includes padding or vinyl bumper guards but not non-padded mesh crib liners.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has received reports of more than 113 deaths involving crib bumpers between 1990 and 2019, as well as 113 nonfatal incidents between 2008 and 2019, according to a report from the commission.

More than 100 babies have died from infant-inclined sleep products, according to the commission, which has recalled numerous versions in recent years. But older models are still in circulation, CBS News reported.

Last year, the commission approved a federal safety rule that bans several types of sleep products for babies under 5 months old. Set to take effect next month, the rule requires products marketed for infants to meet the same federal safety standards as required for cribs and similar products.

Parents and advocates have called for a ban on these products for decades, according to CBS, since they can lead to suffocation when an infant’s nose and mouth are covered by a bumper or become stuck between a bumper and crib mattress.

Sudden unexpected infant death, or SUID – which includes sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS – is the leading cause of injury death in infancy, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. The group’s recommendations for safe sleep advise that infants should sleep on their back on a firm, flat surface without any extra padding, pillows, blankets, stuffed toys, bumpers, or other soft items in the sleep space.


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

A new law will ban certain infant sleep products blamed for the deaths of more than 200 babies in the United States.

On May 16, President Joe Biden signed legislation that prohibits the manufacture and sale of crib bumpers or inclined sleepers for infants, due to the risk of suffocation, according to CBS News.

H.R. 3182, or the Safe Sleep for Babies Act of 2021, notes that sleepers and bumpers will be considered “banned hazardous products” under the Consumer Product Safety Act. It gives manufacturers and retailers 180 days to comply with the new rule.

“The dangers posed to babies have been apparent for years,” Teresa Murray, who directs the consumer watchdog office for the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, said in a statement.

“It’s unfortunate that this law could take months to take effect,” she said. “Parents and caregivers need to recognize the dangers of these products and get them out of their homes now.”

H.R. 3182 defines inclined sleepers as products that have a sleep surface slanted greater than 10 degrees and are intended for babies up to 1 year old. Crib bumpers include any material that is designed to cover the sides of a crib, which includes padding or vinyl bumper guards but not non-padded mesh crib liners.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has received reports of more than 113 deaths involving crib bumpers between 1990 and 2019, as well as 113 nonfatal incidents between 2008 and 2019, according to a report from the commission.

More than 100 babies have died from infant-inclined sleep products, according to the commission, which has recalled numerous versions in recent years. But older models are still in circulation, CBS News reported.

Last year, the commission approved a federal safety rule that bans several types of sleep products for babies under 5 months old. Set to take effect next month, the rule requires products marketed for infants to meet the same federal safety standards as required for cribs and similar products.

Parents and advocates have called for a ban on these products for decades, according to CBS, since they can lead to suffocation when an infant’s nose and mouth are covered by a bumper or become stuck between a bumper and crib mattress.

Sudden unexpected infant death, or SUID – which includes sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS – is the leading cause of injury death in infancy, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. The group’s recommendations for safe sleep advise that infants should sleep on their back on a firm, flat surface without any extra padding, pillows, blankets, stuffed toys, bumpers, or other soft items in the sleep space.


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

A new law will ban certain infant sleep products blamed for the deaths of more than 200 babies in the United States.

On May 16, President Joe Biden signed legislation that prohibits the manufacture and sale of crib bumpers or inclined sleepers for infants, due to the risk of suffocation, according to CBS News.

H.R. 3182, or the Safe Sleep for Babies Act of 2021, notes that sleepers and bumpers will be considered “banned hazardous products” under the Consumer Product Safety Act. It gives manufacturers and retailers 180 days to comply with the new rule.

“The dangers posed to babies have been apparent for years,” Teresa Murray, who directs the consumer watchdog office for the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, said in a statement.

“It’s unfortunate that this law could take months to take effect,” she said. “Parents and caregivers need to recognize the dangers of these products and get them out of their homes now.”

H.R. 3182 defines inclined sleepers as products that have a sleep surface slanted greater than 10 degrees and are intended for babies up to 1 year old. Crib bumpers include any material that is designed to cover the sides of a crib, which includes padding or vinyl bumper guards but not non-padded mesh crib liners.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has received reports of more than 113 deaths involving crib bumpers between 1990 and 2019, as well as 113 nonfatal incidents between 2008 and 2019, according to a report from the commission.

More than 100 babies have died from infant-inclined sleep products, according to the commission, which has recalled numerous versions in recent years. But older models are still in circulation, CBS News reported.

Last year, the commission approved a federal safety rule that bans several types of sleep products for babies under 5 months old. Set to take effect next month, the rule requires products marketed for infants to meet the same federal safety standards as required for cribs and similar products.

Parents and advocates have called for a ban on these products for decades, according to CBS, since they can lead to suffocation when an infant’s nose and mouth are covered by a bumper or become stuck between a bumper and crib mattress.

Sudden unexpected infant death, or SUID – which includes sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS – is the leading cause of injury death in infancy, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. The group’s recommendations for safe sleep advise that infants should sleep on their back on a firm, flat surface without any extra padding, pillows, blankets, stuffed toys, bumpers, or other soft items in the sleep space.


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

Black patients and those with public insurance are more likely than their White, wealthier counterparts to be screened for marijuana use during pregnancy, researchers have found.

The data build on a growing body of evidence that disparities in age, insurance type, and race affect which women undergo drug testing during pregnancy and come under scrutiny from state social service agencies.

Many states require health care facilities to notify child protective services or law enforcement of a positive drug screening, but the consequences for women vary greatly from state to state. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia consider prenatal drug use to be child abuse. But recent evidence suggests that urine drug screenings may not be reliable but can lead to separation of parents and babies.

“In many ways, the health system is better equipped to address these concerns than the criminal justice system,” Rebecca Stone, PhD, associate professor of sociology and criminal justice at Suffolk University, Boston, told this news organization. “They shouldn’t be criminal justice problems in many cases,” added Dr. Stone, who was not involved with the study.

The researchers analyzed data from the 2,045 patients who gave birth between January and July 2020. Of those, roughly one-fourth (24%) underwent a urine drug screening. The most common reason for a screen was that clinicians either suspected or patients self-reported use of marijuana during or shortly before pregnancy, according to the researchers, who presented their findings at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2022 Annual Meeting.

Nearly 80% of the 209 patients who underwent drug testing because of suspected marijuana use were Black, and nearly 61% had public insurance. The median age of persons who underwent drug testing was 25 years; the overall median age of pregnant patients was 29 years.

Of the 1,561 patients who didn’t undergo drug screening, 43% were Black, and 37% had public insurance coverage.

Clinicians reported that nearly all patients (117/125; 94%) who tested positive for marijuana were reported to the Missouri child abuse/neglect hotline. Only four women who tested positive for marijuana use also tested positive for at least one other illegal drug.

“Marijuana did not predict other drug exposure; thus, we suggest that a history of marijuana use should not be used as a criteria for sending a urine drug screen on patients [who are admitted to the labor unit],” said Jeannie Kelly, MD, medical director of maternal-fetal transport and labor and delivery at the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who is the senior author of the study. “In our experience, this is a policy that increases inequitable screening without improving our ability to identify families who need extra support or monitoring.”

All patients in the study verbally agreed to a urine drug screening. Hospitals around the country have faced lawsuits for failing to gain consent from women undergoing such tests. A 2001 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court made informed consent mandatory in the absence of a warrant.
 

Legal consequences of a positive test

Children exposed to marijuana in the womb are at heightened risk for impaired cognition and learning disabilities, according to a 2015 report from ACOG’s Committee on Obstetric Practice. However, a lack of care before birth can be harmful to infants and result in low birth weight and severe neurologic and other problems.

In a 2015 study, Dr. Stone found that women were less likely to seek prenatal care if they worried about the legal consequences of a positive test.

Dr. Kelly said the threat of interference from child protective services is often the top worry of pregnant women with substance use disorders. She argued that clinicians should treat marijuana the same way they do tobacco: discourage its use without reporting patients to law enforcement.

“Our suggestion is that this history you elicit of someone using marijuana probably shouldn’t be used [as a trigger for drug screening],” Dr. Kelly said.

She added that doctors can use discretion in choosing to screen for drugs, and she urged clinicians and health care institutions to reevaluate their drug screening practices to reduce harm and increase equitable care.

“We can only work the system in the places that we have control over,” she said. “I can’t control the downward cascade, but I can definitely control who I send a urine drug screen on.”

Dr. Kelly and Dr. Stone reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black patients and those with public insurance are more likely than their White, wealthier counterparts to be screened for marijuana use during pregnancy, researchers have found.

The data build on a growing body of evidence that disparities in age, insurance type, and race affect which women undergo drug testing during pregnancy and come under scrutiny from state social service agencies.

Many states require health care facilities to notify child protective services or law enforcement of a positive drug screening, but the consequences for women vary greatly from state to state. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia consider prenatal drug use to be child abuse. But recent evidence suggests that urine drug screenings may not be reliable but can lead to separation of parents and babies.

“In many ways, the health system is better equipped to address these concerns than the criminal justice system,” Rebecca Stone, PhD, associate professor of sociology and criminal justice at Suffolk University, Boston, told this news organization. “They shouldn’t be criminal justice problems in many cases,” added Dr. Stone, who was not involved with the study.

The researchers analyzed data from the 2,045 patients who gave birth between January and July 2020. Of those, roughly one-fourth (24%) underwent a urine drug screening. The most common reason for a screen was that clinicians either suspected or patients self-reported use of marijuana during or shortly before pregnancy, according to the researchers, who presented their findings at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2022 Annual Meeting.

Nearly 80% of the 209 patients who underwent drug testing because of suspected marijuana use were Black, and nearly 61% had public insurance. The median age of persons who underwent drug testing was 25 years; the overall median age of pregnant patients was 29 years.

Of the 1,561 patients who didn’t undergo drug screening, 43% were Black, and 37% had public insurance coverage.

Clinicians reported that nearly all patients (117/125; 94%) who tested positive for marijuana were reported to the Missouri child abuse/neglect hotline. Only four women who tested positive for marijuana use also tested positive for at least one other illegal drug.

“Marijuana did not predict other drug exposure; thus, we suggest that a history of marijuana use should not be used as a criteria for sending a urine drug screen on patients [who are admitted to the labor unit],” said Jeannie Kelly, MD, medical director of maternal-fetal transport and labor and delivery at the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who is the senior author of the study. “In our experience, this is a policy that increases inequitable screening without improving our ability to identify families who need extra support or monitoring.”

All patients in the study verbally agreed to a urine drug screening. Hospitals around the country have faced lawsuits for failing to gain consent from women undergoing such tests. A 2001 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court made informed consent mandatory in the absence of a warrant.
 

Legal consequences of a positive test

Children exposed to marijuana in the womb are at heightened risk for impaired cognition and learning disabilities, according to a 2015 report from ACOG’s Committee on Obstetric Practice. However, a lack of care before birth can be harmful to infants and result in low birth weight and severe neurologic and other problems.

In a 2015 study, Dr. Stone found that women were less likely to seek prenatal care if they worried about the legal consequences of a positive test.

Dr. Kelly said the threat of interference from child protective services is often the top worry of pregnant women with substance use disorders. She argued that clinicians should treat marijuana the same way they do tobacco: discourage its use without reporting patients to law enforcement.

“Our suggestion is that this history you elicit of someone using marijuana probably shouldn’t be used [as a trigger for drug screening],” Dr. Kelly said.

She added that doctors can use discretion in choosing to screen for drugs, and she urged clinicians and health care institutions to reevaluate their drug screening practices to reduce harm and increase equitable care.

“We can only work the system in the places that we have control over,” she said. “I can’t control the downward cascade, but I can definitely control who I send a urine drug screen on.”

Dr. Kelly and Dr. Stone reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black patients and those with public insurance are more likely than their White, wealthier counterparts to be screened for marijuana use during pregnancy, researchers have found.

The data build on a growing body of evidence that disparities in age, insurance type, and race affect which women undergo drug testing during pregnancy and come under scrutiny from state social service agencies.

Many states require health care facilities to notify child protective services or law enforcement of a positive drug screening, but the consequences for women vary greatly from state to state. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia consider prenatal drug use to be child abuse. But recent evidence suggests that urine drug screenings may not be reliable but can lead to separation of parents and babies.

“In many ways, the health system is better equipped to address these concerns than the criminal justice system,” Rebecca Stone, PhD, associate professor of sociology and criminal justice at Suffolk University, Boston, told this news organization. “They shouldn’t be criminal justice problems in many cases,” added Dr. Stone, who was not involved with the study.

The researchers analyzed data from the 2,045 patients who gave birth between January and July 2020. Of those, roughly one-fourth (24%) underwent a urine drug screening. The most common reason for a screen was that clinicians either suspected or patients self-reported use of marijuana during or shortly before pregnancy, according to the researchers, who presented their findings at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2022 Annual Meeting.

Nearly 80% of the 209 patients who underwent drug testing because of suspected marijuana use were Black, and nearly 61% had public insurance. The median age of persons who underwent drug testing was 25 years; the overall median age of pregnant patients was 29 years.

Of the 1,561 patients who didn’t undergo drug screening, 43% were Black, and 37% had public insurance coverage.

Clinicians reported that nearly all patients (117/125; 94%) who tested positive for marijuana were reported to the Missouri child abuse/neglect hotline. Only four women who tested positive for marijuana use also tested positive for at least one other illegal drug.

“Marijuana did not predict other drug exposure; thus, we suggest that a history of marijuana use should not be used as a criteria for sending a urine drug screen on patients [who are admitted to the labor unit],” said Jeannie Kelly, MD, medical director of maternal-fetal transport and labor and delivery at the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who is the senior author of the study. “In our experience, this is a policy that increases inequitable screening without improving our ability to identify families who need extra support or monitoring.”

All patients in the study verbally agreed to a urine drug screening. Hospitals around the country have faced lawsuits for failing to gain consent from women undergoing such tests. A 2001 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court made informed consent mandatory in the absence of a warrant.
 

Legal consequences of a positive test

Children exposed to marijuana in the womb are at heightened risk for impaired cognition and learning disabilities, according to a 2015 report from ACOG’s Committee on Obstetric Practice. However, a lack of care before birth can be harmful to infants and result in low birth weight and severe neurologic and other problems.

In a 2015 study, Dr. Stone found that women were less likely to seek prenatal care if they worried about the legal consequences of a positive test.

Dr. Kelly said the threat of interference from child protective services is often the top worry of pregnant women with substance use disorders. She argued that clinicians should treat marijuana the same way they do tobacco: discourage its use without reporting patients to law enforcement.

“Our suggestion is that this history you elicit of someone using marijuana probably shouldn’t be used [as a trigger for drug screening],” Dr. Kelly said.

She added that doctors can use discretion in choosing to screen for drugs, and she urged clinicians and health care institutions to reevaluate their drug screening practices to reduce harm and increase equitable care.

“We can only work the system in the places that we have control over,” she said. “I can’t control the downward cascade, but I can definitely control who I send a urine drug screen on.”

Dr. Kelly and Dr. Stone reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of men with prostate cancer who opted for active surveillance (AS) doubled nationally between 2014 and 2021, according to experts who say the dramatic increase reflects a growing understanding among both researchers and patients that low-grade prostate tumors can be safely watched for years without requiring treatment.

Roughly 60% of men eligible for AS chose that approach in 2021, up from 27% in 2014 and less than 10% in 2010, according to panel member Matthew Cooperberg, MD, MPH, of University of California, San Francisco. He presented the data for a panel of the American Urological Association (AUA) at the group’s annual meeting in New Orleans.

Dr. Cooperberg attributed the hike in AS rates in the United States to the growing scientific literature and guidelines supportive of the approach, which calls for periodic assessments of low-risk tumors but no surgery, radiation, or other therapies. In Canada and parts of Europe, approximately 80%-90% of men who are eligible for AS choose that approach, experts said.

Earlier this month, the AUA and the American Society for Radiation Oncology released the strongest guidelines to date supporting AS for low-risk patients, and, for the first time, for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), concluding that the benefits of the test did not outweigh the risks, such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer.

Urologists blamed the USPSTF policy for a decline in PSA screening and an uptick in the diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer.

Dr. Cooperberg said the shift served as “a bit of a wake-up call for at least a segment of the urology community that if we didn’t fix the overtreatment problem, we would never retake the chunks of the conversation about screening and early detection.”

In 2018, following protests by urologists and patient advocates, the USPSTF revised its statements to include shared decisionmaking for PSA testing in men aged 55-69 years, reflecting emerging evidence of longer-term benefits and widespread adoption of active surveillance after detection of low-risk disease.

Laurence Klotz, MD, the University of Toronto researcher who named and helped develop AS 30 years ago, and who was not on the AUA panel, said other factors also help to explain the growing interest in AS. These include an increasing consensus among experts on the value of the strategy, mounting public awareness of its benefits, the efforts of support and advocacy groups, and the arrival of more sophisticated imaging and biomarkers that help further refine risk.

“We’re shrinking the gray zone,” Dr. Klotz said. “Remaining resistance to AS is due to legitimate concerns about missing significant cancer and losing a patient to metastatic disease, and perhaps financial drivers, particularly with less invasive technologies like radiation and focal therapy.”

The national rate for AS increased from 26.5% in 2014, when data were first reported through the AUA’s AQUA data registry. AQUA’s data comes from electronic health records and included 27,289 patients with newly diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer.

In 2014, radical prostatectomy was the leading treatment in the low-risk population, with 29.7% of these patients overall opting for surgery, edging out external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and AS, at 28.2% and 26.5% respectively.

In 2015, AS and EBRT overtook surgery, and by 2021, 59.6% of low-risk patients had chosen AS, followed by 20.9% for EBRT and 15.8% for prostatectomy.
 

Aiming higher

William Catalona, MD, a panel member from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the AUA’s Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Project has set a goal of 80% uptake of AS in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Dr. Catalona, an early critic of AS, called that figure “optimal and realistic,” something that should happen “as soon as possible.”

Dr. Catalona said the 80% benchmark matches acceptance of AS within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals.

However, Dr. Klotz said the American culture of treatment, which is driven at least in part by financial incentives on the part of physicians, may prevent the growth of AS above 80% in this country.

Dr. Cooperberg said financial incentives are real. “I think it’s a small minority of docs that are heavily driven by the financial incentive, but it certainly exists,” he told this news organization. When you look at the extreme variation of active surveillance rates, there is no question that factors like reimbursement are going to play a role.”

Dr. Catalona, who through the first decade of the 2000s regularly debated Dr. Klotz about the concept of AS, said he today recommends AS when appropriate.

“The variability of AS adoption among practices and physicians varies from 0% to 100%. Therefore, some are too ‘tight’ in recommending AS and some are ‘too loose.’ I do not attempt to steer [patients] into treatment unless I believe that would be their best option. Nevertheless, some opt for surveillance when I believe they are making a mistake, and some opt for treatment when I believe surveillance would have been a rational choice.”

Dr. Cooperberg agreed that a personalized approach is important and that both physicians and patients should be flexible in their decisionmaking. “There will always be some men with low-grade disease who should get immediate treatment. For example, a young man with very high-volume disease, even if it’s Gleason 3+3,” he said. “If it is clearly inevitable that he’s going to need treatment, he could reasonably make a decision to get immediate treatment.”

Dr. Cooperberg, Dr. Klotz, and Dr. Catalona have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of men with prostate cancer who opted for active surveillance (AS) doubled nationally between 2014 and 2021, according to experts who say the dramatic increase reflects a growing understanding among both researchers and patients that low-grade prostate tumors can be safely watched for years without requiring treatment.

Roughly 60% of men eligible for AS chose that approach in 2021, up from 27% in 2014 and less than 10% in 2010, according to panel member Matthew Cooperberg, MD, MPH, of University of California, San Francisco. He presented the data for a panel of the American Urological Association (AUA) at the group’s annual meeting in New Orleans.

Dr. Cooperberg attributed the hike in AS rates in the United States to the growing scientific literature and guidelines supportive of the approach, which calls for periodic assessments of low-risk tumors but no surgery, radiation, or other therapies. In Canada and parts of Europe, approximately 80%-90% of men who are eligible for AS choose that approach, experts said.

Earlier this month, the AUA and the American Society for Radiation Oncology released the strongest guidelines to date supporting AS for low-risk patients, and, for the first time, for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), concluding that the benefits of the test did not outweigh the risks, such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer.

Urologists blamed the USPSTF policy for a decline in PSA screening and an uptick in the diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer.

Dr. Cooperberg said the shift served as “a bit of a wake-up call for at least a segment of the urology community that if we didn’t fix the overtreatment problem, we would never retake the chunks of the conversation about screening and early detection.”

In 2018, following protests by urologists and patient advocates, the USPSTF revised its statements to include shared decisionmaking for PSA testing in men aged 55-69 years, reflecting emerging evidence of longer-term benefits and widespread adoption of active surveillance after detection of low-risk disease.

Laurence Klotz, MD, the University of Toronto researcher who named and helped develop AS 30 years ago, and who was not on the AUA panel, said other factors also help to explain the growing interest in AS. These include an increasing consensus among experts on the value of the strategy, mounting public awareness of its benefits, the efforts of support and advocacy groups, and the arrival of more sophisticated imaging and biomarkers that help further refine risk.

“We’re shrinking the gray zone,” Dr. Klotz said. “Remaining resistance to AS is due to legitimate concerns about missing significant cancer and losing a patient to metastatic disease, and perhaps financial drivers, particularly with less invasive technologies like radiation and focal therapy.”

The national rate for AS increased from 26.5% in 2014, when data were first reported through the AUA’s AQUA data registry. AQUA’s data comes from electronic health records and included 27,289 patients with newly diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer.

In 2014, radical prostatectomy was the leading treatment in the low-risk population, with 29.7% of these patients overall opting for surgery, edging out external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and AS, at 28.2% and 26.5% respectively.

In 2015, AS and EBRT overtook surgery, and by 2021, 59.6% of low-risk patients had chosen AS, followed by 20.9% for EBRT and 15.8% for prostatectomy.
 

Aiming higher

William Catalona, MD, a panel member from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the AUA’s Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Project has set a goal of 80% uptake of AS in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Dr. Catalona, an early critic of AS, called that figure “optimal and realistic,” something that should happen “as soon as possible.”

Dr. Catalona said the 80% benchmark matches acceptance of AS within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals.

However, Dr. Klotz said the American culture of treatment, which is driven at least in part by financial incentives on the part of physicians, may prevent the growth of AS above 80% in this country.

Dr. Cooperberg said financial incentives are real. “I think it’s a small minority of docs that are heavily driven by the financial incentive, but it certainly exists,” he told this news organization. When you look at the extreme variation of active surveillance rates, there is no question that factors like reimbursement are going to play a role.”

Dr. Catalona, who through the first decade of the 2000s regularly debated Dr. Klotz about the concept of AS, said he today recommends AS when appropriate.

“The variability of AS adoption among practices and physicians varies from 0% to 100%. Therefore, some are too ‘tight’ in recommending AS and some are ‘too loose.’ I do not attempt to steer [patients] into treatment unless I believe that would be their best option. Nevertheless, some opt for surveillance when I believe they are making a mistake, and some opt for treatment when I believe surveillance would have been a rational choice.”

Dr. Cooperberg agreed that a personalized approach is important and that both physicians and patients should be flexible in their decisionmaking. “There will always be some men with low-grade disease who should get immediate treatment. For example, a young man with very high-volume disease, even if it’s Gleason 3+3,” he said. “If it is clearly inevitable that he’s going to need treatment, he could reasonably make a decision to get immediate treatment.”

Dr. Cooperberg, Dr. Klotz, and Dr. Catalona have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of men with prostate cancer who opted for active surveillance (AS) doubled nationally between 2014 and 2021, according to experts who say the dramatic increase reflects a growing understanding among both researchers and patients that low-grade prostate tumors can be safely watched for years without requiring treatment.

Roughly 60% of men eligible for AS chose that approach in 2021, up from 27% in 2014 and less than 10% in 2010, according to panel member Matthew Cooperberg, MD, MPH, of University of California, San Francisco. He presented the data for a panel of the American Urological Association (AUA) at the group’s annual meeting in New Orleans.

Dr. Cooperberg attributed the hike in AS rates in the United States to the growing scientific literature and guidelines supportive of the approach, which calls for periodic assessments of low-risk tumors but no surgery, radiation, or other therapies. In Canada and parts of Europe, approximately 80%-90% of men who are eligible for AS choose that approach, experts said.

Earlier this month, the AUA and the American Society for Radiation Oncology released the strongest guidelines to date supporting AS for low-risk patients, and, for the first time, for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), concluding that the benefits of the test did not outweigh the risks, such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer.

Urologists blamed the USPSTF policy for a decline in PSA screening and an uptick in the diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer.

Dr. Cooperberg said the shift served as “a bit of a wake-up call for at least a segment of the urology community that if we didn’t fix the overtreatment problem, we would never retake the chunks of the conversation about screening and early detection.”

In 2018, following protests by urologists and patient advocates, the USPSTF revised its statements to include shared decisionmaking for PSA testing in men aged 55-69 years, reflecting emerging evidence of longer-term benefits and widespread adoption of active surveillance after detection of low-risk disease.

Laurence Klotz, MD, the University of Toronto researcher who named and helped develop AS 30 years ago, and who was not on the AUA panel, said other factors also help to explain the growing interest in AS. These include an increasing consensus among experts on the value of the strategy, mounting public awareness of its benefits, the efforts of support and advocacy groups, and the arrival of more sophisticated imaging and biomarkers that help further refine risk.

“We’re shrinking the gray zone,” Dr. Klotz said. “Remaining resistance to AS is due to legitimate concerns about missing significant cancer and losing a patient to metastatic disease, and perhaps financial drivers, particularly with less invasive technologies like radiation and focal therapy.”

The national rate for AS increased from 26.5% in 2014, when data were first reported through the AUA’s AQUA data registry. AQUA’s data comes from electronic health records and included 27,289 patients with newly diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer.

In 2014, radical prostatectomy was the leading treatment in the low-risk population, with 29.7% of these patients overall opting for surgery, edging out external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and AS, at 28.2% and 26.5% respectively.

In 2015, AS and EBRT overtook surgery, and by 2021, 59.6% of low-risk patients had chosen AS, followed by 20.9% for EBRT and 15.8% for prostatectomy.
 

Aiming higher

William Catalona, MD, a panel member from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the AUA’s Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Project has set a goal of 80% uptake of AS in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Dr. Catalona, an early critic of AS, called that figure “optimal and realistic,” something that should happen “as soon as possible.”

Dr. Catalona said the 80% benchmark matches acceptance of AS within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals.

However, Dr. Klotz said the American culture of treatment, which is driven at least in part by financial incentives on the part of physicians, may prevent the growth of AS above 80% in this country.

Dr. Cooperberg said financial incentives are real. “I think it’s a small minority of docs that are heavily driven by the financial incentive, but it certainly exists,” he told this news organization. When you look at the extreme variation of active surveillance rates, there is no question that factors like reimbursement are going to play a role.”

Dr. Catalona, who through the first decade of the 2000s regularly debated Dr. Klotz about the concept of AS, said he today recommends AS when appropriate.

“The variability of AS adoption among practices and physicians varies from 0% to 100%. Therefore, some are too ‘tight’ in recommending AS and some are ‘too loose.’ I do not attempt to steer [patients] into treatment unless I believe that would be their best option. Nevertheless, some opt for surveillance when I believe they are making a mistake, and some opt for treatment when I believe surveillance would have been a rational choice.”

Dr. Cooperberg agreed that a personalized approach is important and that both physicians and patients should be flexible in their decisionmaking. “There will always be some men with low-grade disease who should get immediate treatment. For example, a young man with very high-volume disease, even if it’s Gleason 3+3,” he said. “If it is clearly inevitable that he’s going to need treatment, he could reasonably make a decision to get immediate treatment.”

Dr. Cooperberg, Dr. Klotz, and Dr. Catalona have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (Comirnaty) showed a good safety profile with minimal short-term side effects and no negative impact on disease activity in a cohort of adolescents and young adults with rheumatic diseases, according to research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year.

Only 3% of patients experience a severe transient adverse event, according to Merav Heshin-Bekenstein, MD, of Dana-Dwek Children’s Hospital at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center in Israel. The findings were published in Rheumatology.

Courtesy Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein

“We found that the mRNA Pfizer vaccine was immunogenic and induced an adequate humoral immune response in adolescent patients,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. “It was definitely comparable to healthy controls and practically all patients were seropositive following the second vaccine, except for one patient with long-standing systemic sclerosis.”

The findings were not necessarily surprising but were encouraging to Melissa S. Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Dr. Oliver wasn’t part of the study team.

“We know that the COVID vaccines in healthy adolescents have shown good efficacy with minimal side effects, and it’s good to see that this study showed that in those with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization.

Until now, the data on COVID-19 vaccines in teens with rheumatic illnesses has been limited, she said, so “many pediatric rheumatologists only have the data from adult studies to go on or personal experience with their own cohort of patients.”

But the high immunogenicity seen in the study was a pleasant surprise to Beth H. Rutstein, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

“I was both surprised and thrilled with Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s findings suggesting near-universal seroconversion for patients with rheumatic disease regardless of underlying diagnosis or immunomodulatory therapy regimen, as much of the adult data has suggested a poorer seroconversion rate” and lower antibody titers in adults with similar illnesses, Dr. Rutstein said in an interview.

The study “provides essential reassurance that vaccination against COVID-19 does not increase the risk of disease flare or worsen disease severity scores,” said Dr. Rutstein, who was not associated with the research. “Rather than speaking purely anecdotally with our patients and their families, we can refer to the science – which is always more reassuring for both our patients and ourselves.”
 

Study included diverse conditions and therapies

Risk factors for poor outcomes with COVID-19 in children include obesity, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, and asthma, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and long COVID are also potential complications of COVID-19 with less understood risk factors.

Although COVID-19 is most often mild in children, certain severe, systemic rheumatic diseases increase hospitalization risk, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and vasculitis. Evidence has also shown that COVID-19 infection increases the risk of disease flare in teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases, so it’s “crucial to prevent COVID-19 disease in this population,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein said.

Her study therefore aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine for teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases and those taking immunomodulatory medications. The international prospective multicenter study ran from April to November 2021 at three pediatric rheumatology clinics in Israel and one in Slovenia. Endpoints included short-term side effects, vaccination impact on clinical disease activity, immunogenicity at 2-9 weeks after the second dose, and, secondarily, efficacy against COVID-19 infection.

The 91 participants included adolescents aged 12-18 and young adults aged 18-21. Nearly half of the participants (46%) had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and 14% had SLE. Other participants’ conditions included systemic vasculitis, idiopathic uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease–related arthritis, systemic or localized scleroderma, juvenile dermatomyositis, or an autoinflammatory disease. Participants’ mean disease duration was 4.8 years.  

The researchers compared the patients with a control group of 40 individuals with similar demographics but without rheumatic disease. The researchers used the LIAISON quantitative assay to assess serum IgG antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in both groups.

Eight in 10 participants with rheumatic disease were taking an immunomodulatory medication, including a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) in 40%, a biologic DMARD in 37%, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in 32%, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in 19%, glucocorticoids in 14%, and mycophenolate in 11%. A smaller proportion were on other biologics: JAK inhibitors in 6.6%, anti-CD20 drugs in 4.4%, and an IL-6 inhibitor in 1%.
 

Side effects similar in both groups

None of the side effects reported by participants were statistically different between those with rheumatic disease and the control group. Localized pain was the most common side effect, reported by 73%-79% of participants after each dose. About twice as many participants with rheumatic disease experienced muscle aches and joint pains, compared with the control group, but the differences were not significant. Fever occurred more often in those with rheumatic disease (6%, five cases) than without (3%, one case). One-third of those with rheumatic disease felt tiredness, compared with 20% of the control group.

None of the healthy controls were hospitalized after vaccination, but three rheumatic patients were, including two after the first dose. Both were 17 years old, had systemic vasculitis with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and were taking rituximab (Rituxan). One patient experienced acute onset of chronic renal failure, fever, dehydration, and high C-reactive protein within hours of vaccination. The other experienced new onset of pulmonary hemorrhage a week after vaccination.

In addition, a 14-year-old female with lupus, taking only HCQ, went to the emergency department with fever, headache, vomiting, and joint pain 1 day after the second vaccine dose. She had normal inflammatory markers and no change in disease activity score, and she was discharged with low-dose steroids tapered after 2 weeks.
 

Immune response high in patients with rheumatic disease

Immunogenicity was similar in both groups, with 97% seropositivity in the rheumatic disease group and 100% in the control group. Average IgG titers were 242 in the rheumatic group and 388 in the control group (P < .0001). Seropositivity was 88% in those taking mycophenolate with another drug (100% with mycophenolate monotherapy), 90% with HCQ, 94% with any csDMARDs and another drug (100% with csDMARD monotherapy), and 100% for all other drugs. During 3 months’ follow-up after vaccination, there were no COVID-19 cases among the participants.

Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein noted that their results showed better immunogenicity in teens, compared with adults, for two specific drugs. Seropositivity in teens taking methotrexate (Rheumatrex, Trexall) or rituximab was 100% in this study, compared with 84% in adults taking methotrexate and 39% in adults taking rituximab in a previous study. However, only three patients in this study were taking rituximab, and only seven were taking methotrexate.

The study’s heterogenous population was both a strength and a weakness of the study. “Due to the diversity of rheumatic diseases and medications included in this cohort, it was not possible to draw significant conclusions regarding the impact of the immunomodulatory medications and type of disease” on titers, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told attendees.

Still, “I think as pediatric rheumatologists, we can feel reassured in recommending the COVID-19 vaccine to our patients,” Dr. Oliver said. “I will add that every patient is different, and everyone should have a conversation with their physician about receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.” Dr. Oliver said she discusses vaccination, including COVID vaccination, with every patient, and it’s been challenging to address concerns in the midst of so much misinformation circulating about the vaccine.

These findings do raise questions about whether it’s still necessary to hold immunomodulatory medications to get the vaccine,” Dr. Rutstein said.

“Many families are nervous to pause their medications before and after the vaccine as is currently recommended for many therapies by the American College of Rheumatology, and I do share that concern for some of my patients with more clinically unstable disease, so I try to work with each family to decide on best timing and have delayed or deferred the series until some patients are on a steady dose of a new immunomodulatory medication if it has been recently started,” Dr. Rutstein said. “This is one of the reasons why Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s study is so important – we may be holding medications that can be safely continued and even further decrease the risk of disease flare.”

None of the physicians have disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (Comirnaty) showed a good safety profile with minimal short-term side effects and no negative impact on disease activity in a cohort of adolescents and young adults with rheumatic diseases, according to research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year.

Only 3% of patients experience a severe transient adverse event, according to Merav Heshin-Bekenstein, MD, of Dana-Dwek Children’s Hospital at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center in Israel. The findings were published in Rheumatology.

Courtesy Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein

“We found that the mRNA Pfizer vaccine was immunogenic and induced an adequate humoral immune response in adolescent patients,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. “It was definitely comparable to healthy controls and practically all patients were seropositive following the second vaccine, except for one patient with long-standing systemic sclerosis.”

The findings were not necessarily surprising but were encouraging to Melissa S. Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Dr. Oliver wasn’t part of the study team.

“We know that the COVID vaccines in healthy adolescents have shown good efficacy with minimal side effects, and it’s good to see that this study showed that in those with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization.

Until now, the data on COVID-19 vaccines in teens with rheumatic illnesses has been limited, she said, so “many pediatric rheumatologists only have the data from adult studies to go on or personal experience with their own cohort of patients.”

But the high immunogenicity seen in the study was a pleasant surprise to Beth H. Rutstein, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

“I was both surprised and thrilled with Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s findings suggesting near-universal seroconversion for patients with rheumatic disease regardless of underlying diagnosis or immunomodulatory therapy regimen, as much of the adult data has suggested a poorer seroconversion rate” and lower antibody titers in adults with similar illnesses, Dr. Rutstein said in an interview.

The study “provides essential reassurance that vaccination against COVID-19 does not increase the risk of disease flare or worsen disease severity scores,” said Dr. Rutstein, who was not associated with the research. “Rather than speaking purely anecdotally with our patients and their families, we can refer to the science – which is always more reassuring for both our patients and ourselves.”
 

Study included diverse conditions and therapies

Risk factors for poor outcomes with COVID-19 in children include obesity, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, and asthma, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and long COVID are also potential complications of COVID-19 with less understood risk factors.

Although COVID-19 is most often mild in children, certain severe, systemic rheumatic diseases increase hospitalization risk, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and vasculitis. Evidence has also shown that COVID-19 infection increases the risk of disease flare in teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases, so it’s “crucial to prevent COVID-19 disease in this population,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein said.

Her study therefore aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine for teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases and those taking immunomodulatory medications. The international prospective multicenter study ran from April to November 2021 at three pediatric rheumatology clinics in Israel and one in Slovenia. Endpoints included short-term side effects, vaccination impact on clinical disease activity, immunogenicity at 2-9 weeks after the second dose, and, secondarily, efficacy against COVID-19 infection.

The 91 participants included adolescents aged 12-18 and young adults aged 18-21. Nearly half of the participants (46%) had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and 14% had SLE. Other participants’ conditions included systemic vasculitis, idiopathic uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease–related arthritis, systemic or localized scleroderma, juvenile dermatomyositis, or an autoinflammatory disease. Participants’ mean disease duration was 4.8 years.  

The researchers compared the patients with a control group of 40 individuals with similar demographics but without rheumatic disease. The researchers used the LIAISON quantitative assay to assess serum IgG antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in both groups.

Eight in 10 participants with rheumatic disease were taking an immunomodulatory medication, including a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) in 40%, a biologic DMARD in 37%, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in 32%, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in 19%, glucocorticoids in 14%, and mycophenolate in 11%. A smaller proportion were on other biologics: JAK inhibitors in 6.6%, anti-CD20 drugs in 4.4%, and an IL-6 inhibitor in 1%.
 

Side effects similar in both groups

None of the side effects reported by participants were statistically different between those with rheumatic disease and the control group. Localized pain was the most common side effect, reported by 73%-79% of participants after each dose. About twice as many participants with rheumatic disease experienced muscle aches and joint pains, compared with the control group, but the differences were not significant. Fever occurred more often in those with rheumatic disease (6%, five cases) than without (3%, one case). One-third of those with rheumatic disease felt tiredness, compared with 20% of the control group.

None of the healthy controls were hospitalized after vaccination, but three rheumatic patients were, including two after the first dose. Both were 17 years old, had systemic vasculitis with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and were taking rituximab (Rituxan). One patient experienced acute onset of chronic renal failure, fever, dehydration, and high C-reactive protein within hours of vaccination. The other experienced new onset of pulmonary hemorrhage a week after vaccination.

In addition, a 14-year-old female with lupus, taking only HCQ, went to the emergency department with fever, headache, vomiting, and joint pain 1 day after the second vaccine dose. She had normal inflammatory markers and no change in disease activity score, and she was discharged with low-dose steroids tapered after 2 weeks.
 

Immune response high in patients with rheumatic disease

Immunogenicity was similar in both groups, with 97% seropositivity in the rheumatic disease group and 100% in the control group. Average IgG titers were 242 in the rheumatic group and 388 in the control group (P < .0001). Seropositivity was 88% in those taking mycophenolate with another drug (100% with mycophenolate monotherapy), 90% with HCQ, 94% with any csDMARDs and another drug (100% with csDMARD monotherapy), and 100% for all other drugs. During 3 months’ follow-up after vaccination, there were no COVID-19 cases among the participants.

Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein noted that their results showed better immunogenicity in teens, compared with adults, for two specific drugs. Seropositivity in teens taking methotrexate (Rheumatrex, Trexall) or rituximab was 100% in this study, compared with 84% in adults taking methotrexate and 39% in adults taking rituximab in a previous study. However, only three patients in this study were taking rituximab, and only seven were taking methotrexate.

The study’s heterogenous population was both a strength and a weakness of the study. “Due to the diversity of rheumatic diseases and medications included in this cohort, it was not possible to draw significant conclusions regarding the impact of the immunomodulatory medications and type of disease” on titers, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told attendees.

Still, “I think as pediatric rheumatologists, we can feel reassured in recommending the COVID-19 vaccine to our patients,” Dr. Oliver said. “I will add that every patient is different, and everyone should have a conversation with their physician about receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.” Dr. Oliver said she discusses vaccination, including COVID vaccination, with every patient, and it’s been challenging to address concerns in the midst of so much misinformation circulating about the vaccine.

These findings do raise questions about whether it’s still necessary to hold immunomodulatory medications to get the vaccine,” Dr. Rutstein said.

“Many families are nervous to pause their medications before and after the vaccine as is currently recommended for many therapies by the American College of Rheumatology, and I do share that concern for some of my patients with more clinically unstable disease, so I try to work with each family to decide on best timing and have delayed or deferred the series until some patients are on a steady dose of a new immunomodulatory medication if it has been recently started,” Dr. Rutstein said. “This is one of the reasons why Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s study is so important – we may be holding medications that can be safely continued and even further decrease the risk of disease flare.”

None of the physicians have disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (Comirnaty) showed a good safety profile with minimal short-term side effects and no negative impact on disease activity in a cohort of adolescents and young adults with rheumatic diseases, according to research presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, held virtually this year.

Only 3% of patients experience a severe transient adverse event, according to Merav Heshin-Bekenstein, MD, of Dana-Dwek Children’s Hospital at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center in Israel. The findings were published in Rheumatology.

Courtesy Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein

“We found that the mRNA Pfizer vaccine was immunogenic and induced an adequate humoral immune response in adolescent patients,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. “It was definitely comparable to healthy controls and practically all patients were seropositive following the second vaccine, except for one patient with long-standing systemic sclerosis.”

The findings were not necessarily surprising but were encouraging to Melissa S. Oliver, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis. Dr. Oliver wasn’t part of the study team.

“We know that the COVID vaccines in healthy adolescents have shown good efficacy with minimal side effects, and it’s good to see that this study showed that in those with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppressive therapy,” Dr. Oliver told this news organization.

Until now, the data on COVID-19 vaccines in teens with rheumatic illnesses has been limited, she said, so “many pediatric rheumatologists only have the data from adult studies to go on or personal experience with their own cohort of patients.”

But the high immunogenicity seen in the study was a pleasant surprise to Beth H. Rutstein, MD, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

“I was both surprised and thrilled with Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s findings suggesting near-universal seroconversion for patients with rheumatic disease regardless of underlying diagnosis or immunomodulatory therapy regimen, as much of the adult data has suggested a poorer seroconversion rate” and lower antibody titers in adults with similar illnesses, Dr. Rutstein said in an interview.

The study “provides essential reassurance that vaccination against COVID-19 does not increase the risk of disease flare or worsen disease severity scores,” said Dr. Rutstein, who was not associated with the research. “Rather than speaking purely anecdotally with our patients and their families, we can refer to the science – which is always more reassuring for both our patients and ourselves.”
 

Study included diverse conditions and therapies

Risk factors for poor outcomes with COVID-19 in children include obesity, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, and asthma, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told CARRA attendees. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and long COVID are also potential complications of COVID-19 with less understood risk factors.

Although COVID-19 is most often mild in children, certain severe, systemic rheumatic diseases increase hospitalization risk, including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and vasculitis. Evidence has also shown that COVID-19 infection increases the risk of disease flare in teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases, so it’s “crucial to prevent COVID-19 disease in this population,” Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein said.

Her study therefore aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine for teens with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases and those taking immunomodulatory medications. The international prospective multicenter study ran from April to November 2021 at three pediatric rheumatology clinics in Israel and one in Slovenia. Endpoints included short-term side effects, vaccination impact on clinical disease activity, immunogenicity at 2-9 weeks after the second dose, and, secondarily, efficacy against COVID-19 infection.

The 91 participants included adolescents aged 12-18 and young adults aged 18-21. Nearly half of the participants (46%) had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and 14% had SLE. Other participants’ conditions included systemic vasculitis, idiopathic uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease–related arthritis, systemic or localized scleroderma, juvenile dermatomyositis, or an autoinflammatory disease. Participants’ mean disease duration was 4.8 years.  

The researchers compared the patients with a control group of 40 individuals with similar demographics but without rheumatic disease. The researchers used the LIAISON quantitative assay to assess serum IgG antibody levels against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in both groups.

Eight in 10 participants with rheumatic disease were taking an immunomodulatory medication, including a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) in 40%, a biologic DMARD in 37%, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in 32%, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in 19%, glucocorticoids in 14%, and mycophenolate in 11%. A smaller proportion were on other biologics: JAK inhibitors in 6.6%, anti-CD20 drugs in 4.4%, and an IL-6 inhibitor in 1%.
 

Side effects similar in both groups

None of the side effects reported by participants were statistically different between those with rheumatic disease and the control group. Localized pain was the most common side effect, reported by 73%-79% of participants after each dose. About twice as many participants with rheumatic disease experienced muscle aches and joint pains, compared with the control group, but the differences were not significant. Fever occurred more often in those with rheumatic disease (6%, five cases) than without (3%, one case). One-third of those with rheumatic disease felt tiredness, compared with 20% of the control group.

None of the healthy controls were hospitalized after vaccination, but three rheumatic patients were, including two after the first dose. Both were 17 years old, had systemic vasculitis with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and were taking rituximab (Rituxan). One patient experienced acute onset of chronic renal failure, fever, dehydration, and high C-reactive protein within hours of vaccination. The other experienced new onset of pulmonary hemorrhage a week after vaccination.

In addition, a 14-year-old female with lupus, taking only HCQ, went to the emergency department with fever, headache, vomiting, and joint pain 1 day after the second vaccine dose. She had normal inflammatory markers and no change in disease activity score, and she was discharged with low-dose steroids tapered after 2 weeks.
 

Immune response high in patients with rheumatic disease

Immunogenicity was similar in both groups, with 97% seropositivity in the rheumatic disease group and 100% in the control group. Average IgG titers were 242 in the rheumatic group and 388 in the control group (P < .0001). Seropositivity was 88% in those taking mycophenolate with another drug (100% with mycophenolate monotherapy), 90% with HCQ, 94% with any csDMARDs and another drug (100% with csDMARD monotherapy), and 100% for all other drugs. During 3 months’ follow-up after vaccination, there were no COVID-19 cases among the participants.

Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein noted that their results showed better immunogenicity in teens, compared with adults, for two specific drugs. Seropositivity in teens taking methotrexate (Rheumatrex, Trexall) or rituximab was 100% in this study, compared with 84% in adults taking methotrexate and 39% in adults taking rituximab in a previous study. However, only three patients in this study were taking rituximab, and only seven were taking methotrexate.

The study’s heterogenous population was both a strength and a weakness of the study. “Due to the diversity of rheumatic diseases and medications included in this cohort, it was not possible to draw significant conclusions regarding the impact of the immunomodulatory medications and type of disease” on titers, Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein told attendees.

Still, “I think as pediatric rheumatologists, we can feel reassured in recommending the COVID-19 vaccine to our patients,” Dr. Oliver said. “I will add that every patient is different, and everyone should have a conversation with their physician about receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.” Dr. Oliver said she discusses vaccination, including COVID vaccination, with every patient, and it’s been challenging to address concerns in the midst of so much misinformation circulating about the vaccine.

These findings do raise questions about whether it’s still necessary to hold immunomodulatory medications to get the vaccine,” Dr. Rutstein said.

“Many families are nervous to pause their medications before and after the vaccine as is currently recommended for many therapies by the American College of Rheumatology, and I do share that concern for some of my patients with more clinically unstable disease, so I try to work with each family to decide on best timing and have delayed or deferred the series until some patients are on a steady dose of a new immunomodulatory medication if it has been recently started,” Dr. Rutstein said. “This is one of the reasons why Dr. Heshin-Bekenstein’s study is so important – we may be holding medications that can be safely continued and even further decrease the risk of disease flare.”

None of the physicians have disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

An investigative synthetic cannabinoid receptor type 2 (CB2) agonist, lenabasum, was associated with greater improvements than placebo in patients with skin-predominant dermatomyositis – some of it statistically significant – in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, controlled study.

Patients taking lenabasum experienced greater reductions in the Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index (CDASI) – a validated outcome designed to assess inflammatory skin involvement in the rare autoimmune disease – and improvements in patient-reported and biomarker outcomes, compared with those on placebo, dermatologist Victoria P. Werth, MD, and coinvestigators reported.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

And in a recently completed phase 3 trial, reported by the manufacturer, a subpopulation of patients with active skin disease and no active muscle disease again showed greater reductions in CDASI activity scores – a secondary outcome in the trial.

However, the phase 3 DETERMINE trial produced negative findings overall. It enrolled a more heterogeneous group of patients – including those with both muscle weakness and skin involvement – and its primary outcome measure was a broader composite measure, the Total Improvement Score. The trial failed to meet this primary endpoint, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, the developer of lenabasum, announced in a press release in June 2021.

The phase 3 results are “frustrating” for patients with symptomatic and refractory skin manifestations of dermatomyositis (DM), given the promising findings from the phase 2 trial and from an open-label extension study, said Dr. Werth, professor of dermatology and medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and principal investigator and coprincipal investigator of the phase 2 and phase 3 studies, respectively.

Dr. Werth is scheduled to present the results from the phase 3 trial at the annual European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology meeting in June.

“With lenabasum, we have a therapy that doesn’t work for every patient, but does work for quite a number of them,” Dr. Werth said in an interview. “It’s oral, it’s not really that immunosuppressing, and there aren’t many side effects. Right now, patients are often being managed with steroids ... we really need treatments that are not as toxic.”

Robert Spiera, MD, a rheumatologist who led trials of lenabasum for treatment of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc), agreed. “The CB2 agonist strategy is appealing because it’s nonimmunosuppressing and has both anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties,” he said in an interview. “I wouldn’t want to give up on it ... especially [for patients] with scleroderma and dermatomyositis who are treated with substantial drugs that are associated with morbidity.”

Lenabasum, he said, has proven to be “incredibly safe, and incredibly safe in the long term.”

While the phase 2 trial of the drug for dcSSc showed clear benefit over placebo, the phase 3 trial did not meet its primary endpoint using the American College of Rheumatology Combined Response Index in Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis.

It allowed background immunosuppressant therapy to reflect real-world clinical practice, and “there was such a high response rate to [that therapy, largely mycophenolate] that there was little room to show benefit beyond that,” said Dr. Spiera, director of the vasculitis and scleroderma program, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York.

The drug led to more improvement in the small subset of participants who were not receiving background immunotherapy during the trial, he noted.

Corbus is currently “seeking a partnership to further explore the drug” for treatment in different subpopulations, according to a company spokesperson. Results of a phase 2 trial of lenabasum for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus – with a pain rating as the primary outcome measure – are expected soon.
 

Phase 2 findings

The single-center phase 2 trial of lenabasum for DM enrolled 22 adults with minimal muscle involvement as evidenced by normal maximal resistance on muscle testing at entry and throughout the study. Most were taking immunosuppressant medication, and all had CDASI scores of at least 20, with mean scores in the severe range (> 26). Symptoms registered on patient-reported outcome measures were moderate to severe.

Patients received a half-dose of lenabasum (20 mg daily) for 1 month and a full dose (20 mg twice daily) for 2 months, or placebo, and were followed for an additional month without dosing.

Starting at day 43 – approximately 2 weeks after the dose was increased – there was “a trend for the change from baseline CDASI to be greater” in the lenabasum group, compared with those on placebo, Dr. Werth and colleagues reported. The differences reached statistical significance on day 113 (P = .038), a month after patients discontinued lenabasum, “suggesting that the modulation of the inflammatory response by lenabasum continued beyond its last dose.”

Five of the 11 patients treated with lenabasum (45%), and none of those on placebo, achieved at least a 40% reduction in the CDASI activity score by the end of the study.

Patients in the lenabasum group also had greater improvement in the Skindex-29 Symptoms scores – an objective measure of itch – and improvements in other secondary efficacy outcomes, including pain, though these did not reach statistical significance.

Skin biopsies before and after treatment showed significant reductions in inflammatory cytokines relevant to DM pathogenesis. Patients treated with the CB2 agonist had a downward trend in the CD4+ T cell population, which correlated with decreased CDASI activity scores, for instance, and a decrease in IL-31 protein expression, which correlated with decreased Skindex-29 Symptoms scores, the investigators reported.

There were no serious adverse events related to the CB2 agonist, and no treatment discontinuations.

The main part of the phase 2 trial, conducted from 2015 to 2017, was followed by a 3-year, open-label extension, in which 20 of the 22 patients took lenabasum 20 mg twice a day. The drug continued to be safe and well tolerated, and the CDASI activity score and other outcomes improved through year 1 and remained stable thereafter, according to a poster presented by Dr. Werth at the 2021 EULAR meeting.

After 1 year in the open-label extension, 60%-70% of patients had achieved mild skin disease, and 75% had achieved at least a 40% reduction in CDASI activity.

“A lot of patients, even if they weren’t completely cleared, were much happier in terms of their itch,” said Dr. Werth, also chief of dermatology, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia. “It’s been difficult for a lot of them now that they’re off the long-term extension ... a lot of them are flaring.”

The future

In the lab, with funding from the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Werth is continuing to investigate how lenabasum may be working in DM. A paper just published in the open access journal Arthritis Research & Therapy describes CB2 receptor distribution and up-regulation on key immune cells in the skin and blood, and how, in DM skin, its highest expression is on dendritic cells.

Through both mechanistic and more clinical research, “it’s important to understand the characteristics of the people [lenabasum] worked in or didn’t work in,” she said. 

And in clinical trials, it’s important to capture meaningful improvement from the patient perspective. “It may be,” she noted, “that more global, systemic assessments are not the way to go for autoimmune skin disease.”

For dcSSc, Dr. Spiera said, it’s possible that a CB2 agonist may be helpful for patients who have been on immunosuppressants, particularly mycophenolate, for more than 6 months “and are still struggling.”

The phase 2 trial in DM was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Corbus Pharmaceuticals. The phase 3 trials in DM and in dcSSc were funded by Corbus. Dr. Werth disclosed grant support from Corbus and several other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Spiera disclosed that he has received grant support or consulting fees from Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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

An investigative synthetic cannabinoid receptor type 2 (CB2) agonist, lenabasum, was associated with greater improvements than placebo in patients with skin-predominant dermatomyositis – some of it statistically significant – in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, controlled study.

Patients taking lenabasum experienced greater reductions in the Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index (CDASI) – a validated outcome designed to assess inflammatory skin involvement in the rare autoimmune disease – and improvements in patient-reported and biomarker outcomes, compared with those on placebo, dermatologist Victoria P. Werth, MD, and coinvestigators reported.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

And in a recently completed phase 3 trial, reported by the manufacturer, a subpopulation of patients with active skin disease and no active muscle disease again showed greater reductions in CDASI activity scores – a secondary outcome in the trial.

However, the phase 3 DETERMINE trial produced negative findings overall. It enrolled a more heterogeneous group of patients – including those with both muscle weakness and skin involvement – and its primary outcome measure was a broader composite measure, the Total Improvement Score. The trial failed to meet this primary endpoint, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, the developer of lenabasum, announced in a press release in June 2021.

The phase 3 results are “frustrating” for patients with symptomatic and refractory skin manifestations of dermatomyositis (DM), given the promising findings from the phase 2 trial and from an open-label extension study, said Dr. Werth, professor of dermatology and medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and principal investigator and coprincipal investigator of the phase 2 and phase 3 studies, respectively.

Dr. Werth is scheduled to present the results from the phase 3 trial at the annual European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology meeting in June.

“With lenabasum, we have a therapy that doesn’t work for every patient, but does work for quite a number of them,” Dr. Werth said in an interview. “It’s oral, it’s not really that immunosuppressing, and there aren’t many side effects. Right now, patients are often being managed with steroids ... we really need treatments that are not as toxic.”

Robert Spiera, MD, a rheumatologist who led trials of lenabasum for treatment of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc), agreed. “The CB2 agonist strategy is appealing because it’s nonimmunosuppressing and has both anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties,” he said in an interview. “I wouldn’t want to give up on it ... especially [for patients] with scleroderma and dermatomyositis who are treated with substantial drugs that are associated with morbidity.”

Lenabasum, he said, has proven to be “incredibly safe, and incredibly safe in the long term.”

While the phase 2 trial of the drug for dcSSc showed clear benefit over placebo, the phase 3 trial did not meet its primary endpoint using the American College of Rheumatology Combined Response Index in Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis.

It allowed background immunosuppressant therapy to reflect real-world clinical practice, and “there was such a high response rate to [that therapy, largely mycophenolate] that there was little room to show benefit beyond that,” said Dr. Spiera, director of the vasculitis and scleroderma program, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York.

The drug led to more improvement in the small subset of participants who were not receiving background immunotherapy during the trial, he noted.

Corbus is currently “seeking a partnership to further explore the drug” for treatment in different subpopulations, according to a company spokesperson. Results of a phase 2 trial of lenabasum for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus – with a pain rating as the primary outcome measure – are expected soon.
 

Phase 2 findings

The single-center phase 2 trial of lenabasum for DM enrolled 22 adults with minimal muscle involvement as evidenced by normal maximal resistance on muscle testing at entry and throughout the study. Most were taking immunosuppressant medication, and all had CDASI scores of at least 20, with mean scores in the severe range (> 26). Symptoms registered on patient-reported outcome measures were moderate to severe.

Patients received a half-dose of lenabasum (20 mg daily) for 1 month and a full dose (20 mg twice daily) for 2 months, or placebo, and were followed for an additional month without dosing.

Starting at day 43 – approximately 2 weeks after the dose was increased – there was “a trend for the change from baseline CDASI to be greater” in the lenabasum group, compared with those on placebo, Dr. Werth and colleagues reported. The differences reached statistical significance on day 113 (P = .038), a month after patients discontinued lenabasum, “suggesting that the modulation of the inflammatory response by lenabasum continued beyond its last dose.”

Five of the 11 patients treated with lenabasum (45%), and none of those on placebo, achieved at least a 40% reduction in the CDASI activity score by the end of the study.

Patients in the lenabasum group also had greater improvement in the Skindex-29 Symptoms scores – an objective measure of itch – and improvements in other secondary efficacy outcomes, including pain, though these did not reach statistical significance.

Skin biopsies before and after treatment showed significant reductions in inflammatory cytokines relevant to DM pathogenesis. Patients treated with the CB2 agonist had a downward trend in the CD4+ T cell population, which correlated with decreased CDASI activity scores, for instance, and a decrease in IL-31 protein expression, which correlated with decreased Skindex-29 Symptoms scores, the investigators reported.

There were no serious adverse events related to the CB2 agonist, and no treatment discontinuations.

The main part of the phase 2 trial, conducted from 2015 to 2017, was followed by a 3-year, open-label extension, in which 20 of the 22 patients took lenabasum 20 mg twice a day. The drug continued to be safe and well tolerated, and the CDASI activity score and other outcomes improved through year 1 and remained stable thereafter, according to a poster presented by Dr. Werth at the 2021 EULAR meeting.

After 1 year in the open-label extension, 60%-70% of patients had achieved mild skin disease, and 75% had achieved at least a 40% reduction in CDASI activity.

“A lot of patients, even if they weren’t completely cleared, were much happier in terms of their itch,” said Dr. Werth, also chief of dermatology, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia. “It’s been difficult for a lot of them now that they’re off the long-term extension ... a lot of them are flaring.”

The future

In the lab, with funding from the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Werth is continuing to investigate how lenabasum may be working in DM. A paper just published in the open access journal Arthritis Research & Therapy describes CB2 receptor distribution and up-regulation on key immune cells in the skin and blood, and how, in DM skin, its highest expression is on dendritic cells.

Through both mechanistic and more clinical research, “it’s important to understand the characteristics of the people [lenabasum] worked in or didn’t work in,” she said. 

And in clinical trials, it’s important to capture meaningful improvement from the patient perspective. “It may be,” she noted, “that more global, systemic assessments are not the way to go for autoimmune skin disease.”

For dcSSc, Dr. Spiera said, it’s possible that a CB2 agonist may be helpful for patients who have been on immunosuppressants, particularly mycophenolate, for more than 6 months “and are still struggling.”

The phase 2 trial in DM was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Corbus Pharmaceuticals. The phase 3 trials in DM and in dcSSc were funded by Corbus. Dr. Werth disclosed grant support from Corbus and several other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Spiera disclosed that he has received grant support or consulting fees from Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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

An investigative synthetic cannabinoid receptor type 2 (CB2) agonist, lenabasum, was associated with greater improvements than placebo in patients with skin-predominant dermatomyositis – some of it statistically significant – in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, controlled study.

Patients taking lenabasum experienced greater reductions in the Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index (CDASI) – a validated outcome designed to assess inflammatory skin involvement in the rare autoimmune disease – and improvements in patient-reported and biomarker outcomes, compared with those on placebo, dermatologist Victoria P. Werth, MD, and coinvestigators reported.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

And in a recently completed phase 3 trial, reported by the manufacturer, a subpopulation of patients with active skin disease and no active muscle disease again showed greater reductions in CDASI activity scores – a secondary outcome in the trial.

However, the phase 3 DETERMINE trial produced negative findings overall. It enrolled a more heterogeneous group of patients – including those with both muscle weakness and skin involvement – and its primary outcome measure was a broader composite measure, the Total Improvement Score. The trial failed to meet this primary endpoint, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, the developer of lenabasum, announced in a press release in June 2021.

The phase 3 results are “frustrating” for patients with symptomatic and refractory skin manifestations of dermatomyositis (DM), given the promising findings from the phase 2 trial and from an open-label extension study, said Dr. Werth, professor of dermatology and medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and principal investigator and coprincipal investigator of the phase 2 and phase 3 studies, respectively.

Dr. Werth is scheduled to present the results from the phase 3 trial at the annual European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology meeting in June.

“With lenabasum, we have a therapy that doesn’t work for every patient, but does work for quite a number of them,” Dr. Werth said in an interview. “It’s oral, it’s not really that immunosuppressing, and there aren’t many side effects. Right now, patients are often being managed with steroids ... we really need treatments that are not as toxic.”

Robert Spiera, MD, a rheumatologist who led trials of lenabasum for treatment of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc), agreed. “The CB2 agonist strategy is appealing because it’s nonimmunosuppressing and has both anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties,” he said in an interview. “I wouldn’t want to give up on it ... especially [for patients] with scleroderma and dermatomyositis who are treated with substantial drugs that are associated with morbidity.”

Lenabasum, he said, has proven to be “incredibly safe, and incredibly safe in the long term.”

While the phase 2 trial of the drug for dcSSc showed clear benefit over placebo, the phase 3 trial did not meet its primary endpoint using the American College of Rheumatology Combined Response Index in Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis.

It allowed background immunosuppressant therapy to reflect real-world clinical practice, and “there was such a high response rate to [that therapy, largely mycophenolate] that there was little room to show benefit beyond that,” said Dr. Spiera, director of the vasculitis and scleroderma program, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York.

The drug led to more improvement in the small subset of participants who were not receiving background immunotherapy during the trial, he noted.

Corbus is currently “seeking a partnership to further explore the drug” for treatment in different subpopulations, according to a company spokesperson. Results of a phase 2 trial of lenabasum for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus – with a pain rating as the primary outcome measure – are expected soon.
 

Phase 2 findings

The single-center phase 2 trial of lenabasum for DM enrolled 22 adults with minimal muscle involvement as evidenced by normal maximal resistance on muscle testing at entry and throughout the study. Most were taking immunosuppressant medication, and all had CDASI scores of at least 20, with mean scores in the severe range (> 26). Symptoms registered on patient-reported outcome measures were moderate to severe.

Patients received a half-dose of lenabasum (20 mg daily) for 1 month and a full dose (20 mg twice daily) for 2 months, or placebo, and were followed for an additional month without dosing.

Starting at day 43 – approximately 2 weeks after the dose was increased – there was “a trend for the change from baseline CDASI to be greater” in the lenabasum group, compared with those on placebo, Dr. Werth and colleagues reported. The differences reached statistical significance on day 113 (P = .038), a month after patients discontinued lenabasum, “suggesting that the modulation of the inflammatory response by lenabasum continued beyond its last dose.”

Five of the 11 patients treated with lenabasum (45%), and none of those on placebo, achieved at least a 40% reduction in the CDASI activity score by the end of the study.

Patients in the lenabasum group also had greater improvement in the Skindex-29 Symptoms scores – an objective measure of itch – and improvements in other secondary efficacy outcomes, including pain, though these did not reach statistical significance.

Skin biopsies before and after treatment showed significant reductions in inflammatory cytokines relevant to DM pathogenesis. Patients treated with the CB2 agonist had a downward trend in the CD4+ T cell population, which correlated with decreased CDASI activity scores, for instance, and a decrease in IL-31 protein expression, which correlated with decreased Skindex-29 Symptoms scores, the investigators reported.

There were no serious adverse events related to the CB2 agonist, and no treatment discontinuations.

The main part of the phase 2 trial, conducted from 2015 to 2017, was followed by a 3-year, open-label extension, in which 20 of the 22 patients took lenabasum 20 mg twice a day. The drug continued to be safe and well tolerated, and the CDASI activity score and other outcomes improved through year 1 and remained stable thereafter, according to a poster presented by Dr. Werth at the 2021 EULAR meeting.

After 1 year in the open-label extension, 60%-70% of patients had achieved mild skin disease, and 75% had achieved at least a 40% reduction in CDASI activity.

“A lot of patients, even if they weren’t completely cleared, were much happier in terms of their itch,” said Dr. Werth, also chief of dermatology, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia. “It’s been difficult for a lot of them now that they’re off the long-term extension ... a lot of them are flaring.”

The future

In the lab, with funding from the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Werth is continuing to investigate how lenabasum may be working in DM. A paper just published in the open access journal Arthritis Research & Therapy describes CB2 receptor distribution and up-regulation on key immune cells in the skin and blood, and how, in DM skin, its highest expression is on dendritic cells.

Through both mechanistic and more clinical research, “it’s important to understand the characteristics of the people [lenabasum] worked in or didn’t work in,” she said. 

And in clinical trials, it’s important to capture meaningful improvement from the patient perspective. “It may be,” she noted, “that more global, systemic assessments are not the way to go for autoimmune skin disease.”

For dcSSc, Dr. Spiera said, it’s possible that a CB2 agonist may be helpful for patients who have been on immunosuppressants, particularly mycophenolate, for more than 6 months “and are still struggling.”

The phase 2 trial in DM was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Corbus Pharmaceuticals. The phase 3 trials in DM and in dcSSc were funded by Corbus. Dr. Werth disclosed grant support from Corbus and several other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Spiera disclosed that he has received grant support or consulting fees from Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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

Young stroke patients have an increased risk of being diagnosed with a new cancer in the years following their stroke, a new study shows, raising the possibility that the stroke might be the first manifestation of an underlying cancer.

The data were presented by Jamie Verhoeven, MD, Radboud University Medical Centre, the Netherlands, at the recent European Stroke Organisation Conference 2022.

Dr. Verhoeven noted that 10% of all stroke cases occur in individuals younger than 50 years. During the past few decades, the incidence of stroke in the young has steadily increased, whereas the incidence of stroke in older adults has stabilized or decreased.

“Stroke in the young differs from stroke in older patients, and one of the major differences is that stroke in the young has a higher proportion of cryptogenic stroke, with no clear cause found in over one-third of patients,” she said.

Also, having an active cancer is known to be a risk factor for thrombosis. This association is strongest in venous thrombosis and has been less well investigated in arterial thrombosis, Dr. Verhoeven reported.

Her group aimed to investigate whether in some patients with cryptogenic stroke, this may be the first manifestation of an underlying cancer. “If this hypothesis is true, then it would be more obvious in young patients who have a higher incidence of cryptogenic stroke,” she said.

They performed a population-based observational cohort study using diagnostic ICD codes from the national Hospital Discharge Registry in the Netherlands and the Dutch Population Registry from 1998 to 2019.

Patients with a history of cancer before their first stroke and those with central nervous system cancers at the time of stroke or nonmelanoma skin cancers (which have been shown to have no systemic effects) were excluded.

Reference data came from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, which collects data on all cancer diagnoses in the country.

The researchers identified 27,616 young stroke patients (age range, 15-49 years; median age, 45 years) and 362,782 older stroke patients (age range, 50 years and older; median age, 76 years).

The cumulative incidence of any cancer at 10 years was 3.7% in the younger group and 8.5% in the older group.

The data were compared with matched peers from the general population. The main outcome measures were cumulative incidence of first-ever cancer after stroke (stratified by stroke subtype, age and sex) and standardized incidence rates.

Results showed that the risk for cancer was higher in the younger age group than in the matched general population.

In this age group, the 1-year risk of any new cancer was 2.6 times higher (95% confidence interval, 2.2-3.1) after ischemic stroke and 5.4 times (95% CI, 3.8-7.3) after intracerebral hemorrhage than in matched peers from the general population.

In contrast, in stroke patients older than 50 years, the 1-year risk for any new cancer was 1.2 times higher than the general population after either ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke.

“The younger patients have a higher risk increase of cancer than older patients, and this risk increase is most evident in the first 1 to 2 years after stroke but remains statistically significant for up to 5 to 8 years later,” Dr. Verhoeven said.

The cancers that were most involved in this risk increase were those of the lower respiratory tract, hematologic cancers, and gastrointestinal cancers.

The main strength of this study was the use of national databases that allowed for a very large sample size, but this brings with it the danger of misclassification of events and the lack of clinical data, Dr. Verhoeven noted.

“Young stroke patients are at increased risk of developing a new cancer in the years following their stroke compared to peers from the general population, but this risk is only marginally increased in the older stroke population,” she concluded.

She pointed out that it is not possible to confirm any causal relation from this study design, but a clear association has been shown.

“We need more studies into this field. We need a large clinical dataset to examine which clinical phenotypes are associated with possible underlying cancers to identify which patients are most at risk. We are already working on this,” she said. “Then it remains to be investigated whether screening for an underlying cancer should be added to the diagnostic workup in young stroke patients.”

Commenting on the study after the presentation, William Whiteley, BM, PhD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and a consultant neurologist in NHS Lothian, said it was difficult to know whether the link shown between stroke and cancer was causal, but the effect size in this study was “quite large.”

He pointed out that the associations with bowel and lung cancer could be due to shared risk factors, such as smoking, but he said the finding on a link with hematologic cancers is “interesting.”

Noting that there are links between hematologic cancers and thrombotic events, he said: “People have wondered if that is because of clonal expansion, which has been shown to increase the risk of atherosclerosis, so the question is whether this is some kind of common risk factor here.”

Dr. Verhoeven said she did not believe that shared risk factors fully explained the difference in increased risks between young and older patients.

“It does not fully explain why the risk of cancer is specifically higher in the first 1 to 2 years after the stroke diagnosis. I would think if it was just shared risk factors, the risk increase should remain relatively stable, or even increase due to the build-up of exposure to risk factors over the years,” she said.

Dr. Whiteley said that data like these are “really useful in trying to estimate these associations and it gives us some hypotheses to investigate in smaller mechanistic studies.”

Asked whether these data justify screening younger cryptogenic stroke patients more systematically for cancer, Dr. Whiteley replied: “I think we need some absolute risk estimates for that; for example, what proportion of younger patients would be at risk over the next few years when that screening would make a difference.”

Dr. Verhoeven reports no disclosures.

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

Young stroke patients have an increased risk of being diagnosed with a new cancer in the years following their stroke, a new study shows, raising the possibility that the stroke might be the first manifestation of an underlying cancer.

The data were presented by Jamie Verhoeven, MD, Radboud University Medical Centre, the Netherlands, at the recent European Stroke Organisation Conference 2022.

Dr. Verhoeven noted that 10% of all stroke cases occur in individuals younger than 50 years. During the past few decades, the incidence of stroke in the young has steadily increased, whereas the incidence of stroke in older adults has stabilized or decreased.

“Stroke in the young differs from stroke in older patients, and one of the major differences is that stroke in the young has a higher proportion of cryptogenic stroke, with no clear cause found in over one-third of patients,” she said.

Also, having an active cancer is known to be a risk factor for thrombosis. This association is strongest in venous thrombosis and has been less well investigated in arterial thrombosis, Dr. Verhoeven reported.

Her group aimed to investigate whether in some patients with cryptogenic stroke, this may be the first manifestation of an underlying cancer. “If this hypothesis is true, then it would be more obvious in young patients who have a higher incidence of cryptogenic stroke,” she said.

They performed a population-based observational cohort study using diagnostic ICD codes from the national Hospital Discharge Registry in the Netherlands and the Dutch Population Registry from 1998 to 2019.

Patients with a history of cancer before their first stroke and those with central nervous system cancers at the time of stroke or nonmelanoma skin cancers (which have been shown to have no systemic effects) were excluded.

Reference data came from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, which collects data on all cancer diagnoses in the country.

The researchers identified 27,616 young stroke patients (age range, 15-49 years; median age, 45 years) and 362,782 older stroke patients (age range, 50 years and older; median age, 76 years).

The cumulative incidence of any cancer at 10 years was 3.7% in the younger group and 8.5% in the older group.

The data were compared with matched peers from the general population. The main outcome measures were cumulative incidence of first-ever cancer after stroke (stratified by stroke subtype, age and sex) and standardized incidence rates.

Results showed that the risk for cancer was higher in the younger age group than in the matched general population.

In this age group, the 1-year risk of any new cancer was 2.6 times higher (95% confidence interval, 2.2-3.1) after ischemic stroke and 5.4 times (95% CI, 3.8-7.3) after intracerebral hemorrhage than in matched peers from the general population.

In contrast, in stroke patients older than 50 years, the 1-year risk for any new cancer was 1.2 times higher than the general population after either ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke.

“The younger patients have a higher risk increase of cancer than older patients, and this risk increase is most evident in the first 1 to 2 years after stroke but remains statistically significant for up to 5 to 8 years later,” Dr. Verhoeven said.

The cancers that were most involved in this risk increase were those of the lower respiratory tract, hematologic cancers, and gastrointestinal cancers.

The main strength of this study was the use of national databases that allowed for a very large sample size, but this brings with it the danger of misclassification of events and the lack of clinical data, Dr. Verhoeven noted.

“Young stroke patients are at increased risk of developing a new cancer in the years following their stroke compared to peers from the general population, but this risk is only marginally increased in the older stroke population,” she concluded.

She pointed out that it is not possible to confirm any causal relation from this study design, but a clear association has been shown.

“We need more studies into this field. We need a large clinical dataset to examine which clinical phenotypes are associated with possible underlying cancers to identify which patients are most at risk. We are already working on this,” she said. “Then it remains to be investigated whether screening for an underlying cancer should be added to the diagnostic workup in young stroke patients.”

Commenting on the study after the presentation, William Whiteley, BM, PhD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and a consultant neurologist in NHS Lothian, said it was difficult to know whether the link shown between stroke and cancer was causal, but the effect size in this study was “quite large.”

He pointed out that the associations with bowel and lung cancer could be due to shared risk factors, such as smoking, but he said the finding on a link with hematologic cancers is “interesting.”

Noting that there are links between hematologic cancers and thrombotic events, he said: “People have wondered if that is because of clonal expansion, which has been shown to increase the risk of atherosclerosis, so the question is whether this is some kind of common risk factor here.”

Dr. Verhoeven said she did not believe that shared risk factors fully explained the difference in increased risks between young and older patients.

“It does not fully explain why the risk of cancer is specifically higher in the first 1 to 2 years after the stroke diagnosis. I would think if it was just shared risk factors, the risk increase should remain relatively stable, or even increase due to the build-up of exposure to risk factors over the years,” she said.

Dr. Whiteley said that data like these are “really useful in trying to estimate these associations and it gives us some hypotheses to investigate in smaller mechanistic studies.”

Asked whether these data justify screening younger cryptogenic stroke patients more systematically for cancer, Dr. Whiteley replied: “I think we need some absolute risk estimates for that; for example, what proportion of younger patients would be at risk over the next few years when that screening would make a difference.”

Dr. Verhoeven reports no disclosures.

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

Young stroke patients have an increased risk of being diagnosed with a new cancer in the years following their stroke, a new study shows, raising the possibility that the stroke might be the first manifestation of an underlying cancer.

The data were presented by Jamie Verhoeven, MD, Radboud University Medical Centre, the Netherlands, at the recent European Stroke Organisation Conference 2022.

Dr. Verhoeven noted that 10% of all stroke cases occur in individuals younger than 50 years. During the past few decades, the incidence of stroke in the young has steadily increased, whereas the incidence of stroke in older adults has stabilized or decreased.

“Stroke in the young differs from stroke in older patients, and one of the major differences is that stroke in the young has a higher proportion of cryptogenic stroke, with no clear cause found in over one-third of patients,” she said.

Also, having an active cancer is known to be a risk factor for thrombosis. This association is strongest in venous thrombosis and has been less well investigated in arterial thrombosis, Dr. Verhoeven reported.

Her group aimed to investigate whether in some patients with cryptogenic stroke, this may be the first manifestation of an underlying cancer. “If this hypothesis is true, then it would be more obvious in young patients who have a higher incidence of cryptogenic stroke,” she said.

They performed a population-based observational cohort study using diagnostic ICD codes from the national Hospital Discharge Registry in the Netherlands and the Dutch Population Registry from 1998 to 2019.

Patients with a history of cancer before their first stroke and those with central nervous system cancers at the time of stroke or nonmelanoma skin cancers (which have been shown to have no systemic effects) were excluded.

Reference data came from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, which collects data on all cancer diagnoses in the country.

The researchers identified 27,616 young stroke patients (age range, 15-49 years; median age, 45 years) and 362,782 older stroke patients (age range, 50 years and older; median age, 76 years).

The cumulative incidence of any cancer at 10 years was 3.7% in the younger group and 8.5% in the older group.

The data were compared with matched peers from the general population. The main outcome measures were cumulative incidence of first-ever cancer after stroke (stratified by stroke subtype, age and sex) and standardized incidence rates.

Results showed that the risk for cancer was higher in the younger age group than in the matched general population.

In this age group, the 1-year risk of any new cancer was 2.6 times higher (95% confidence interval, 2.2-3.1) after ischemic stroke and 5.4 times (95% CI, 3.8-7.3) after intracerebral hemorrhage than in matched peers from the general population.

In contrast, in stroke patients older than 50 years, the 1-year risk for any new cancer was 1.2 times higher than the general population after either ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke.

“The younger patients have a higher risk increase of cancer than older patients, and this risk increase is most evident in the first 1 to 2 years after stroke but remains statistically significant for up to 5 to 8 years later,” Dr. Verhoeven said.

The cancers that were most involved in this risk increase were those of the lower respiratory tract, hematologic cancers, and gastrointestinal cancers.

The main strength of this study was the use of national databases that allowed for a very large sample size, but this brings with it the danger of misclassification of events and the lack of clinical data, Dr. Verhoeven noted.

“Young stroke patients are at increased risk of developing a new cancer in the years following their stroke compared to peers from the general population, but this risk is only marginally increased in the older stroke population,” she concluded.

She pointed out that it is not possible to confirm any causal relation from this study design, but a clear association has been shown.

“We need more studies into this field. We need a large clinical dataset to examine which clinical phenotypes are associated with possible underlying cancers to identify which patients are most at risk. We are already working on this,” she said. “Then it remains to be investigated whether screening for an underlying cancer should be added to the diagnostic workup in young stroke patients.”

Commenting on the study after the presentation, William Whiteley, BM, PhD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and a consultant neurologist in NHS Lothian, said it was difficult to know whether the link shown between stroke and cancer was causal, but the effect size in this study was “quite large.”

He pointed out that the associations with bowel and lung cancer could be due to shared risk factors, such as smoking, but he said the finding on a link with hematologic cancers is “interesting.”

Noting that there are links between hematologic cancers and thrombotic events, he said: “People have wondered if that is because of clonal expansion, which has been shown to increase the risk of atherosclerosis, so the question is whether this is some kind of common risk factor here.”

Dr. Verhoeven said she did not believe that shared risk factors fully explained the difference in increased risks between young and older patients.

“It does not fully explain why the risk of cancer is specifically higher in the first 1 to 2 years after the stroke diagnosis. I would think if it was just shared risk factors, the risk increase should remain relatively stable, or even increase due to the build-up of exposure to risk factors over the years,” she said.

Dr. Whiteley said that data like these are “really useful in trying to estimate these associations and it gives us some hypotheses to investigate in smaller mechanistic studies.”

Asked whether these data justify screening younger cryptogenic stroke patients more systematically for cancer, Dr. Whiteley replied: “I think we need some absolute risk estimates for that; for example, what proportion of younger patients would be at risk over the next few years when that screening would make a difference.”

Dr. Verhoeven reports no disclosures.

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

The presence of gallstone disease may be a harbinger of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), researchers suggest after showing an association between the two in a SEER-Medicare database analysis. Patients with PDAC were six times more likely to have had gallstone disease in the year prior to diagnosis than noncancer patients, they found.

“We can’t be certain at this time as to whether gallstone disease is a precursor to PDAC or whether it is the end result of PDAC, but we do know there is an association, and we plan to explore it further,” commented study author Teviah Sachs, MD, MPH, Boston Medical Center.

“We don’t want anyone with gallstone disease to think that they have pancreatic cancer because, certainly, the overwhelming majority of patients with gallstone disease do not have pancreatic cancer,” he emphasized.

“But I would say to physicians that if you have a patient who presents with gallstone disease and they have other symptoms, you should not necessarily attribute those symptoms just to their gallstone disease,” Dr. Sachs commented.

“The diagnosis of pancreatic cancer should be on the differential in patients who present with symptoms that might not otherwise correlate with typical gallstones,” he added. 

Dr. Sachs was speaking at a press briefing ahead of the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), where the study will be presented.

“PDAC is often fatal because it’s frequently not diagnosed until it is late-stage disease,” Dr. Sachs noted.  

Complicating earlier diagnosis is the fact that symptoms of PDAC often mirror those associated with gallstone disease and gallbladder infection, “both of which have been demonstrated to be risk factors for PDAC,” Dr. Sachs added.
 

Annual incidence

The purpose of the present study was to compare the incidence of cholelithiasis or cholecystitis in the year before a diagnosis of PDAC with the annual incidence in the general population.

A total of 18,700 patients with PDAC, median age 76 years, were identified in the SEER-Medicare database between 2008 and 2015. The incidence of hospital visits for gallstone disease in the year prior to PDAC diagnosis as well as the annual incidence of gallstone disease in the SEER-Medicare noncancer cohort were assessed.

An average of 99,287 patients per year were available from the noncancer cohort, 0.8% of whom had gallstone disease and 0.3% of whom had their gallbladders removed. In contrast, in the year before their diagnosis, 4.7% of PDAC patients had a diagnosis of gallstone disease and 1.6% had their gallbladders removed.

“Gallstone disease does not cause pancreatic cancer,” lead author, Marianna Papageorge, MD, research fellow, also of Boston Medical Center, said in a statement.

“But understanding its association with PDAC can help combat the high mortality rate with pancreatic cancer by providing the opportunity for earlier diagnosis and treatment,” she added.

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

The presence of gallstone disease may be a harbinger of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), researchers suggest after showing an association between the two in a SEER-Medicare database analysis. Patients with PDAC were six times more likely to have had gallstone disease in the year prior to diagnosis than noncancer patients, they found.

“We can’t be certain at this time as to whether gallstone disease is a precursor to PDAC or whether it is the end result of PDAC, but we do know there is an association, and we plan to explore it further,” commented study author Teviah Sachs, MD, MPH, Boston Medical Center.

“We don’t want anyone with gallstone disease to think that they have pancreatic cancer because, certainly, the overwhelming majority of patients with gallstone disease do not have pancreatic cancer,” he emphasized.

“But I would say to physicians that if you have a patient who presents with gallstone disease and they have other symptoms, you should not necessarily attribute those symptoms just to their gallstone disease,” Dr. Sachs commented.

“The diagnosis of pancreatic cancer should be on the differential in patients who present with symptoms that might not otherwise correlate with typical gallstones,” he added. 

Dr. Sachs was speaking at a press briefing ahead of the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), where the study will be presented.

“PDAC is often fatal because it’s frequently not diagnosed until it is late-stage disease,” Dr. Sachs noted.  

Complicating earlier diagnosis is the fact that symptoms of PDAC often mirror those associated with gallstone disease and gallbladder infection, “both of which have been demonstrated to be risk factors for PDAC,” Dr. Sachs added.
 

Annual incidence

The purpose of the present study was to compare the incidence of cholelithiasis or cholecystitis in the year before a diagnosis of PDAC with the annual incidence in the general population.

A total of 18,700 patients with PDAC, median age 76 years, were identified in the SEER-Medicare database between 2008 and 2015. The incidence of hospital visits for gallstone disease in the year prior to PDAC diagnosis as well as the annual incidence of gallstone disease in the SEER-Medicare noncancer cohort were assessed.

An average of 99,287 patients per year were available from the noncancer cohort, 0.8% of whom had gallstone disease and 0.3% of whom had their gallbladders removed. In contrast, in the year before their diagnosis, 4.7% of PDAC patients had a diagnosis of gallstone disease and 1.6% had their gallbladders removed.

“Gallstone disease does not cause pancreatic cancer,” lead author, Marianna Papageorge, MD, research fellow, also of Boston Medical Center, said in a statement.

“But understanding its association with PDAC can help combat the high mortality rate with pancreatic cancer by providing the opportunity for earlier diagnosis and treatment,” she added.

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

The presence of gallstone disease may be a harbinger of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), researchers suggest after showing an association between the two in a SEER-Medicare database analysis. Patients with PDAC were six times more likely to have had gallstone disease in the year prior to diagnosis than noncancer patients, they found.

“We can’t be certain at this time as to whether gallstone disease is a precursor to PDAC or whether it is the end result of PDAC, but we do know there is an association, and we plan to explore it further,” commented study author Teviah Sachs, MD, MPH, Boston Medical Center.

“We don’t want anyone with gallstone disease to think that they have pancreatic cancer because, certainly, the overwhelming majority of patients with gallstone disease do not have pancreatic cancer,” he emphasized.

“But I would say to physicians that if you have a patient who presents with gallstone disease and they have other symptoms, you should not necessarily attribute those symptoms just to their gallstone disease,” Dr. Sachs commented.

“The diagnosis of pancreatic cancer should be on the differential in patients who present with symptoms that might not otherwise correlate with typical gallstones,” he added. 

Dr. Sachs was speaking at a press briefing ahead of the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), where the study will be presented.

“PDAC is often fatal because it’s frequently not diagnosed until it is late-stage disease,” Dr. Sachs noted.  

Complicating earlier diagnosis is the fact that symptoms of PDAC often mirror those associated with gallstone disease and gallbladder infection, “both of which have been demonstrated to be risk factors for PDAC,” Dr. Sachs added.
 

Annual incidence

The purpose of the present study was to compare the incidence of cholelithiasis or cholecystitis in the year before a diagnosis of PDAC with the annual incidence in the general population.

A total of 18,700 patients with PDAC, median age 76 years, were identified in the SEER-Medicare database between 2008 and 2015. The incidence of hospital visits for gallstone disease in the year prior to PDAC diagnosis as well as the annual incidence of gallstone disease in the SEER-Medicare noncancer cohort were assessed.

An average of 99,287 patients per year were available from the noncancer cohort, 0.8% of whom had gallstone disease and 0.3% of whom had their gallbladders removed. In contrast, in the year before their diagnosis, 4.7% of PDAC patients had a diagnosis of gallstone disease and 1.6% had their gallbladders removed.

“Gallstone disease does not cause pancreatic cancer,” lead author, Marianna Papageorge, MD, research fellow, also of Boston Medical Center, said in a statement.

“But understanding its association with PDAC can help combat the high mortality rate with pancreatic cancer by providing the opportunity for earlier diagnosis and treatment,” she added.

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

Pre-procedure urinalysis can be skipped before certain office-based urology procedures, such as prostate biopsy and cystoscopy, according to the results of a randomized trial.

Some centers perform the pre-procedure test to avoid urinary tract infections (UTIs), a feared iatrogenic complication, but the new findings indicate the step is unnecessary.

These results “will alter screening urinalysis practice at our hospital,” said Alexa Rose, a clinical research coordinator in the department of urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison. Ms. Rose’s group presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

Although rates of post procedure UTI are generally low after office-based cytology, it is the most common complication, Ms. Rose said. To minimize risk, preprocedural urinalysis had become standard practice at her institution.

For the study, Ms. Rose and colleagues sought to determine if the testing was indeed helping reduce the risk of UTI. They randomly divided 641 patients into two groups. Both received urinalysis, but test results of participants in the experimental group were not forwarded to clinicians.

Patients were undergoing one of three types of office urology procedures: cystoscopy (66.6%), intravesical therapy for bladder cancer (24.5%), and prostate biopsy (8.9%). Median age was 70 years and most participants (83%) were men.

The primary endpoint was a symptomatic UTI confirmed by culture 30 days after the procedure.

In the 323 patients managed without access to the results of urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.2%. In the 318 patients who received usual care guided by urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.6% – and the difference was a single case.

The nonsignificant difference fell easily within the study definition of noninferiority, according to Ms. Rose. Others offering preprocedural urinalysis should take heed.

“Due to the large cohort of patients we enrolled, we expect that it will be applicable to other institutions,” she said in an interview.
 

SUB: Expert pushes back

In a 2020 Best Practice Statement from the AUA on antibiotic prophylaxis, the risk of procedural-related UTI was considered to be much lower in out-patient versus in-patient settings.

The statement identified a long list of variables to guide screening for UTI and initiation of prophylactic antibiotics prior to urology procedures for hospitalized patients, but office-based procedures in low-risk, largely healthy patients were treated differently.

As a result, the operating hypothesis of the Wisconsin study is “flawed,” said Anthony J. Schaeffer, MD, professor of urology, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

“An asymptomatic patient undergoing office cystoscopy for [such indications as] hematuria or bladder tumor doesn’t need pre-procedural urinalysis or prophylactic antibiotics unless they have risk factors, such as immunosuppression,” Dr. Schaeffer told this news organization. “There is no relationship between preprocedural urinalysis and a post-procedure UTI caused by instrumentation.”

According to the AUA, neither antibiotic prophylaxis nor screening such as urodynamic studies is recommended prior to simple outpatient cystoscopy if patients are otherwise healthy and have no signs or symptoms of a UTI.

While antibiotic prophylaxis is standard of care for some outpatient urological procedures, such as transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, the practice is appropriate whether or not patients undergo urinalysis, according to Dr. Schaeffer.

As a result, one problem with the new study was the lack of discussion about antibiotic prophylaxis.

“Presumably the patients undergoing TRUS prostate biopsies received antibiotic prophylaxis, which is a critical cofounder that they do not even mention,” Dr. Schaeffer said.

In patients with UTI symptoms, some screening is appropriate whether with a simple dipstick, laboratory-performed microscopy, or culture, according to the AUA.

In the absence of symptoms for a patient undergoing a class I (clean) procedure, the AUA statement recommends – and Dr. Schaeffer said he agreed – that antibiotic prophylaxis, let alone urinalysis, is not a standard, particularly for simple outpatient cystoscopy.

Ms. Rose and Dr. Schaeffer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pre-procedure urinalysis can be skipped before certain office-based urology procedures, such as prostate biopsy and cystoscopy, according to the results of a randomized trial.

Some centers perform the pre-procedure test to avoid urinary tract infections (UTIs), a feared iatrogenic complication, but the new findings indicate the step is unnecessary.

These results “will alter screening urinalysis practice at our hospital,” said Alexa Rose, a clinical research coordinator in the department of urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison. Ms. Rose’s group presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

Although rates of post procedure UTI are generally low after office-based cytology, it is the most common complication, Ms. Rose said. To minimize risk, preprocedural urinalysis had become standard practice at her institution.

For the study, Ms. Rose and colleagues sought to determine if the testing was indeed helping reduce the risk of UTI. They randomly divided 641 patients into two groups. Both received urinalysis, but test results of participants in the experimental group were not forwarded to clinicians.

Patients were undergoing one of three types of office urology procedures: cystoscopy (66.6%), intravesical therapy for bladder cancer (24.5%), and prostate biopsy (8.9%). Median age was 70 years and most participants (83%) were men.

The primary endpoint was a symptomatic UTI confirmed by culture 30 days after the procedure.

In the 323 patients managed without access to the results of urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.2%. In the 318 patients who received usual care guided by urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.6% – and the difference was a single case.

The nonsignificant difference fell easily within the study definition of noninferiority, according to Ms. Rose. Others offering preprocedural urinalysis should take heed.

“Due to the large cohort of patients we enrolled, we expect that it will be applicable to other institutions,” she said in an interview.
 

SUB: Expert pushes back

In a 2020 Best Practice Statement from the AUA on antibiotic prophylaxis, the risk of procedural-related UTI was considered to be much lower in out-patient versus in-patient settings.

The statement identified a long list of variables to guide screening for UTI and initiation of prophylactic antibiotics prior to urology procedures for hospitalized patients, but office-based procedures in low-risk, largely healthy patients were treated differently.

As a result, the operating hypothesis of the Wisconsin study is “flawed,” said Anthony J. Schaeffer, MD, professor of urology, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

“An asymptomatic patient undergoing office cystoscopy for [such indications as] hematuria or bladder tumor doesn’t need pre-procedural urinalysis or prophylactic antibiotics unless they have risk factors, such as immunosuppression,” Dr. Schaeffer told this news organization. “There is no relationship between preprocedural urinalysis and a post-procedure UTI caused by instrumentation.”

According to the AUA, neither antibiotic prophylaxis nor screening such as urodynamic studies is recommended prior to simple outpatient cystoscopy if patients are otherwise healthy and have no signs or symptoms of a UTI.

While antibiotic prophylaxis is standard of care for some outpatient urological procedures, such as transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, the practice is appropriate whether or not patients undergo urinalysis, according to Dr. Schaeffer.

As a result, one problem with the new study was the lack of discussion about antibiotic prophylaxis.

“Presumably the patients undergoing TRUS prostate biopsies received antibiotic prophylaxis, which is a critical cofounder that they do not even mention,” Dr. Schaeffer said.

In patients with UTI symptoms, some screening is appropriate whether with a simple dipstick, laboratory-performed microscopy, or culture, according to the AUA.

In the absence of symptoms for a patient undergoing a class I (clean) procedure, the AUA statement recommends – and Dr. Schaeffer said he agreed – that antibiotic prophylaxis, let alone urinalysis, is not a standard, particularly for simple outpatient cystoscopy.

Ms. Rose and Dr. Schaeffer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pre-procedure urinalysis can be skipped before certain office-based urology procedures, such as prostate biopsy and cystoscopy, according to the results of a randomized trial.

Some centers perform the pre-procedure test to avoid urinary tract infections (UTIs), a feared iatrogenic complication, but the new findings indicate the step is unnecessary.

These results “will alter screening urinalysis practice at our hospital,” said Alexa Rose, a clinical research coordinator in the department of urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison. Ms. Rose’s group presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

Although rates of post procedure UTI are generally low after office-based cytology, it is the most common complication, Ms. Rose said. To minimize risk, preprocedural urinalysis had become standard practice at her institution.

For the study, Ms. Rose and colleagues sought to determine if the testing was indeed helping reduce the risk of UTI. They randomly divided 641 patients into two groups. Both received urinalysis, but test results of participants in the experimental group were not forwarded to clinicians.

Patients were undergoing one of three types of office urology procedures: cystoscopy (66.6%), intravesical therapy for bladder cancer (24.5%), and prostate biopsy (8.9%). Median age was 70 years and most participants (83%) were men.

The primary endpoint was a symptomatic UTI confirmed by culture 30 days after the procedure.

In the 323 patients managed without access to the results of urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.2%. In the 318 patients who received usual care guided by urinalysis, the rate of UTI was 1.6% – and the difference was a single case.

The nonsignificant difference fell easily within the study definition of noninferiority, according to Ms. Rose. Others offering preprocedural urinalysis should take heed.

“Due to the large cohort of patients we enrolled, we expect that it will be applicable to other institutions,” she said in an interview.
 

SUB: Expert pushes back

In a 2020 Best Practice Statement from the AUA on antibiotic prophylaxis, the risk of procedural-related UTI was considered to be much lower in out-patient versus in-patient settings.

The statement identified a long list of variables to guide screening for UTI and initiation of prophylactic antibiotics prior to urology procedures for hospitalized patients, but office-based procedures in low-risk, largely healthy patients were treated differently.

As a result, the operating hypothesis of the Wisconsin study is “flawed,” said Anthony J. Schaeffer, MD, professor of urology, Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

“An asymptomatic patient undergoing office cystoscopy for [such indications as] hematuria or bladder tumor doesn’t need pre-procedural urinalysis or prophylactic antibiotics unless they have risk factors, such as immunosuppression,” Dr. Schaeffer told this news organization. “There is no relationship between preprocedural urinalysis and a post-procedure UTI caused by instrumentation.”

According to the AUA, neither antibiotic prophylaxis nor screening such as urodynamic studies is recommended prior to simple outpatient cystoscopy if patients are otherwise healthy and have no signs or symptoms of a UTI.

While antibiotic prophylaxis is standard of care for some outpatient urological procedures, such as transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, the practice is appropriate whether or not patients undergo urinalysis, according to Dr. Schaeffer.

As a result, one problem with the new study was the lack of discussion about antibiotic prophylaxis.

“Presumably the patients undergoing TRUS prostate biopsies received antibiotic prophylaxis, which is a critical cofounder that they do not even mention,” Dr. Schaeffer said.

In patients with UTI symptoms, some screening is appropriate whether with a simple dipstick, laboratory-performed microscopy, or culture, according to the AUA.

In the absence of symptoms for a patient undergoing a class I (clean) procedure, the AUA statement recommends – and Dr. Schaeffer said he agreed – that antibiotic prophylaxis, let alone urinalysis, is not a standard, particularly for simple outpatient cystoscopy.

Ms. Rose and Dr. Schaeffer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dupilumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Through inhibition of the IL-4R α subunit, it prevents activation of the IL-4/IL-13 signaling cascade. This dampens the T _H 2 inflammatory response, thereby improving the symptoms associated with atopic dermatitis. ^1,2 Recent literature suggests that dupilumab may be useful in the treatment of other chronic dermatologic conditions, including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) refractory to allergen avoidance and other treatments. Herein, we provide an overview of ACD, the role that dupilumab may play in its management, and its impact on patch testing results.

Pathogenesis of ACD

Allergic contact dermatitis is a cell-mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction that develops through 2 distinct stages. In the sensitization phase, an allergen penetrates the skin and subsequently is engulfed by a cutaneous antigen-presenting cell. The allergen is then combined with a peptide to form a complex that is presented to naïve T lymphocytes in regional lymph nodes. The result is clonal expansion of a T-cell population that recognizes the allergen. In the elicitation phase, repeat exposure to the allergen leads to the recruitment of primed T cells to the skin, followed by cytokine release, inflammation, and resultant dermatitis.³

Historically, ACD was thought to be primarily driven by the T_H1 inflammatory response; however, it is now known that T_H2, T_H9, T_H17, and T_H22 also may play a role in its pathogenesis.^4,5 Another key finding is that the immune response in ACD appears to be at least partially allergen specific. Molecular profiling has revealed that nickel primarily induces a T_H1/T_H17 response, while allergens such as fragrance and rubber primarily induce a T_H2 response.⁴

Management of ACD

Allergen avoidance is the mainstay of ACD treatment; however, in some patients, this approach does not always improve symptoms. In addition, eliminating the source of the allergen may not be possible in those with certain occupational, environmental, or medical exposures.

There are no FDA-approved treatments for ACD. When allergen avoidance alone is insufficient, first-line pharmacologic therapy typically includes topical or oral corticosteroids, the choice of which depends on the extent and severity of the dermatitis; however, a steroid-sparing agent often is preferred to avoid the unfavorable effects of long-term steroid use. Other systemic treatments for ACD include methotrexate, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and azathioprine.⁶ These agents are used for severe ACD and typically are chosen as a last resort due to their immunosuppressive activity.

Phototherapy is another option, often as an adjunct to other therapies. Narrowband UVB and psoralen plus UVA have both been used. Psoralen plus UVA tends to have more side effects; therefore, narrowband UVB often is preferred.^7,8

Use of Dupilumab in ACD

Biologics are unique, as they can target a single step in the immune response to improve a wide variety of symptoms. Research investigating their role as a treatment modality for ACD is still evolving alongside our increasing knowledge of its pathophysiology.⁹ Of note, studies examining the anti–IL-17 biologic secukinumab revealed it to be ineffective against ACD,^10,11 which suggests that targeting specific immune components may not always result in improvement of ACD symptoms, likely because its pathophysiology involves several pathways.

There have been multiple reports demonstrating the effectiveness of dupilumab in the treatment of ACD (eTable).^12-20 The findings from these studies show that dupilumab can improve recalcitrant dermatitis caused by a broad range of contact allergens, including nickel. This highlights its ability to improve ACD caused by allergens with a T_H1 bias, despite its primarily T_H2-dampening effects. Notably, several studies have reported successful use of dupilumab for systemic ACD.^12,18 In addition, dupilumab may be able to improve symptoms of ACD in as little as 1 to 4 weeks. Unlike some systemic therapies for ACD, dupilumab also benefits from its lack of notable immunosuppressive effects.⁹ A phase 4 clinical trial at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts) is recruiting participants, with a primary goal of investigating dupilumab’s impact on ACD in patients who have not improved despite allergen avoidance (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03935971).

There are a few potential disadvantages to dupilumab. Because it is not yet FDA approved for the treatment of ACD, insurance companies may deny coverage, making it likely to be unaffordable for most patients. Furthermore, the side-effect profile has not been fully characterized. In addition to ocular adverse effects, a growing number of studies have reported face and neck erythema after starting dupilumab. Although the cause is unclear, one theory is that the inhibition of IL-4/IL-13 leads to T_H1/T_H17 polarization, thereby worsening ACD caused by allergens that activate a T_H1-predominant response.²¹ Finally, not all cases of ACD respond to dupilumab.²²

Patch Testing While on Dupilumab

Diagnosing ACD is a challenging process. An accurate history and physical examination are critical, and patch testing remains the gold standard when it comes to identifying the source of the contact allergen(s).

There is ongoing debate among contact dermatitis experts regarding the diagnostic accuracy of patch testing for those on immunomodulators or immunosuppressants, as these medications can dampen positive results and increase the risk for false-negative readings.²³ Consequently, some have questioned whether patch testing on dupilumab is accurate or feasible.²⁴ Contact dermatitis experts have examined patch testing results before and after initiation of dupilumab to further investigate. Puza and Atwater²⁵ established that patients are able to mount a positive patch test reaction while on dupilumab. Moreover, a retrospective review by Raffi et al²⁶ found that out of 125 before therapy/on therapy patch test pairs, only 13 were lost after administration of dupilumab. Although this would suggest that dupilumab has little impact on patch testing, Jo et al²⁷ found in a systematic review that patch test reactions may remain positive, change to negative, or become newly positive after dupilumab initiation.

This inconsistency in results may relate to the allergen-specific pathogenesis of ACD—one allergen may have a different response to the mechanism of dupilumab than another.^28,29 More recently, de Wijs et al³⁰ reported a series of 20 patients in whom more than two-thirds of prior positive patch test reactions were lost after retesting on dupilumab; there were no clear trends according to the immune polarity of the allergens. This finding suggests that patient-specific factors also should be considered, as this too could have an impact on the reliability of patch test findings after starting dupilumab.²⁹

Final Interpretation

Given its overall excellent safety profile, dupilumab may be a feasible off-label option for patients with ACD that does not respond to allergen avoidance or for those who experience adverse effects from traditional therapies; however, it remains difficult to obtain through insurance because it is not yet FDA approved for ACD. Likewise, its impact on the accuracy of patch testing is not yet well defined. Further investigations are needed to elucidate the pathophysiology of ACD and to guide further use of dupilumab in its treatment.

Dupilumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Through inhibition of the IL-4R α subunit, it prevents activation of the IL-4/IL-13 signaling cascade. This dampens the T _H 2 inflammatory response, thereby improving the symptoms associated with atopic dermatitis. ^1,2 Recent literature suggests that dupilumab may be useful in the treatment of other chronic dermatologic conditions, including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) refractory to allergen avoidance and other treatments. Herein, we provide an overview of ACD, the role that dupilumab may play in its management, and its impact on patch testing results.

Pathogenesis of ACD

Allergic contact dermatitis is a cell-mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction that develops through 2 distinct stages. In the sensitization phase, an allergen penetrates the skin and subsequently is engulfed by a cutaneous antigen-presenting cell. The allergen is then combined with a peptide to form a complex that is presented to naïve T lymphocytes in regional lymph nodes. The result is clonal expansion of a T-cell population that recognizes the allergen. In the elicitation phase, repeat exposure to the allergen leads to the recruitment of primed T cells to the skin, followed by cytokine release, inflammation, and resultant dermatitis.³

Historically, ACD was thought to be primarily driven by the T_H1 inflammatory response; however, it is now known that T_H2, T_H9, T_H17, and T_H22 also may play a role in its pathogenesis.^4,5 Another key finding is that the immune response in ACD appears to be at least partially allergen specific. Molecular profiling has revealed that nickel primarily induces a T_H1/T_H17 response, while allergens such as fragrance and rubber primarily induce a T_H2 response.⁴

Management of ACD

Allergen avoidance is the mainstay of ACD treatment; however, in some patients, this approach does not always improve symptoms. In addition, eliminating the source of the allergen may not be possible in those with certain occupational, environmental, or medical exposures.

There are no FDA-approved treatments for ACD. When allergen avoidance alone is insufficient, first-line pharmacologic therapy typically includes topical or oral corticosteroids, the choice of which depends on the extent and severity of the dermatitis; however, a steroid-sparing agent often is preferred to avoid the unfavorable effects of long-term steroid use. Other systemic treatments for ACD include methotrexate, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and azathioprine.⁶ These agents are used for severe ACD and typically are chosen as a last resort due to their immunosuppressive activity.

Phototherapy is another option, often as an adjunct to other therapies. Narrowband UVB and psoralen plus UVA have both been used. Psoralen plus UVA tends to have more side effects; therefore, narrowband UVB often is preferred.^7,8

Use of Dupilumab in ACD

Biologics are unique, as they can target a single step in the immune response to improve a wide variety of symptoms. Research investigating their role as a treatment modality for ACD is still evolving alongside our increasing knowledge of its pathophysiology.⁹ Of note, studies examining the anti–IL-17 biologic secukinumab revealed it to be ineffective against ACD,^10,11 which suggests that targeting specific immune components may not always result in improvement of ACD symptoms, likely because its pathophysiology involves several pathways.

There have been multiple reports demonstrating the effectiveness of dupilumab in the treatment of ACD (eTable).^12-20 The findings from these studies show that dupilumab can improve recalcitrant dermatitis caused by a broad range of contact allergens, including nickel. This highlights its ability to improve ACD caused by allergens with a T_H1 bias, despite its primarily T_H2-dampening effects. Notably, several studies have reported successful use of dupilumab for systemic ACD.^12,18 In addition, dupilumab may be able to improve symptoms of ACD in as little as 1 to 4 weeks. Unlike some systemic therapies for ACD, dupilumab also benefits from its lack of notable immunosuppressive effects.⁹ A phase 4 clinical trial at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts) is recruiting participants, with a primary goal of investigating dupilumab’s impact on ACD in patients who have not improved despite allergen avoidance (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03935971).

There are a few potential disadvantages to dupilumab. Because it is not yet FDA approved for the treatment of ACD, insurance companies may deny coverage, making it likely to be unaffordable for most patients. Furthermore, the side-effect profile has not been fully characterized. In addition to ocular adverse effects, a growing number of studies have reported face and neck erythema after starting dupilumab. Although the cause is unclear, one theory is that the inhibition of IL-4/IL-13 leads to T_H1/T_H17 polarization, thereby worsening ACD caused by allergens that activate a T_H1-predominant response.²¹ Finally, not all cases of ACD respond to dupilumab.²²

Patch Testing While on Dupilumab

Diagnosing ACD is a challenging process. An accurate history and physical examination are critical, and patch testing remains the gold standard when it comes to identifying the source of the contact allergen(s).

There is ongoing debate among contact dermatitis experts regarding the diagnostic accuracy of patch testing for those on immunomodulators or immunosuppressants, as these medications can dampen positive results and increase the risk for false-negative readings.²³ Consequently, some have questioned whether patch testing on dupilumab is accurate or feasible.²⁴ Contact dermatitis experts have examined patch testing results before and after initiation of dupilumab to further investigate. Puza and Atwater²⁵ established that patients are able to mount a positive patch test reaction while on dupilumab. Moreover, a retrospective review by Raffi et al²⁶ found that out of 125 before therapy/on therapy patch test pairs, only 13 were lost after administration of dupilumab. Although this would suggest that dupilumab has little impact on patch testing, Jo et al²⁷ found in a systematic review that patch test reactions may remain positive, change to negative, or become newly positive after dupilumab initiation.

This inconsistency in results may relate to the allergen-specific pathogenesis of ACD—one allergen may have a different response to the mechanism of dupilumab than another.^28,29 More recently, de Wijs et al³⁰ reported a series of 20 patients in whom more than two-thirds of prior positive patch test reactions were lost after retesting on dupilumab; there were no clear trends according to the immune polarity of the allergens. This finding suggests that patient-specific factors also should be considered, as this too could have an impact on the reliability of patch test findings after starting dupilumab.²⁹

Final Interpretation

Given its overall excellent safety profile, dupilumab may be a feasible off-label option for patients with ACD that does not respond to allergen avoidance or for those who experience adverse effects from traditional therapies; however, it remains difficult to obtain through insurance because it is not yet FDA approved for ACD. Likewise, its impact on the accuracy of patch testing is not yet well defined. Further investigations are needed to elucidate the pathophysiology of ACD and to guide further use of dupilumab in its treatment.

Dupilumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Through inhibition of the IL-4R α subunit, it prevents activation of the IL-4/IL-13 signaling cascade. This dampens the T _H 2 inflammatory response, thereby improving the symptoms associated with atopic dermatitis. ^1,2 Recent literature suggests that dupilumab may be useful in the treatment of other chronic dermatologic conditions, including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) refractory to allergen avoidance and other treatments. Herein, we provide an overview of ACD, the role that dupilumab may play in its management, and its impact on patch testing results.

Pathogenesis of ACD

Allergic contact dermatitis is a cell-mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction that develops through 2 distinct stages. In the sensitization phase, an allergen penetrates the skin and subsequently is engulfed by a cutaneous antigen-presenting cell. The allergen is then combined with a peptide to form a complex that is presented to naïve T lymphocytes in regional lymph nodes. The result is clonal expansion of a T-cell population that recognizes the allergen. In the elicitation phase, repeat exposure to the allergen leads to the recruitment of primed T cells to the skin, followed by cytokine release, inflammation, and resultant dermatitis.³

Historically, ACD was thought to be primarily driven by the T_H1 inflammatory response; however, it is now known that T_H2, T_H9, T_H17, and T_H22 also may play a role in its pathogenesis.^4,5 Another key finding is that the immune response in ACD appears to be at least partially allergen specific. Molecular profiling has revealed that nickel primarily induces a T_H1/T_H17 response, while allergens such as fragrance and rubber primarily induce a T_H2 response.⁴

Management of ACD

Allergen avoidance is the mainstay of ACD treatment; however, in some patients, this approach does not always improve symptoms. In addition, eliminating the source of the allergen may not be possible in those with certain occupational, environmental, or medical exposures.

There are no FDA-approved treatments for ACD. When allergen avoidance alone is insufficient, first-line pharmacologic therapy typically includes topical or oral corticosteroids, the choice of which depends on the extent and severity of the dermatitis; however, a steroid-sparing agent often is preferred to avoid the unfavorable effects of long-term steroid use. Other systemic treatments for ACD include methotrexate, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and azathioprine.⁶ These agents are used for severe ACD and typically are chosen as a last resort due to their immunosuppressive activity.

Phototherapy is another option, often as an adjunct to other therapies. Narrowband UVB and psoralen plus UVA have both been used. Psoralen plus UVA tends to have more side effects; therefore, narrowband UVB often is preferred.^7,8

Use of Dupilumab in ACD

Biologics are unique, as they can target a single step in the immune response to improve a wide variety of symptoms. Research investigating their role as a treatment modality for ACD is still evolving alongside our increasing knowledge of its pathophysiology.⁹ Of note, studies examining the anti–IL-17 biologic secukinumab revealed it to be ineffective against ACD,^10,11 which suggests that targeting specific immune components may not always result in improvement of ACD symptoms, likely because its pathophysiology involves several pathways.

There have been multiple reports demonstrating the effectiveness of dupilumab in the treatment of ACD (eTable).^12-20 The findings from these studies show that dupilumab can improve recalcitrant dermatitis caused by a broad range of contact allergens, including nickel. This highlights its ability to improve ACD caused by allergens with a T_H1 bias, despite its primarily T_H2-dampening effects. Notably, several studies have reported successful use of dupilumab for systemic ACD.^12,18 In addition, dupilumab may be able to improve symptoms of ACD in as little as 1 to 4 weeks. Unlike some systemic therapies for ACD, dupilumab also benefits from its lack of notable immunosuppressive effects.⁹ A phase 4 clinical trial at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts) is recruiting participants, with a primary goal of investigating dupilumab’s impact on ACD in patients who have not improved despite allergen avoidance (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03935971).

There are a few potential disadvantages to dupilumab. Because it is not yet FDA approved for the treatment of ACD, insurance companies may deny coverage, making it likely to be unaffordable for most patients. Furthermore, the side-effect profile has not been fully characterized. In addition to ocular adverse effects, a growing number of studies have reported face and neck erythema after starting dupilumab. Although the cause is unclear, one theory is that the inhibition of IL-4/IL-13 leads to T_H1/T_H17 polarization, thereby worsening ACD caused by allergens that activate a T_H1-predominant response.²¹ Finally, not all cases of ACD respond to dupilumab.²²

Patch Testing While on Dupilumab

Diagnosing ACD is a challenging process. An accurate history and physical examination are critical, and patch testing remains the gold standard when it comes to identifying the source of the contact allergen(s).

There is ongoing debate among contact dermatitis experts regarding the diagnostic accuracy of patch testing for those on immunomodulators or immunosuppressants, as these medications can dampen positive results and increase the risk for false-negative readings.²³ Consequently, some have questioned whether patch testing on dupilumab is accurate or feasible.²⁴ Contact dermatitis experts have examined patch testing results before and after initiation of dupilumab to further investigate. Puza and Atwater²⁵ established that patients are able to mount a positive patch test reaction while on dupilumab. Moreover, a retrospective review by Raffi et al²⁶ found that out of 125 before therapy/on therapy patch test pairs, only 13 were lost after administration of dupilumab. Although this would suggest that dupilumab has little impact on patch testing, Jo et al²⁷ found in a systematic review that patch test reactions may remain positive, change to negative, or become newly positive after dupilumab initiation.

This inconsistency in results may relate to the allergen-specific pathogenesis of ACD—one allergen may have a different response to the mechanism of dupilumab than another.^28,29 More recently, de Wijs et al³⁰ reported a series of 20 patients in whom more than two-thirds of prior positive patch test reactions were lost after retesting on dupilumab; there were no clear trends according to the immune polarity of the allergens. This finding suggests that patient-specific factors also should be considered, as this too could have an impact on the reliability of patch test findings after starting dupilumab.²⁹

Final Interpretation

Given its overall excellent safety profile, dupilumab may be a feasible off-label option for patients with ACD that does not respond to allergen avoidance or for those who experience adverse effects from traditional therapies; however, it remains difficult to obtain through insurance because it is not yet FDA approved for ACD. Likewise, its impact on the accuracy of patch testing is not yet well defined. Further investigations are needed to elucidate the pathophysiology of ACD and to guide further use of dupilumab in its treatment.