Kate Johnson

When, in 2022, singer and international celebrity Celine Dion announced what she called her “one-in-a-million diagnosis” of stiff person syndrome, clinicians and medical scientists who specialize in the disorder took a deep breath. Scott D. Newsome, DO, professor of neurology and director of the Johns Hopkins Stiff Person Syndrome Center, Baltimore – a glass-half-full kind of person – saw in Ms. Dion’s worrying announcement a huge opportunity nonetheless: To raise awareness about the rare cluster of disorders known collectively as stiff person spectrum disorders (SPSD).

“Even at the clinician level, if you don’t know the hallmark signs and symptoms, you could possibly misdiagnose it,” Dr. Newsome said in an interview.

But misdiagnosis can go either way; increased awareness of SPSD can have a downside. Thirty years ago, when Marinos C. Dalakas, MD, first began studying SPSD, the diagnosis was frequently missed – “because people were not aware of it,” he said. But now, Dr. Dalakas, professor of neurology and director of the division of neuromuscular diseases in the department of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University and the Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, both in Philadelphia, said overdiagnosis is also a concern, particularly with increased public awareness.

“Just this last month I saw two patients who told me: ‘I read about it, and I believe I have symptoms of stiff person,’ ” he said.

Celebrity attention might be fueling higher suspicion of SPSD but the trend was already moving in that direction before the recent headlines. These days, most patients in whom SPSD is suspected end up with an alternate diagnosis. In a recent retrospective study that Dr. Dalakas coauthored, of 173 patients who had been referred to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., with suspected SPSD,¹ Dr. Dalakas and colleagues determined that only 48 (27.7%) actually had the disorder – meaning that the rest might have been unnecessarily exposed to immunosuppressive SPSD therapies and that treatment for their actual disorder (most often, a functional neurologic disorder or nonneurologic condition) was delayed.

At the root of both underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis of SPSD is the heterogeneity of the condition and a lack of definitive diagnostic markers.

SPSD has been considered an autoimmune disorder for a long time, and observations by Dr. Dalakas and others have shown that as many as 35% of cases co-occur with another autoimmune disease, such as vitiligo, celiac disease, rheumatologic disease, type 1 diabetes mellitus, and thyroid disease (Grave’s disease and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis).² A more recent study by his group observed an even higher rate (42%) of comorbid autoimmunity, with autoimmune thyroid disease being most common. However, although most cases of SPDS are characterized by an elevated level of glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD)65-IgG, these autoantibodies are not specific to SPSD (low levels are also seen in diabetes, thyroid disease, healthy controls, etc.). Some SPSD patients have less common autoantibodies and a minority has no autoantibodies. Dr. Newsome said seronegative cases and the antibody presence and titers not being associated with disease severity or treatment response are clues that “SPSD does not appear to be a primary antibody-mediated condition and that there must be other immune factors at play.”
 

Autoimmune process drives SPSD

Autoimmunity, even if not detected by serologic studies, is believed to inhibit expression of gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors, which, in turn, results in stiffness and spasms. Although what are known as “Dalakas criteria,” proposed in 2009,² describe the “classic” SPSD phenotype, encompassing roughly three-quarters of SPSD patients, there have now been other phenotypes proposed under SPSD, including isolated forms (stiff limb or trunk syndrome) and “nonclassic” phenotypes like SPS-plus (classic features plus brain stem and/or cerebellar involvement),3 overlap syndromes (for example, classic features with refractory epilepsy/limbic encephalitis), and probably the most severe phenotype, progressive encephalomyelitis with rigidity and myoclonus.

Early and aggressive therapy with benzodiazepines and other GABA-ergic agonists, as well as immune-based treatments, is considered critical to slowing progression of SPSD. However, the insidious onset of what is often a cluster of vague, nonspecific symptoms is a challenge for clinicians to recognize.

“When a patient comes in with muscular spasms, with stiffness in the back, in the legs, and it’s unexplained and it’s not due to spinal cord disease, or multiple sclerosis ... think SPSD,” said Dr. Dalakas. “Check antibodies – that’s the first thing to do.”

Antibody positivity is most helpful at high levels, he added; low titers can be present in autoimmune diabetes and other conditions, as previously mentioned. The real challenge? When a patient is seronegative.
 

Embarking on a diagnostic odyssey

Patients “bounce from one clinician to the next looking for answers,” said Dr. Newsome. “Patients will often start with their general practitioner and be referred to physical therapy, rheumatology, or orthopedics, and other specialists, which could include neurology and/or psychiatry, among others. SPSD is often not considered as a possible diagnosis until the patient develops more concrete symptoms and/or objective signs on exam. Of course, considering this diagnosis starts at knowing that it exists.”

Task-specific phobias and exaggerated acoustic startle or sensory reflex are specific symptoms that can red-flag some SPSD patients, said Dr. Dalakas. “Impaired GABA is also important for fears and anxiety. So, when you have a reduction of GABA you have more phobic neuroses – fear of crossing the street, fear of speaking in public, and they get very tense and they cannot perform.

“If the GABA-ergic pathways are dysfunctional, then there’s a relative hyper-excitability within the nervous system,” said Dr. Newsome. “This can be evaluated with electromyography. “The muscles are unhinged and going crazy: Agonists and antagonists are contracting together, which is abnormal. We will also assess for continuous motor unit potential activity within individual muscles – angry muscles just continuously firing. In our experience, this finding appears to be a pretty specific sign of SPS, especially in the torso.” Importantly, the sudden contraction of muscles along with stiffness can lead to traumatic falls, causing major orthopedic and brain injury.

In early stages of SPSD, a careful history and clinical exam is critical to try to shorten what Dr. Newsome calls the patient’s “diagnostic odyssey.”

“It behooves the clinician to put their hands on the patient. Check their back, their abdomen – try to feel for rigidity, paraspinal muscle spasms, and tightness. These regions of the body often have a ropey feel to them, which is due to chronic muscle spasms and tightness. Most [SPSD] patients will have this present in the thoracolumbar area,” he explained. “Check for hyperlordosis, as this is a hallmark sign on exam in SPSD. Additionally, patients can have rigidity and spasticity in their legs or arms. Also, patients with nonclassical phenotypes can present with a variety of other symptoms and findings on exam, including ataxia, nystagmus, ophthalmoparesis, and dysarthria.”

Lumbar puncture can sometimes reveal signs of inflammation, such as an elevated white blood cell count and oligoclonal bands in spinal fluid.

“The classic teaching was that you can only see such findings in conditions like multiple sclerosis, but that’s not the case,” said Dr. Newsome. “You can see these findings in other autoimmune conditions, including SPSD. Hence, as part of the workup, we will have patients undergo lumbar punctures to assess for these markers of autoimmunity.”

Other mimics of SPSD, including multiple sclerosis, tumors, and spinal stenosis, should be ruled out with MRI of the brain and spine.
 

Treatment options

Because of wide variability in signs and symptoms of the disorder, treatment of SPSD is a highly individualized cocktail of interventions, which might include immunotherapy and GABA-ergic agonists, as well as nonmedication treatments. The response to these agents can be difficult to quantify.

Benzodiazepines (diazepam, clonazepam, baclofen) along with other oral symptomatic treatments are often recommended as first-line therapy because of their ability to enhance GABA.⁴ 

First-line immunotherapy is usually intravenous immunoglobulin, steroids, or plasmapheresis. Second- and third-line agents include rituximab, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, and combination immune treatments.

Dr. Newsome and Dr. Dalakas have independently published a step-by-step therapeutic approach to SPSD.^3,5 But in patients with paraneoplastic stiff person syndrome, eradication of their cancer is critical, although, per Dr. Newsome, “this does not always cure SPS and most of these patients still have residual disability.”

But immune-based therapies are only part of what should be a multipronged treatment approach, said Dr. Newsome. He also strongly advocates for non-pharmacological interventions, such as selective physical therapy (stretching, ultrasound, and gait and balance training), heat therapy, aquatherapy, deep-tissue massage or myofascial techniques, osteopathic or chiropractic manipulation, acupuncture, and acupressure.³

Because SPSD is considered a progressive disorder for some, a reasonable goal of treatment is to prevent worsening, said Dr. Newsome. This can take time: “We don’t expect the treatments to work overnight. It involves consecutive months and, sometimes, a couple of years of immune treatment before you start to see it impact the person’s life favorably.”

Patients who are not well informed about the long-term goal of treatments might be tempted to abandon the treatments prematurely because they don’t see immediate results, Dr. Newsome added. Encouraging realistic expectations is also important, without dashing hopes.

“I have patients who were marathon runners, and they want to get back to doing marathons. I would love nothing more than for people to get back to their pre-SPSD levels of function. But this may not be a realistic goal. However, this does not mean that quality of life can’t be helped.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Newsome encourages clinicians to reassess regularly, especially because lack of disease biomarkers makes it hard to objectively monitor the impact of therapy.

“It’s always a good rule of thumb, especially in the rare disease space, to step back and ask: ‘Are we on the right treatment path or not?’ If we’re not, then it is important to make sure you have the correct diagnosis. Even when you have a patient who fits the textbook and you, yourself, diagnosed them, it is important to continue to re-evaluate the diagnosis over time, especially if there is consideration of changing treatments. It is also important to make sure there is not something else on top of the stiff person syndrome that is working in parallel to worsen their condition.”
 

Be alert for comorbidity

Undiagnosed comorbid conditions that can complicate SPSD include Parkinson’s disease or myasthenia gravis, to name a couple, which Dr. Newsome has seen more than once. “We’ve seen a few people over the years who have both SPSD and another autoimmune or degenerative neurological condition.”

Diabetes also co-occurs in approximately 30% of people with SPSD, said Dr. Dalakas. “Endocrinologists should also be aware of this connection.”

Paraneoplastic stiff person syndrome is thought to be triggered by cancer, which might not have been diagnosed, making it important to work up patients for malignancy – particularly breast cancer, small cell lung cancer, lymphoma, and thymoma, Dr. Newsome advised.

Although most cases of SPSD are diagnosed in mid-life, the disorder can occur in teenagers and the elderly.

“It’s not the first thing you think of when a 70-year-old patient comes with neck pain, so it’s missed more often, and the prognosis is worse,” Dr. Dalakas warned.
 

What does the future hold?

Like Dr. Newsome, Dr. Dalakas is encouraged when SPSD hits the headlines because, generally, awareness facilitates diagnosis and research. (Both clinicians serve on the medical advisory board of The Stiff Person Syndrome Research Foundation.)

“We are looking for better therapies that target immune factors,” said Dr. Dalakas. “There are several of those that are relevant, so we need to select the best immune marker that we think plays a role in the antibody production,” he said.

“There’s a lot of hope – at least I have a lot of hope for what the future holds with SPSD,” added Dr. Newsome. “More research is needed and it starts with awareness of SPSD.”

Dr. Newsome discloses that he has received consulting fees for serving on scientific advisory boards of Biogen, Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Horizon Therapeutics, TG Therapeutics; is the study lead principal investigator for a Roche clinical trial; and has received research funding (paid directly to his employing institution) from Biogen, Roche, Lundbeck, Genentech, The Stiff Person Syndrome Research Foundation, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, U.S. Department of Defense, and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Dalakas reports nothing relevant to disclose.

References

1. Chia NH et al. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2023;10(7):1083-94. doi: 10.1002/acn3.51791.

2. Dalakas MC.. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2009;11(2):102-10. doi: 10.1007/s11940-009-0013-9.

3. Newsome SD and Johnson T. J Neuroimmunol. 2022;369:577915. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2022.577915.

4. Ortiz JF et al. Cureus. 2020;12(12):e11995. doi: 10.7759/cureus.11995.

5. Dalakas CD. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2023;10(3):e200109. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000200109.






 

When, in 2022, singer and international celebrity Celine Dion announced what she called her “one-in-a-million diagnosis” of stiff person syndrome, clinicians and medical scientists who specialize in the disorder took a deep breath. Scott D. Newsome, DO, professor of neurology and director of the Johns Hopkins Stiff Person Syndrome Center, Baltimore – a glass-half-full kind of person – saw in Ms. Dion’s worrying announcement a huge opportunity nonetheless: To raise awareness about the rare cluster of disorders known collectively as stiff person spectrum disorders (SPSD).

“Even at the clinician level, if you don’t know the hallmark signs and symptoms, you could possibly misdiagnose it,” Dr. Newsome said in an interview.

But misdiagnosis can go either way; increased awareness of SPSD can have a downside. Thirty years ago, when Marinos C. Dalakas, MD, first began studying SPSD, the diagnosis was frequently missed – “because people were not aware of it,” he said. But now, Dr. Dalakas, professor of neurology and director of the division of neuromuscular diseases in the department of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University and the Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, both in Philadelphia, said overdiagnosis is also a concern, particularly with increased public awareness.

“Just this last month I saw two patients who told me: ‘I read about it, and I believe I have symptoms of stiff person,’ ” he said.

Celebrity attention might be fueling higher suspicion of SPSD but the trend was already moving in that direction before the recent headlines. These days, most patients in whom SPSD is suspected end up with an alternate diagnosis. In a recent retrospective study that Dr. Dalakas coauthored, of 173 patients who had been referred to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., with suspected SPSD,¹ Dr. Dalakas and colleagues determined that only 48 (27.7%) actually had the disorder – meaning that the rest might have been unnecessarily exposed to immunosuppressive SPSD therapies and that treatment for their actual disorder (most often, a functional neurologic disorder or nonneurologic condition) was delayed.

At the root of both underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis of SPSD is the heterogeneity of the condition and a lack of definitive diagnostic markers.

SPSD has been considered an autoimmune disorder for a long time, and observations by Dr. Dalakas and others have shown that as many as 35% of cases co-occur with another autoimmune disease, such as vitiligo, celiac disease, rheumatologic disease, type 1 diabetes mellitus, and thyroid disease (Grave’s disease and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis).² A more recent study by his group observed an even higher rate (42%) of comorbid autoimmunity, with autoimmune thyroid disease being most common. However, although most cases of SPDS are characterized by an elevated level of glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD)65-IgG, these autoantibodies are not specific to SPSD (low levels are also seen in diabetes, thyroid disease, healthy controls, etc.). Some SPSD patients have less common autoantibodies and a minority has no autoantibodies. Dr. Newsome said seronegative cases and the antibody presence and titers not being associated with disease severity or treatment response are clues that “SPSD does not appear to be a primary antibody-mediated condition and that there must be other immune factors at play.”
 

Autoimmune process drives SPSD

Autoimmunity, even if not detected by serologic studies, is believed to inhibit expression of gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors, which, in turn, results in stiffness and spasms. Although what are known as “Dalakas criteria,” proposed in 2009,² describe the “classic” SPSD phenotype, encompassing roughly three-quarters of SPSD patients, there have now been other phenotypes proposed under SPSD, including isolated forms (stiff limb or trunk syndrome) and “nonclassic” phenotypes like SPS-plus (classic features plus brain stem and/or cerebellar involvement),3 overlap syndromes (for example, classic features with refractory epilepsy/limbic encephalitis), and probably the most severe phenotype, progressive encephalomyelitis with rigidity and myoclonus.

Early and aggressive therapy with benzodiazepines and other GABA-ergic agonists, as well as immune-based treatments, is considered critical to slowing progression of SPSD. However, the insidious onset of what is often a cluster of vague, nonspecific symptoms is a challenge for clinicians to recognize.

“When a patient comes in with muscular spasms, with stiffness in the back, in the legs, and it’s unexplained and it’s not due to spinal cord disease, or multiple sclerosis ... think SPSD,” said Dr. Dalakas. “Check antibodies – that’s the first thing to do.”

Antibody positivity is most helpful at high levels, he added; low titers can be present in autoimmune diabetes and other conditions, as previously mentioned. The real challenge? When a patient is seronegative.
 

Embarking on a diagnostic odyssey

Patients “bounce from one clinician to the next looking for answers,” said Dr. Newsome. “Patients will often start with their general practitioner and be referred to physical therapy, rheumatology, or orthopedics, and other specialists, which could include neurology and/or psychiatry, among others. SPSD is often not considered as a possible diagnosis until the patient develops more concrete symptoms and/or objective signs on exam. Of course, considering this diagnosis starts at knowing that it exists.”

Task-specific phobias and exaggerated acoustic startle or sensory reflex are specific symptoms that can red-flag some SPSD patients, said Dr. Dalakas. “Impaired GABA is also important for fears and anxiety. So, when you have a reduction of GABA you have more phobic neuroses – fear of crossing the street, fear of speaking in public, and they get very tense and they cannot perform.

“If the GABA-ergic pathways are dysfunctional, then there’s a relative hyper-excitability within the nervous system,” said Dr. Newsome. “This can be evaluated with electromyography. “The muscles are unhinged and going crazy: Agonists and antagonists are contracting together, which is abnormal. We will also assess for continuous motor unit potential activity within individual muscles – angry muscles just continuously firing. In our experience, this finding appears to be a pretty specific sign of SPS, especially in the torso.” Importantly, the sudden contraction of muscles along with stiffness can lead to traumatic falls, causing major orthopedic and brain injury.

In early stages of SPSD, a careful history and clinical exam is critical to try to shorten what Dr. Newsome calls the patient’s “diagnostic odyssey.”

“It behooves the clinician to put their hands on the patient. Check their back, their abdomen – try to feel for rigidity, paraspinal muscle spasms, and tightness. These regions of the body often have a ropey feel to them, which is due to chronic muscle spasms and tightness. Most [SPSD] patients will have this present in the thoracolumbar area,” he explained. “Check for hyperlordosis, as this is a hallmark sign on exam in SPSD. Additionally, patients can have rigidity and spasticity in their legs or arms. Also, patients with nonclassical phenotypes can present with a variety of other symptoms and findings on exam, including ataxia, nystagmus, ophthalmoparesis, and dysarthria.”

Lumbar puncture can sometimes reveal signs of inflammation, such as an elevated white blood cell count and oligoclonal bands in spinal fluid.

“The classic teaching was that you can only see such findings in conditions like multiple sclerosis, but that’s not the case,” said Dr. Newsome. “You can see these findings in other autoimmune conditions, including SPSD. Hence, as part of the workup, we will have patients undergo lumbar punctures to assess for these markers of autoimmunity.”

Other mimics of SPSD, including multiple sclerosis, tumors, and spinal stenosis, should be ruled out with MRI of the brain and spine.
 

Treatment options

Because of wide variability in signs and symptoms of the disorder, treatment of SPSD is a highly individualized cocktail of interventions, which might include immunotherapy and GABA-ergic agonists, as well as nonmedication treatments. The response to these agents can be difficult to quantify.

Benzodiazepines (diazepam, clonazepam, baclofen) along with other oral symptomatic treatments are often recommended as first-line therapy because of their ability to enhance GABA.⁴ 

First-line immunotherapy is usually intravenous immunoglobulin, steroids, or plasmapheresis. Second- and third-line agents include rituximab, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, and combination immune treatments.

Dr. Newsome and Dr. Dalakas have independently published a step-by-step therapeutic approach to SPSD.^3,5 But in patients with paraneoplastic stiff person syndrome, eradication of their cancer is critical, although, per Dr. Newsome, “this does not always cure SPS and most of these patients still have residual disability.”

But immune-based therapies are only part of what should be a multipronged treatment approach, said Dr. Newsome. He also strongly advocates for non-pharmacological interventions, such as selective physical therapy (stretching, ultrasound, and gait and balance training), heat therapy, aquatherapy, deep-tissue massage or myofascial techniques, osteopathic or chiropractic manipulation, acupuncture, and acupressure.³

Because SPSD is considered a progressive disorder for some, a reasonable goal of treatment is to prevent worsening, said Dr. Newsome. This can take time: “We don’t expect the treatments to work overnight. It involves consecutive months and, sometimes, a couple of years of immune treatment before you start to see it impact the person’s life favorably.”

Patients who are not well informed about the long-term goal of treatments might be tempted to abandon the treatments prematurely because they don’t see immediate results, Dr. Newsome added. Encouraging realistic expectations is also important, without dashing hopes.

“I have patients who were marathon runners, and they want to get back to doing marathons. I would love nothing more than for people to get back to their pre-SPSD levels of function. But this may not be a realistic goal. However, this does not mean that quality of life can’t be helped.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Newsome encourages clinicians to reassess regularly, especially because lack of disease biomarkers makes it hard to objectively monitor the impact of therapy.

“It’s always a good rule of thumb, especially in the rare disease space, to step back and ask: ‘Are we on the right treatment path or not?’ If we’re not, then it is important to make sure you have the correct diagnosis. Even when you have a patient who fits the textbook and you, yourself, diagnosed them, it is important to continue to re-evaluate the diagnosis over time, especially if there is consideration of changing treatments. It is also important to make sure there is not something else on top of the stiff person syndrome that is working in parallel to worsen their condition.”
 

Be alert for comorbidity

Undiagnosed comorbid conditions that can complicate SPSD include Parkinson’s disease or myasthenia gravis, to name a couple, which Dr. Newsome has seen more than once. “We’ve seen a few people over the years who have both SPSD and another autoimmune or degenerative neurological condition.”

Diabetes also co-occurs in approximately 30% of people with SPSD, said Dr. Dalakas. “Endocrinologists should also be aware of this connection.”

Paraneoplastic stiff person syndrome is thought to be triggered by cancer, which might not have been diagnosed, making it important to work up patients for malignancy – particularly breast cancer, small cell lung cancer, lymphoma, and thymoma, Dr. Newsome advised.

Although most cases of SPSD are diagnosed in mid-life, the disorder can occur in teenagers and the elderly.

“It’s not the first thing you think of when a 70-year-old patient comes with neck pain, so it’s missed more often, and the prognosis is worse,” Dr. Dalakas warned.
 

What does the future hold?

Like Dr. Newsome, Dr. Dalakas is encouraged when SPSD hits the headlines because, generally, awareness facilitates diagnosis and research. (Both clinicians serve on the medical advisory board of The Stiff Person Syndrome Research Foundation.)

“We are looking for better therapies that target immune factors,” said Dr. Dalakas. “There are several of those that are relevant, so we need to select the best immune marker that we think plays a role in the antibody production,” he said.

“There’s a lot of hope – at least I have a lot of hope for what the future holds with SPSD,” added Dr. Newsome. “More research is needed and it starts with awareness of SPSD.”

Dr. Newsome discloses that he has received consulting fees for serving on scientific advisory boards of Biogen, Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Horizon Therapeutics, TG Therapeutics; is the study lead principal investigator for a Roche clinical trial; and has received research funding (paid directly to his employing institution) from Biogen, Roche, Lundbeck, Genentech, The Stiff Person Syndrome Research Foundation, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, U.S. Department of Defense, and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Dalakas reports nothing relevant to disclose.

References

1. Chia NH et al. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2023;10(7):1083-94. doi: 10.1002/acn3.51791.

2. Dalakas MC.. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2009;11(2):102-10. doi: 10.1007/s11940-009-0013-9.

3. Newsome SD and Johnson T. J Neuroimmunol. 2022;369:577915. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2022.577915.

4. Ortiz JF et al. Cureus. 2020;12(12):e11995. doi: 10.7759/cureus.11995.

5. Dalakas CD. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2023;10(3):e200109. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000200109.






 

When, in 2022, singer and international celebrity Celine Dion announced what she called her “one-in-a-million diagnosis” of stiff person syndrome, clinicians and medical scientists who specialize in the disorder took a deep breath. Scott D. Newsome, DO, professor of neurology and director of the Johns Hopkins Stiff Person Syndrome Center, Baltimore – a glass-half-full kind of person – saw in Ms. Dion’s worrying announcement a huge opportunity nonetheless: To raise awareness about the rare cluster of disorders known collectively as stiff person spectrum disorders (SPSD).

“Even at the clinician level, if you don’t know the hallmark signs and symptoms, you could possibly misdiagnose it,” Dr. Newsome said in an interview.

But misdiagnosis can go either way; increased awareness of SPSD can have a downside. Thirty years ago, when Marinos C. Dalakas, MD, first began studying SPSD, the diagnosis was frequently missed – “because people were not aware of it,” he said. But now, Dr. Dalakas, professor of neurology and director of the division of neuromuscular diseases in the department of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University and the Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, both in Philadelphia, said overdiagnosis is also a concern, particularly with increased public awareness.

“Just this last month I saw two patients who told me: ‘I read about it, and I believe I have symptoms of stiff person,’ ” he said.

Celebrity attention might be fueling higher suspicion of SPSD but the trend was already moving in that direction before the recent headlines. These days, most patients in whom SPSD is suspected end up with an alternate diagnosis. In a recent retrospective study that Dr. Dalakas coauthored, of 173 patients who had been referred to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., with suspected SPSD,¹ Dr. Dalakas and colleagues determined that only 48 (27.7%) actually had the disorder – meaning that the rest might have been unnecessarily exposed to immunosuppressive SPSD therapies and that treatment for their actual disorder (most often, a functional neurologic disorder or nonneurologic condition) was delayed.

At the root of both underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis of SPSD is the heterogeneity of the condition and a lack of definitive diagnostic markers.

SPSD has been considered an autoimmune disorder for a long time, and observations by Dr. Dalakas and others have shown that as many as 35% of cases co-occur with another autoimmune disease, such as vitiligo, celiac disease, rheumatologic disease, type 1 diabetes mellitus, and thyroid disease (Grave’s disease and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis).² A more recent study by his group observed an even higher rate (42%) of comorbid autoimmunity, with autoimmune thyroid disease being most common. However, although most cases of SPDS are characterized by an elevated level of glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD)65-IgG, these autoantibodies are not specific to SPSD (low levels are also seen in diabetes, thyroid disease, healthy controls, etc.). Some SPSD patients have less common autoantibodies and a minority has no autoantibodies. Dr. Newsome said seronegative cases and the antibody presence and titers not being associated with disease severity or treatment response are clues that “SPSD does not appear to be a primary antibody-mediated condition and that there must be other immune factors at play.”
 

Autoimmune process drives SPSD

Autoimmunity, even if not detected by serologic studies, is believed to inhibit expression of gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors, which, in turn, results in stiffness and spasms. Although what are known as “Dalakas criteria,” proposed in 2009,² describe the “classic” SPSD phenotype, encompassing roughly three-quarters of SPSD patients, there have now been other phenotypes proposed under SPSD, including isolated forms (stiff limb or trunk syndrome) and “nonclassic” phenotypes like SPS-plus (classic features plus brain stem and/or cerebellar involvement),3 overlap syndromes (for example, classic features with refractory epilepsy/limbic encephalitis), and probably the most severe phenotype, progressive encephalomyelitis with rigidity and myoclonus.

Early and aggressive therapy with benzodiazepines and other GABA-ergic agonists, as well as immune-based treatments, is considered critical to slowing progression of SPSD. However, the insidious onset of what is often a cluster of vague, nonspecific symptoms is a challenge for clinicians to recognize.

“When a patient comes in with muscular spasms, with stiffness in the back, in the legs, and it’s unexplained and it’s not due to spinal cord disease, or multiple sclerosis ... think SPSD,” said Dr. Dalakas. “Check antibodies – that’s the first thing to do.”

Antibody positivity is most helpful at high levels, he added; low titers can be present in autoimmune diabetes and other conditions, as previously mentioned. The real challenge? When a patient is seronegative.
 

Embarking on a diagnostic odyssey

Patients “bounce from one clinician to the next looking for answers,” said Dr. Newsome. “Patients will often start with their general practitioner and be referred to physical therapy, rheumatology, or orthopedics, and other specialists, which could include neurology and/or psychiatry, among others. SPSD is often not considered as a possible diagnosis until the patient develops more concrete symptoms and/or objective signs on exam. Of course, considering this diagnosis starts at knowing that it exists.”

Task-specific phobias and exaggerated acoustic startle or sensory reflex are specific symptoms that can red-flag some SPSD patients, said Dr. Dalakas. “Impaired GABA is also important for fears and anxiety. So, when you have a reduction of GABA you have more phobic neuroses – fear of crossing the street, fear of speaking in public, and they get very tense and they cannot perform.

“If the GABA-ergic pathways are dysfunctional, then there’s a relative hyper-excitability within the nervous system,” said Dr. Newsome. “This can be evaluated with electromyography. “The muscles are unhinged and going crazy: Agonists and antagonists are contracting together, which is abnormal. We will also assess for continuous motor unit potential activity within individual muscles – angry muscles just continuously firing. In our experience, this finding appears to be a pretty specific sign of SPS, especially in the torso.” Importantly, the sudden contraction of muscles along with stiffness can lead to traumatic falls, causing major orthopedic and brain injury.

In early stages of SPSD, a careful history and clinical exam is critical to try to shorten what Dr. Newsome calls the patient’s “diagnostic odyssey.”

“It behooves the clinician to put their hands on the patient. Check their back, their abdomen – try to feel for rigidity, paraspinal muscle spasms, and tightness. These regions of the body often have a ropey feel to them, which is due to chronic muscle spasms and tightness. Most [SPSD] patients will have this present in the thoracolumbar area,” he explained. “Check for hyperlordosis, as this is a hallmark sign on exam in SPSD. Additionally, patients can have rigidity and spasticity in their legs or arms. Also, patients with nonclassical phenotypes can present with a variety of other symptoms and findings on exam, including ataxia, nystagmus, ophthalmoparesis, and dysarthria.”

Lumbar puncture can sometimes reveal signs of inflammation, such as an elevated white blood cell count and oligoclonal bands in spinal fluid.

“The classic teaching was that you can only see such findings in conditions like multiple sclerosis, but that’s not the case,” said Dr. Newsome. “You can see these findings in other autoimmune conditions, including SPSD. Hence, as part of the workup, we will have patients undergo lumbar punctures to assess for these markers of autoimmunity.”

Other mimics of SPSD, including multiple sclerosis, tumors, and spinal stenosis, should be ruled out with MRI of the brain and spine.
 

Treatment options

Because of wide variability in signs and symptoms of the disorder, treatment of SPSD is a highly individualized cocktail of interventions, which might include immunotherapy and GABA-ergic agonists, as well as nonmedication treatments. The response to these agents can be difficult to quantify.

Benzodiazepines (diazepam, clonazepam, baclofen) along with other oral symptomatic treatments are often recommended as first-line therapy because of their ability to enhance GABA.⁴ 

First-line immunotherapy is usually intravenous immunoglobulin, steroids, or plasmapheresis. Second- and third-line agents include rituximab, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, and combination immune treatments.

Dr. Newsome and Dr. Dalakas have independently published a step-by-step therapeutic approach to SPSD.^3,5 But in patients with paraneoplastic stiff person syndrome, eradication of their cancer is critical, although, per Dr. Newsome, “this does not always cure SPS and most of these patients still have residual disability.”

But immune-based therapies are only part of what should be a multipronged treatment approach, said Dr. Newsome. He also strongly advocates for non-pharmacological interventions, such as selective physical therapy (stretching, ultrasound, and gait and balance training), heat therapy, aquatherapy, deep-tissue massage or myofascial techniques, osteopathic or chiropractic manipulation, acupuncture, and acupressure.³

Because SPSD is considered a progressive disorder for some, a reasonable goal of treatment is to prevent worsening, said Dr. Newsome. This can take time: “We don’t expect the treatments to work overnight. It involves consecutive months and, sometimes, a couple of years of immune treatment before you start to see it impact the person’s life favorably.”

Patients who are not well informed about the long-term goal of treatments might be tempted to abandon the treatments prematurely because they don’t see immediate results, Dr. Newsome added. Encouraging realistic expectations is also important, without dashing hopes.

“I have patients who were marathon runners, and they want to get back to doing marathons. I would love nothing more than for people to get back to their pre-SPSD levels of function. But this may not be a realistic goal. However, this does not mean that quality of life can’t be helped.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Newsome encourages clinicians to reassess regularly, especially because lack of disease biomarkers makes it hard to objectively monitor the impact of therapy.

“It’s always a good rule of thumb, especially in the rare disease space, to step back and ask: ‘Are we on the right treatment path or not?’ If we’re not, then it is important to make sure you have the correct diagnosis. Even when you have a patient who fits the textbook and you, yourself, diagnosed them, it is important to continue to re-evaluate the diagnosis over time, especially if there is consideration of changing treatments. It is also important to make sure there is not something else on top of the stiff person syndrome that is working in parallel to worsen their condition.”
 

Be alert for comorbidity

Undiagnosed comorbid conditions that can complicate SPSD include Parkinson’s disease or myasthenia gravis, to name a couple, which Dr. Newsome has seen more than once. “We’ve seen a few people over the years who have both SPSD and another autoimmune or degenerative neurological condition.”

Diabetes also co-occurs in approximately 30% of people with SPSD, said Dr. Dalakas. “Endocrinologists should also be aware of this connection.”

Paraneoplastic stiff person syndrome is thought to be triggered by cancer, which might not have been diagnosed, making it important to work up patients for malignancy – particularly breast cancer, small cell lung cancer, lymphoma, and thymoma, Dr. Newsome advised.

Although most cases of SPSD are diagnosed in mid-life, the disorder can occur in teenagers and the elderly.

“It’s not the first thing you think of when a 70-year-old patient comes with neck pain, so it’s missed more often, and the prognosis is worse,” Dr. Dalakas warned.
 

What does the future hold?

Like Dr. Newsome, Dr. Dalakas is encouraged when SPSD hits the headlines because, generally, awareness facilitates diagnosis and research. (Both clinicians serve on the medical advisory board of The Stiff Person Syndrome Research Foundation.)

“We are looking for better therapies that target immune factors,” said Dr. Dalakas. “There are several of those that are relevant, so we need to select the best immune marker that we think plays a role in the antibody production,” he said.

“There’s a lot of hope – at least I have a lot of hope for what the future holds with SPSD,” added Dr. Newsome. “More research is needed and it starts with awareness of SPSD.”

Dr. Newsome discloses that he has received consulting fees for serving on scientific advisory boards of Biogen, Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Horizon Therapeutics, TG Therapeutics; is the study lead principal investigator for a Roche clinical trial; and has received research funding (paid directly to his employing institution) from Biogen, Roche, Lundbeck, Genentech, The Stiff Person Syndrome Research Foundation, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, U.S. Department of Defense, and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Dalakas reports nothing relevant to disclose.

References

1. Chia NH et al. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2023;10(7):1083-94. doi: 10.1002/acn3.51791.

2. Dalakas MC.. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2009;11(2):102-10. doi: 10.1007/s11940-009-0013-9.

3. Newsome SD and Johnson T. J Neuroimmunol. 2022;369:577915. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2022.577915.

4. Ortiz JF et al. Cureus. 2020;12(12):e11995. doi: 10.7759/cureus.11995.

5. Dalakas CD. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2023;10(3):e200109. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000200109.






 

Lack of vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a significantly higher risk for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated status and boosted status, new evidence suggests.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study in Alberta, Edmonton, found that between late September 2021 and late January 2022, eligible unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had a nearly 10-fold higher risk for hospitalization than did patients who were fully vaccinated with two doses. Unvaccinated patients had a nearly 21-fold higher risk than did patients who were boosted with three doses.

“We have shown that eligible nonvaccinated persons, especially in the age strata 50-79 years, accounted for 3,000-4,000 potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 35,000-40,000 avoidable bed-days, and $100–$110 million [Canadian dollars] in avoidable health care costs during a 120-day period coinciding with the fourth (Delta) and fifth (Omicron) COVID-19 waves, respectively,” wrote Sean M. Bagshaw, MD, chair of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

‘Unsatisfactory’ vaccine uptake

While a previous study by Dr. Bagshaw and colleagues recently showed that higher vaccine uptake could have avoided significant intensive care unit admissions and costs, the researchers sought to expand their analysis to include non-ICU use.

The current study examined data from the government of Alberta and the Discharge Abstract Database to assess vaccination status and hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19. 

During the study period, “societal factors contributed to an unsatisfactory voluntary vaccine uptake, particularly in the province of Alberta,” wrote the authors, adding that “only 63.7% and 2.7% of the eligible population in Alberta [had] received two (full) and three (boosted) COVID-19 vaccine doses as of September 27, 2021.” 

The analysis found the highest number of hospitalizations among unvaccinated patients (n = 3,835), compared with vaccinated (n = 1,907) and boosted patients (n = 481). This finding yielded a risk ratio (RR) of hospitalization of 9.7 for unvaccinated patients, compared with fully vaccinated patients, and an RR of 20.6, compared with patients who were boosted. Unvaccinated patients aged 60-69 years had the highest RR for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated (RR, 16.4) and boosted patients (RR, 151.9).

The estimated number of avoidable hospitalizations for unvaccinated patients was 3,439 (total of 36,331 bed-days), compared with vaccinated patients, and 3,764 (total of 40,185 bed-days), compared with boosted patients. 

The avoidable hospitalization-related costs for unvaccinated patients totaled $101.4 million (Canadian dollars) if they had been vaccinated and $110.24 million if they had been boosted.

“Moreover, strained hospital systems and the widespread adoption of crisis standards of care in response to surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations have contributed to unnecessary excess deaths,” wrote the authors. “These are preventable and missed public health opportunities that provoked massive health system disruptions and resource diversions, including deferral of routine health services (e.g., cancer and chronic disease screening and monitoring and scheduled vaccinations), postponement of scheduled procedures and surgeries, and redeployment of health care professionals.” 

Dr. Bagshaw said in an interview that he was not surprised by the findings. “However, I wonder whether the public and those who direct policy and make decisions about the health system would be interested in better understanding the scope and sheer disruption the health system suffered due to COVID-19,” he said.

The current study suggests that “at least some of this could have been avoided,” said Dr. Bagshaw. “I hope we – that is the public, users of the health system, decision-makers and health care professionals – can learn from our experiences.” Studies such as the current analysis “will reinforce the importance of timely and clearly articulated public health promotion, education, and policy,” he added.
 

Economic benefit underestimated

Commenting on the study, David Fisman, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist and professor at the University of Toronto, said: “The approach these investigators have taken is clear and straightforward. It is easy to reproduce. It is also entirely consistent with what other scientific groups have been demonstrating for a couple of years now.” Dr. Fisman was not involved with the study.

A group led by Dr. Fisman as senior author has just completed a study examining the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response, compared with responses in four peer countries. In the as-yet unpublished paper, the researchers concluded that “relative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306, and 13,641 deaths, respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted and 1 million QALY [quality-adjusted life-years] saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion, respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada.”

Dr. Fisman added that while the current researchers focused their study on the direct protective effects of vaccines, “we know that, even with initial waves of Omicron, vaccinated individuals continued to be protected against infection as well as disease, and even if they were infected, we know from household contact studies that they were less infectious to others. That means that even though the implicit estimate of cost savings that could have been achieved through better coverage are pretty high in this paper, the economic benefit of vaccination is underestimated in this analysis, because we can’t quantify the infections that never happened because of vaccination.”

The study was supported by the Strategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services. Dr. Bagshaw declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has taken part in advisory boards for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Merck vaccines during the past 3 years.

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

Lack of vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a significantly higher risk for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated status and boosted status, new evidence suggests.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study in Alberta, Edmonton, found that between late September 2021 and late January 2022, eligible unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had a nearly 10-fold higher risk for hospitalization than did patients who were fully vaccinated with two doses. Unvaccinated patients had a nearly 21-fold higher risk than did patients who were boosted with three doses.

“We have shown that eligible nonvaccinated persons, especially in the age strata 50-79 years, accounted for 3,000-4,000 potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 35,000-40,000 avoidable bed-days, and $100–$110 million [Canadian dollars] in avoidable health care costs during a 120-day period coinciding with the fourth (Delta) and fifth (Omicron) COVID-19 waves, respectively,” wrote Sean M. Bagshaw, MD, chair of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

‘Unsatisfactory’ vaccine uptake

While a previous study by Dr. Bagshaw and colleagues recently showed that higher vaccine uptake could have avoided significant intensive care unit admissions and costs, the researchers sought to expand their analysis to include non-ICU use.

The current study examined data from the government of Alberta and the Discharge Abstract Database to assess vaccination status and hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19. 

During the study period, “societal factors contributed to an unsatisfactory voluntary vaccine uptake, particularly in the province of Alberta,” wrote the authors, adding that “only 63.7% and 2.7% of the eligible population in Alberta [had] received two (full) and three (boosted) COVID-19 vaccine doses as of September 27, 2021.” 

The analysis found the highest number of hospitalizations among unvaccinated patients (n = 3,835), compared with vaccinated (n = 1,907) and boosted patients (n = 481). This finding yielded a risk ratio (RR) of hospitalization of 9.7 for unvaccinated patients, compared with fully vaccinated patients, and an RR of 20.6, compared with patients who were boosted. Unvaccinated patients aged 60-69 years had the highest RR for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated (RR, 16.4) and boosted patients (RR, 151.9).

The estimated number of avoidable hospitalizations for unvaccinated patients was 3,439 (total of 36,331 bed-days), compared with vaccinated patients, and 3,764 (total of 40,185 bed-days), compared with boosted patients. 

The avoidable hospitalization-related costs for unvaccinated patients totaled $101.4 million (Canadian dollars) if they had been vaccinated and $110.24 million if they had been boosted.

“Moreover, strained hospital systems and the widespread adoption of crisis standards of care in response to surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations have contributed to unnecessary excess deaths,” wrote the authors. “These are preventable and missed public health opportunities that provoked massive health system disruptions and resource diversions, including deferral of routine health services (e.g., cancer and chronic disease screening and monitoring and scheduled vaccinations), postponement of scheduled procedures and surgeries, and redeployment of health care professionals.” 

Dr. Bagshaw said in an interview that he was not surprised by the findings. “However, I wonder whether the public and those who direct policy and make decisions about the health system would be interested in better understanding the scope and sheer disruption the health system suffered due to COVID-19,” he said.

The current study suggests that “at least some of this could have been avoided,” said Dr. Bagshaw. “I hope we – that is the public, users of the health system, decision-makers and health care professionals – can learn from our experiences.” Studies such as the current analysis “will reinforce the importance of timely and clearly articulated public health promotion, education, and policy,” he added.
 

Economic benefit underestimated

Commenting on the study, David Fisman, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist and professor at the University of Toronto, said: “The approach these investigators have taken is clear and straightforward. It is easy to reproduce. It is also entirely consistent with what other scientific groups have been demonstrating for a couple of years now.” Dr. Fisman was not involved with the study.

A group led by Dr. Fisman as senior author has just completed a study examining the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response, compared with responses in four peer countries. In the as-yet unpublished paper, the researchers concluded that “relative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306, and 13,641 deaths, respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted and 1 million QALY [quality-adjusted life-years] saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion, respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada.”

Dr. Fisman added that while the current researchers focused their study on the direct protective effects of vaccines, “we know that, even with initial waves of Omicron, vaccinated individuals continued to be protected against infection as well as disease, and even if they were infected, we know from household contact studies that they were less infectious to others. That means that even though the implicit estimate of cost savings that could have been achieved through better coverage are pretty high in this paper, the economic benefit of vaccination is underestimated in this analysis, because we can’t quantify the infections that never happened because of vaccination.”

The study was supported by the Strategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services. Dr. Bagshaw declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has taken part in advisory boards for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Merck vaccines during the past 3 years.

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

Lack of vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a significantly higher risk for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated status and boosted status, new evidence suggests.

A retrospective, population-based cohort study in Alberta, Edmonton, found that between late September 2021 and late January 2022, eligible unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had a nearly 10-fold higher risk for hospitalization than did patients who were fully vaccinated with two doses. Unvaccinated patients had a nearly 21-fold higher risk than did patients who were boosted with three doses.

“We have shown that eligible nonvaccinated persons, especially in the age strata 50-79 years, accounted for 3,000-4,000 potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 35,000-40,000 avoidable bed-days, and $100–$110 million [Canadian dollars] in avoidable health care costs during a 120-day period coinciding with the fourth (Delta) and fifth (Omicron) COVID-19 waves, respectively,” wrote Sean M. Bagshaw, MD, chair of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and colleagues.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

‘Unsatisfactory’ vaccine uptake

While a previous study by Dr. Bagshaw and colleagues recently showed that higher vaccine uptake could have avoided significant intensive care unit admissions and costs, the researchers sought to expand their analysis to include non-ICU use.

The current study examined data from the government of Alberta and the Discharge Abstract Database to assess vaccination status and hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19. 

During the study period, “societal factors contributed to an unsatisfactory voluntary vaccine uptake, particularly in the province of Alberta,” wrote the authors, adding that “only 63.7% and 2.7% of the eligible population in Alberta [had] received two (full) and three (boosted) COVID-19 vaccine doses as of September 27, 2021.” 

The analysis found the highest number of hospitalizations among unvaccinated patients (n = 3,835), compared with vaccinated (n = 1,907) and boosted patients (n = 481). This finding yielded a risk ratio (RR) of hospitalization of 9.7 for unvaccinated patients, compared with fully vaccinated patients, and an RR of 20.6, compared with patients who were boosted. Unvaccinated patients aged 60-69 years had the highest RR for hospitalization, compared with vaccinated (RR, 16.4) and boosted patients (RR, 151.9).

The estimated number of avoidable hospitalizations for unvaccinated patients was 3,439 (total of 36,331 bed-days), compared with vaccinated patients, and 3,764 (total of 40,185 bed-days), compared with boosted patients. 

The avoidable hospitalization-related costs for unvaccinated patients totaled $101.4 million (Canadian dollars) if they had been vaccinated and $110.24 million if they had been boosted.

“Moreover, strained hospital systems and the widespread adoption of crisis standards of care in response to surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations have contributed to unnecessary excess deaths,” wrote the authors. “These are preventable and missed public health opportunities that provoked massive health system disruptions and resource diversions, including deferral of routine health services (e.g., cancer and chronic disease screening and monitoring and scheduled vaccinations), postponement of scheduled procedures and surgeries, and redeployment of health care professionals.” 

Dr. Bagshaw said in an interview that he was not surprised by the findings. “However, I wonder whether the public and those who direct policy and make decisions about the health system would be interested in better understanding the scope and sheer disruption the health system suffered due to COVID-19,” he said.

The current study suggests that “at least some of this could have been avoided,” said Dr. Bagshaw. “I hope we – that is the public, users of the health system, decision-makers and health care professionals – can learn from our experiences.” Studies such as the current analysis “will reinforce the importance of timely and clearly articulated public health promotion, education, and policy,” he added.
 

Economic benefit underestimated

Commenting on the study, David Fisman, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist and professor at the University of Toronto, said: “The approach these investigators have taken is clear and straightforward. It is easy to reproduce. It is also entirely consistent with what other scientific groups have been demonstrating for a couple of years now.” Dr. Fisman was not involved with the study.

A group led by Dr. Fisman as senior author has just completed a study examining the effectiveness of the Canadian pandemic response, compared with responses in four peer countries. In the as-yet unpublished paper, the researchers concluded that “relative to the United States, United Kingdom, and France, the Canadian pandemic response was estimated to have averted 94,492, 64,306, and 13,641 deaths, respectively, with more than 480,000 hospitalizations averted and 1 million QALY [quality-adjusted life-years] saved, relative to the United States. A United States pandemic response applied to Canada would have resulted in more than $40 billion in economic losses due to healthcare expenditures and lost QALY; losses relative to the United Kingdom and France would have been $21 billion and $5 billion, respectively. By contrast, an Australian pandemic response would have averted over 28,000 additional deaths and averted nearly $9 billion in costs in Canada.”

Dr. Fisman added that while the current researchers focused their study on the direct protective effects of vaccines, “we know that, even with initial waves of Omicron, vaccinated individuals continued to be protected against infection as well as disease, and even if they were infected, we know from household contact studies that they were less infectious to others. That means that even though the implicit estimate of cost savings that could have been achieved through better coverage are pretty high in this paper, the economic benefit of vaccination is underestimated in this analysis, because we can’t quantify the infections that never happened because of vaccination.”

The study was supported by the Strategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services. Dr. Bagshaw declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has taken part in advisory boards for Seqirus, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Merck vaccines during the past 3 years.

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

Solriamfetol (Sunosi), a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, is probably more effective than other wakefulness-promoting medications in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who have residual daytime sleepiness after conventional treatment, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In a systematic review of 14 trials that included more than 3,000 patients, solriamfetol was associated with improvements of 3.85 points on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score, compared with placebo.

“We found that solriamfetol is almost twice as effective as modafinil-armodafinil – the cheaper, older option – in improving the ESS score and much more effective at improving the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT),” study author Tyler Pitre, MD, an internal medicine physician at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

High-certainty evidence

The analysis included 3,085 adults with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) who were receiving or were eligible for conventional OSA treatment such as positive airway pressure. Participants were randomly assigned to either placebo or any EDS pharmacotherapy (armodafinil, modafinil, solriamfetol, or pitolisant). The primary outcomes of the analysis were change in ESS and MWT. Secondary outcomes were drug-related adverse events.

©Digitial Vision/Thinkstockphotos.com

The trials had a median follow-up time of 4 weeks. The meta-analysis showed that solriamfetol improves ESS to a greater extent than placebo (high certainty), armodafinil-modafinil and pitolisant (moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, the mean difference in ESS scores for solriamfetol, armodafinil-modafinil, and pitolisant was –3.85, –2.25, and –2.78, respectively.

The analysis yielded high-certainty evidence that solriamfetol and armodafinil-modafinil improved MWT, compared with placebo. The former was “probably superior,” while pitolisant “may have little to no effect on MWT, compared with placebo,” write the authors. The standardized mean difference in MWT scores, compared with placebo, was 0.90 for solriamfetol and 0.41 for armodafinil-modafinil. “Solriamfetol is probably superior to armodafinil-modafinil in improving MWT (SMD, 0.49),” say the authors.

Compared with placebo, armodafinil-modafinil probably increases the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (relative risk, 2.01), and solriamfetol may increase the risk for discontinuation (RR, 2.04), according to the authors. Pitolisant “may have little to no effect on drug discontinuations due to adverse events,” write the authors.

Although solriamfetol may have led to more discontinuations than armodafinil-modafinil, “we did not find convincing evidence of serious adverse events, albeit with very short-term follow-up,” they add.

The most common side effects for all interventions were headaches, insomnia, and anxiety. Headaches were most likely with armodafinil-modafinil (RR, 1.87), and insomnia was most likely with pitolisant (RR, 7.25).

“Although solriamfetol appears most effective, comorbid hypertension and costs may be barriers to its use,” say the researchers. “Furthermore, there are potentially effective candidate therapies such as methylphenidate, atomoxetine, or caffeine, which have not been examined in randomized clinical trials.”

Although EDS is reported in 40%-58% of patients with OSA and can persist in 6%-18% despite PAP therapy, most non-sleep specialists may not be aware of pharmacologic options, said Dr. Pitre. “I have not seen a study that looks at the prescribing habits of physicians for this condition, but I suspect that primary care physicians are not prescribing modafinil-armodafinil frequently for this and less so for solriamfetol,” he said. “I hope this paper builds awareness of this condition and also informs clinicians on the options available to patients, as well as common side effects to counsel them on before starting treatment.” 

Dr. Pitre was surprised at the magnitude of solriamfetol’s superiority to modafinil-armodafinil but cautioned that solriamfetol has been shown to increase blood pressure in higher doses. It therefore must be prescribed carefully, “especially to a population of patients who often have comorbid hypertension,” he said.

Some limitations of the analysis were that all trials were conducted in high-income countries (most commonly the United States). Moreover, 77% of participants were White, and 71% were male.
 

Beneficial adjunctive therapy

Commenting on the findings, Sogol Javaheri, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research, said that they confirm those of prior studies and are “consistent with what my colleagues and I experience in our clinical practices.”

Dr. Javaheri is associate program director of the sleep medicine fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

While sleep medicine specialists are more likely than others to prescribe these medications, “any clinician may use these medications, ideally if they have ruled out other potential reversible causes of EDS,” said Dr. Javaheri. “The medications do not treat the underlying cause, which is why it’s important to use them as an adjunct to conventional therapy that actually treats the underlying sleep disorder and to rule out additional potential causes of sleepiness that are treatable.”

These potential causes might include insufficient sleep (less than 7 hours per night), untreated anemia, and incompletely treated sleep disorders, she explained. In sleep medicine, modafinil is usually the treatment of choice because of its lower cost, but it may reduce the efficacy of hormonal contraception. Solriamfetol, however, does not. “Additionally, I look forward to validation of pitolisant for treatment of EDS in OSA patients, as it is not a controlled substance and may benefit patients with a history of substance abuse or who may be at higher risk of addiction,” said Dr. Javaheri.

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Pitre and Dr. Javaheri report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Solriamfetol (Sunosi), a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, is probably more effective than other wakefulness-promoting medications in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who have residual daytime sleepiness after conventional treatment, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In a systematic review of 14 trials that included more than 3,000 patients, solriamfetol was associated with improvements of 3.85 points on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score, compared with placebo.

“We found that solriamfetol is almost twice as effective as modafinil-armodafinil – the cheaper, older option – in improving the ESS score and much more effective at improving the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT),” study author Tyler Pitre, MD, an internal medicine physician at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

High-certainty evidence

The analysis included 3,085 adults with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) who were receiving or were eligible for conventional OSA treatment such as positive airway pressure. Participants were randomly assigned to either placebo or any EDS pharmacotherapy (armodafinil, modafinil, solriamfetol, or pitolisant). The primary outcomes of the analysis were change in ESS and MWT. Secondary outcomes were drug-related adverse events.

©Digitial Vision/Thinkstockphotos.com

The trials had a median follow-up time of 4 weeks. The meta-analysis showed that solriamfetol improves ESS to a greater extent than placebo (high certainty), armodafinil-modafinil and pitolisant (moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, the mean difference in ESS scores for solriamfetol, armodafinil-modafinil, and pitolisant was –3.85, –2.25, and –2.78, respectively.

The analysis yielded high-certainty evidence that solriamfetol and armodafinil-modafinil improved MWT, compared with placebo. The former was “probably superior,” while pitolisant “may have little to no effect on MWT, compared with placebo,” write the authors. The standardized mean difference in MWT scores, compared with placebo, was 0.90 for solriamfetol and 0.41 for armodafinil-modafinil. “Solriamfetol is probably superior to armodafinil-modafinil in improving MWT (SMD, 0.49),” say the authors.

Compared with placebo, armodafinil-modafinil probably increases the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (relative risk, 2.01), and solriamfetol may increase the risk for discontinuation (RR, 2.04), according to the authors. Pitolisant “may have little to no effect on drug discontinuations due to adverse events,” write the authors.

Although solriamfetol may have led to more discontinuations than armodafinil-modafinil, “we did not find convincing evidence of serious adverse events, albeit with very short-term follow-up,” they add.

The most common side effects for all interventions were headaches, insomnia, and anxiety. Headaches were most likely with armodafinil-modafinil (RR, 1.87), and insomnia was most likely with pitolisant (RR, 7.25).

“Although solriamfetol appears most effective, comorbid hypertension and costs may be barriers to its use,” say the researchers. “Furthermore, there are potentially effective candidate therapies such as methylphenidate, atomoxetine, or caffeine, which have not been examined in randomized clinical trials.”

Although EDS is reported in 40%-58% of patients with OSA and can persist in 6%-18% despite PAP therapy, most non-sleep specialists may not be aware of pharmacologic options, said Dr. Pitre. “I have not seen a study that looks at the prescribing habits of physicians for this condition, but I suspect that primary care physicians are not prescribing modafinil-armodafinil frequently for this and less so for solriamfetol,” he said. “I hope this paper builds awareness of this condition and also informs clinicians on the options available to patients, as well as common side effects to counsel them on before starting treatment.” 

Dr. Pitre was surprised at the magnitude of solriamfetol’s superiority to modafinil-armodafinil but cautioned that solriamfetol has been shown to increase blood pressure in higher doses. It therefore must be prescribed carefully, “especially to a population of patients who often have comorbid hypertension,” he said.

Some limitations of the analysis were that all trials were conducted in high-income countries (most commonly the United States). Moreover, 77% of participants were White, and 71% were male.
 

Beneficial adjunctive therapy

Commenting on the findings, Sogol Javaheri, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research, said that they confirm those of prior studies and are “consistent with what my colleagues and I experience in our clinical practices.”

Dr. Javaheri is associate program director of the sleep medicine fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

While sleep medicine specialists are more likely than others to prescribe these medications, “any clinician may use these medications, ideally if they have ruled out other potential reversible causes of EDS,” said Dr. Javaheri. “The medications do not treat the underlying cause, which is why it’s important to use them as an adjunct to conventional therapy that actually treats the underlying sleep disorder and to rule out additional potential causes of sleepiness that are treatable.”

These potential causes might include insufficient sleep (less than 7 hours per night), untreated anemia, and incompletely treated sleep disorders, she explained. In sleep medicine, modafinil is usually the treatment of choice because of its lower cost, but it may reduce the efficacy of hormonal contraception. Solriamfetol, however, does not. “Additionally, I look forward to validation of pitolisant for treatment of EDS in OSA patients, as it is not a controlled substance and may benefit patients with a history of substance abuse or who may be at higher risk of addiction,” said Dr. Javaheri.

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Pitre and Dr. Javaheri report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Solriamfetol (Sunosi), a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, is probably more effective than other wakefulness-promoting medications in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who have residual daytime sleepiness after conventional treatment, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In a systematic review of 14 trials that included more than 3,000 patients, solriamfetol was associated with improvements of 3.85 points on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score, compared with placebo.

“We found that solriamfetol is almost twice as effective as modafinil-armodafinil – the cheaper, older option – in improving the ESS score and much more effective at improving the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT),” study author Tyler Pitre, MD, an internal medicine physician at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

High-certainty evidence

The analysis included 3,085 adults with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) who were receiving or were eligible for conventional OSA treatment such as positive airway pressure. Participants were randomly assigned to either placebo or any EDS pharmacotherapy (armodafinil, modafinil, solriamfetol, or pitolisant). The primary outcomes of the analysis were change in ESS and MWT. Secondary outcomes were drug-related adverse events.

©Digitial Vision/Thinkstockphotos.com

The trials had a median follow-up time of 4 weeks. The meta-analysis showed that solriamfetol improves ESS to a greater extent than placebo (high certainty), armodafinil-modafinil and pitolisant (moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, the mean difference in ESS scores for solriamfetol, armodafinil-modafinil, and pitolisant was –3.85, –2.25, and –2.78, respectively.

The analysis yielded high-certainty evidence that solriamfetol and armodafinil-modafinil improved MWT, compared with placebo. The former was “probably superior,” while pitolisant “may have little to no effect on MWT, compared with placebo,” write the authors. The standardized mean difference in MWT scores, compared with placebo, was 0.90 for solriamfetol and 0.41 for armodafinil-modafinil. “Solriamfetol is probably superior to armodafinil-modafinil in improving MWT (SMD, 0.49),” say the authors.

Compared with placebo, armodafinil-modafinil probably increases the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (relative risk, 2.01), and solriamfetol may increase the risk for discontinuation (RR, 2.04), according to the authors. Pitolisant “may have little to no effect on drug discontinuations due to adverse events,” write the authors.

Although solriamfetol may have led to more discontinuations than armodafinil-modafinil, “we did not find convincing evidence of serious adverse events, albeit with very short-term follow-up,” they add.

The most common side effects for all interventions were headaches, insomnia, and anxiety. Headaches were most likely with armodafinil-modafinil (RR, 1.87), and insomnia was most likely with pitolisant (RR, 7.25).

“Although solriamfetol appears most effective, comorbid hypertension and costs may be barriers to its use,” say the researchers. “Furthermore, there are potentially effective candidate therapies such as methylphenidate, atomoxetine, or caffeine, which have not been examined in randomized clinical trials.”

Although EDS is reported in 40%-58% of patients with OSA and can persist in 6%-18% despite PAP therapy, most non-sleep specialists may not be aware of pharmacologic options, said Dr. Pitre. “I have not seen a study that looks at the prescribing habits of physicians for this condition, but I suspect that primary care physicians are not prescribing modafinil-armodafinil frequently for this and less so for solriamfetol,” he said. “I hope this paper builds awareness of this condition and also informs clinicians on the options available to patients, as well as common side effects to counsel them on before starting treatment.” 

Dr. Pitre was surprised at the magnitude of solriamfetol’s superiority to modafinil-armodafinil but cautioned that solriamfetol has been shown to increase blood pressure in higher doses. It therefore must be prescribed carefully, “especially to a population of patients who often have comorbid hypertension,” he said.

Some limitations of the analysis were that all trials were conducted in high-income countries (most commonly the United States). Moreover, 77% of participants were White, and 71% were male.
 

Beneficial adjunctive therapy

Commenting on the findings, Sogol Javaheri, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research, said that they confirm those of prior studies and are “consistent with what my colleagues and I experience in our clinical practices.”

Dr. Javaheri is associate program director of the sleep medicine fellowship at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

While sleep medicine specialists are more likely than others to prescribe these medications, “any clinician may use these medications, ideally if they have ruled out other potential reversible causes of EDS,” said Dr. Javaheri. “The medications do not treat the underlying cause, which is why it’s important to use them as an adjunct to conventional therapy that actually treats the underlying sleep disorder and to rule out additional potential causes of sleepiness that are treatable.”

These potential causes might include insufficient sleep (less than 7 hours per night), untreated anemia, and incompletely treated sleep disorders, she explained. In sleep medicine, modafinil is usually the treatment of choice because of its lower cost, but it may reduce the efficacy of hormonal contraception. Solriamfetol, however, does not. “Additionally, I look forward to validation of pitolisant for treatment of EDS in OSA patients, as it is not a controlled substance and may benefit patients with a history of substance abuse or who may be at higher risk of addiction,” said Dr. Javaheri.

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Pitre and Dr. Javaheri report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to four or more CT scans before age 18 years is associated with more than double the risk for certain cancers into early adulthood, data indicate.
 

In a population-based case-control study that included more than 85,000 participants, researchers found a ninefold increased risk of intracranial tumors among children who received four or more CT scans.

The results “indicate that judicious CT usage and radiation-reducing techniques should be advocated,” Yu-Hsuan Joni Shao, PhD, professor of biomedical informatics at Taipei (Taiwan) Medical University, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Dose-response relationship

The investigators used the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify 7,807 patients under age 25 years with intracranial tumors (grades I-IV), leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, or Hodgkin lymphomas that had been diagnosed in a 14-year span between the years 2000 and 2013. They matched each case with 10 control participants without cancer by sex, date of birth, and date of entry into the cohort.

Radiation exposure was calculated for each patient according to number and type of CT scans received and an estimated organ-specific cumulative dose based on previously published models. The investigators excluded patients from the analysis if they had a diagnosis of any malignant disease before the study period or if they had any cancer-predisposing conditions, such as Down syndrome (which entails an increased risk of leukemia) or immunodeficiency (which may require multiple CT scans).

Compared with no exposure, exposure to a single pediatric CT scan was not associated with increased cancer risk. Exposure to two to three CT scans, however, was associated with an increased risk for intracranial tumour (adjusted odds ratio, 2.36), but not for leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or Hodgkin lymphoma.  Exposure to four or more CT scans was associated with increased risk for intracranial tumor (aOR, 9.01), leukemia (aOR, 4.80), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 6.76), but not for Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers also found a dose-response relationship. Participants in the top quintile of cumulative brain radiation dose had a significantly higher risk for intracranial tumor, compared with nonexposed participants (aOR, 3.61), although this relationship was not seen with the other cancers.

Age at exposure was also a significant factor. Children exposed to four or more CT scans at or before age 6 years had the highest risk for cancer (aOR, 22.95), followed by the same number of scans in those aged 7-12 years (aOR, 5.69) and those aged 13-18 years (aOR, 3.20).

The authors noted that, although these cancers are uncommon in children, “our work reinforces the importance of radiation protection strategies, addressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unnecessary CT scans should be avoided, and special attention should be paid to patients who require repeated CT scans. Parents and pediatric patients should be well informed on risks and benefits before radiological procedures and encouraged to participate in decision-making around imaging.”
 

True risks underestimated?  

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD, a radiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on the impact of CT scans on patient outcomes, said that she trusts the authors’ overall findings. But “because of the direction of their biases,” the study design “doesn’t let me accept their conclusion that one CT does not elevate the risk.

“It’s an interesting study that found the risk of brain cancer is more than doubled in children who undergo two or more CT scans, but in many ways, their assumptions will underestimate the true risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman, who is a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at UCSF. She said reasons for this include the fact that the investigators used estimated, rather than actual radiation doses; that their estimates “reflect doses far lower than we have found actually occur in clinical practice”; that they do not differentiate between a low-dose or a high-dose CT; and that that they include a long, 3-year lag during which leukemia can develop after a CT scan.

“They did a lot of really well-done adjustments to ensure that they were not overestimating risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman. “They made sure to delete children who had cancer susceptibility syndrome, they included a lag of 3 years, assuming that there could be hidden cancers for up to 3 years after the first imaging study when they might have had a preexisting cancer. These are decisions that ensure that any cancer risk they find is real, but it also means that the risks that are estimated are almost certainly an underestimate of the true risks.”

The study was conducted without external funding. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Smith-Bindman is a cofounder of Alara Imaging, a company focused on collecting and reporting radiation dose information associated with CT.

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

Exposure to four or more CT scans before age 18 years is associated with more than double the risk for certain cancers into early adulthood, data indicate.
 

In a population-based case-control study that included more than 85,000 participants, researchers found a ninefold increased risk of intracranial tumors among children who received four or more CT scans.

The results “indicate that judicious CT usage and radiation-reducing techniques should be advocated,” Yu-Hsuan Joni Shao, PhD, professor of biomedical informatics at Taipei (Taiwan) Medical University, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Dose-response relationship

The investigators used the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify 7,807 patients under age 25 years with intracranial tumors (grades I-IV), leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, or Hodgkin lymphomas that had been diagnosed in a 14-year span between the years 2000 and 2013. They matched each case with 10 control participants without cancer by sex, date of birth, and date of entry into the cohort.

Radiation exposure was calculated for each patient according to number and type of CT scans received and an estimated organ-specific cumulative dose based on previously published models. The investigators excluded patients from the analysis if they had a diagnosis of any malignant disease before the study period or if they had any cancer-predisposing conditions, such as Down syndrome (which entails an increased risk of leukemia) or immunodeficiency (which may require multiple CT scans).

Compared with no exposure, exposure to a single pediatric CT scan was not associated with increased cancer risk. Exposure to two to three CT scans, however, was associated with an increased risk for intracranial tumour (adjusted odds ratio, 2.36), but not for leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or Hodgkin lymphoma.  Exposure to four or more CT scans was associated with increased risk for intracranial tumor (aOR, 9.01), leukemia (aOR, 4.80), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 6.76), but not for Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers also found a dose-response relationship. Participants in the top quintile of cumulative brain radiation dose had a significantly higher risk for intracranial tumor, compared with nonexposed participants (aOR, 3.61), although this relationship was not seen with the other cancers.

Age at exposure was also a significant factor. Children exposed to four or more CT scans at or before age 6 years had the highest risk for cancer (aOR, 22.95), followed by the same number of scans in those aged 7-12 years (aOR, 5.69) and those aged 13-18 years (aOR, 3.20).

The authors noted that, although these cancers are uncommon in children, “our work reinforces the importance of radiation protection strategies, addressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unnecessary CT scans should be avoided, and special attention should be paid to patients who require repeated CT scans. Parents and pediatric patients should be well informed on risks and benefits before radiological procedures and encouraged to participate in decision-making around imaging.”
 

True risks underestimated?  

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD, a radiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on the impact of CT scans on patient outcomes, said that she trusts the authors’ overall findings. But “because of the direction of their biases,” the study design “doesn’t let me accept their conclusion that one CT does not elevate the risk.

“It’s an interesting study that found the risk of brain cancer is more than doubled in children who undergo two or more CT scans, but in many ways, their assumptions will underestimate the true risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman, who is a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at UCSF. She said reasons for this include the fact that the investigators used estimated, rather than actual radiation doses; that their estimates “reflect doses far lower than we have found actually occur in clinical practice”; that they do not differentiate between a low-dose or a high-dose CT; and that that they include a long, 3-year lag during which leukemia can develop after a CT scan.

“They did a lot of really well-done adjustments to ensure that they were not overestimating risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman. “They made sure to delete children who had cancer susceptibility syndrome, they included a lag of 3 years, assuming that there could be hidden cancers for up to 3 years after the first imaging study when they might have had a preexisting cancer. These are decisions that ensure that any cancer risk they find is real, but it also means that the risks that are estimated are almost certainly an underestimate of the true risks.”

The study was conducted without external funding. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Smith-Bindman is a cofounder of Alara Imaging, a company focused on collecting and reporting radiation dose information associated with CT.

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

Exposure to four or more CT scans before age 18 years is associated with more than double the risk for certain cancers into early adulthood, data indicate.
 

In a population-based case-control study that included more than 85,000 participants, researchers found a ninefold increased risk of intracranial tumors among children who received four or more CT scans.

The results “indicate that judicious CT usage and radiation-reducing techniques should be advocated,” Yu-Hsuan Joni Shao, PhD, professor of biomedical informatics at Taipei (Taiwan) Medical University, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Dose-response relationship

The investigators used the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify 7,807 patients under age 25 years with intracranial tumors (grades I-IV), leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, or Hodgkin lymphomas that had been diagnosed in a 14-year span between the years 2000 and 2013. They matched each case with 10 control participants without cancer by sex, date of birth, and date of entry into the cohort.

Radiation exposure was calculated for each patient according to number and type of CT scans received and an estimated organ-specific cumulative dose based on previously published models. The investigators excluded patients from the analysis if they had a diagnosis of any malignant disease before the study period or if they had any cancer-predisposing conditions, such as Down syndrome (which entails an increased risk of leukemia) or immunodeficiency (which may require multiple CT scans).

Compared with no exposure, exposure to a single pediatric CT scan was not associated with increased cancer risk. Exposure to two to three CT scans, however, was associated with an increased risk for intracranial tumour (adjusted odds ratio, 2.36), but not for leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or Hodgkin lymphoma.  Exposure to four or more CT scans was associated with increased risk for intracranial tumor (aOR, 9.01), leukemia (aOR, 4.80), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 6.76), but not for Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers also found a dose-response relationship. Participants in the top quintile of cumulative brain radiation dose had a significantly higher risk for intracranial tumor, compared with nonexposed participants (aOR, 3.61), although this relationship was not seen with the other cancers.

Age at exposure was also a significant factor. Children exposed to four or more CT scans at or before age 6 years had the highest risk for cancer (aOR, 22.95), followed by the same number of scans in those aged 7-12 years (aOR, 5.69) and those aged 13-18 years (aOR, 3.20).

The authors noted that, although these cancers are uncommon in children, “our work reinforces the importance of radiation protection strategies, addressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unnecessary CT scans should be avoided, and special attention should be paid to patients who require repeated CT scans. Parents and pediatric patients should be well informed on risks and benefits before radiological procedures and encouraged to participate in decision-making around imaging.”
 

True risks underestimated?  

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD, a radiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on the impact of CT scans on patient outcomes, said that she trusts the authors’ overall findings. But “because of the direction of their biases,” the study design “doesn’t let me accept their conclusion that one CT does not elevate the risk.

“It’s an interesting study that found the risk of brain cancer is more than doubled in children who undergo two or more CT scans, but in many ways, their assumptions will underestimate the true risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman, who is a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at UCSF. She said reasons for this include the fact that the investigators used estimated, rather than actual radiation doses; that their estimates “reflect doses far lower than we have found actually occur in clinical practice”; that they do not differentiate between a low-dose or a high-dose CT; and that that they include a long, 3-year lag during which leukemia can develop after a CT scan.

“They did a lot of really well-done adjustments to ensure that they were not overestimating risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman. “They made sure to delete children who had cancer susceptibility syndrome, they included a lag of 3 years, assuming that there could be hidden cancers for up to 3 years after the first imaging study when they might have had a preexisting cancer. These are decisions that ensure that any cancer risk they find is real, but it also means that the risks that are estimated are almost certainly an underestimate of the true risks.”

The study was conducted without external funding. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Smith-Bindman is a cofounder of Alara Imaging, a company focused on collecting and reporting radiation dose information associated with CT.

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

Although the past 30 years have stirred up a whirlwind of neurological research that has dramatically expanded therapeutic options for patients with epilepsy, historical pioneers in the field might be disappointed at the fact that treatment response has remained stubbornly stagnant. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” they might say: The more things change, the more they stay the same. In fact, since 1993, despite an explosion of third-generation drugs, an abundance of new surgical approaches, and a whole new category of treatment in the form of neurostimulation devices, response rates in epilepsy have not budged, with roughly two-thirds of patients achieving seizure freedom and a third still struggling with treatment resistance.

But if you widen the lens and look towards the horizon, things are “on the cusp and going like a rocket,” said Jacqueline A. French, MD, professor of neurology in the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at NYU Langone Health, New York. While treatment response rates may be stuck, adverse effects of those treatments have plummeted, and even treatment-resistant patients dealing with residual seizures live a much freer life with far fewer and less serious episodes.
 

Simpler times

In the late 1980s, just as Dr. French was finishing her second epilepsy fellowship at Yale, it was “almost laughable that things were so simple,” she recalls. “There were a few major centers that were doing epilepsy surgery … and in the world of medication, there were just five major drugs: phenobarbital, primidone, carbamazepine, phenytoin, and valproate.” That all changed as she was settling in to her first academic position at the University of Pennsylvania, with the “explosive” introduction of felbamate, a new antiseizure drug whose precipitous rise and fall from favor cast a sobering shadow which set the course for future drug development in the field.

“The felbamate story has a lot to do with what came after, but it was a drug that was much more advantageous in regards to a lot of the things that we didn’t like about antiseizure medicines or antiepileptic drugs as we called them at that time,” she said. The older drugs affected the cerebellum, making people sleepy and unable to concentrate. They also came with the risk of serious adverse effects such as hepatic enzyme induction and teratogenicity. Not only was felbamate nonsedating, “it actually was a little bit alerting,” said Dr. French. “People felt so different and so great on it, and it was effective for some seizure types that we didn’t really have good drugs for.” Very quickly, felbamate became a first-line therapy. Within its first year on the market, 150,000 newly diagnosed patients were started on it, “which is unthinkable now,” she said.

Sure enough, it all came crashing down a year later, on Aug. 1, 1994, when the drug was urgently withdrawn by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration after being linked to the development of aplastic anemia. “There was a day that anybody who was there at the time will remember when we all got the news, that everybody had to be taken off the drug,” Dr. French recalled. “We spent the weekend in the chart room, looking chart by chart by chart, for who was on felbamate.”

Until then, Dr. French had been straddling the line between her interests in pharmacologic versus surgical treatments for epilepsy. In fact, during her second epilepsy fellowship, which was dedicated to surgery, she published “Characteristics of medial temporal lobe epilepsy” in Annals of Neurology, one of the most-cited papers of her career. “Epilepsy from the temporal lobe is the biggest and best shot on goal when you’re talking about sending somebody to epilepsy surgery and rendering them completely seizure free,” she said. “Early in my career at the University of Pennsylvania, it was all about identifying those patients. And you know, there is nothing more gratifying than taking somebody whose life has been devastated by frequent seizures, who is injuring themselves and not able to be independent, and doing a surgery, which is very safe, and then all the seizures are gone – which is probably why I was so excited by surgery at the time.”

For a while, in the early 1990s, temporal lobectomy eclipsed many of the other avenues in epilepsy treatment, but it too has given way to a much wider variety of more complex techniques, which may be less curative but more palliative.
 

More drug options

Meanwhile, the felbamate story had ignited debate in the field about safer drug development – pushing Dr. French into establishing what was then known as the Antiepileptic Drug Trials conference, later renamed the Epilepsy Therapies & Diagnostics Development Symposium – a forum that encouraged safer, but also swifter movement of drugs through the pipeline and onto the market. “After felbamate, came gabapentin, and then came to topiramate and lamotrigine, and very quickly there were many, many, many choices,” she explained. “But once stung, twice shy. Felbamate really gave us a new perspective on which patients we put on the new drugs. Now we have a process of starting them in people with treatment-resistant epilepsy first. The risk-benefit equation is more reasonable because they have lots of risks. And then we work our way back to people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.”

Disease-modifying therapies

Today, the medications used to treat epilepsy are referred to as antiseizure rather than antiepileptic drugs because they simply suppress seizure symptoms and do not address the cause. But the rocket that Dr. French is watching gain speed and momentum is the disease-modifying gene therapies – true antiepileptics that may significantly move the needle on the number and type of patients who can reach seizure freedom. “We spent the last 25 years not even thinking we would ever have antiepileptic therapies, and now in the last 5 years or so, we were pretty sure we will,” she said. “We have gene therapies that can intervene now – none yet that have actually reached approval, these are all currently in trials – but we certainly have high expectations that they will very soon be available.”

Improving patients’ lives

While gene therapy rockets ahead, new device developments are already improving life for patients, even despite ongoing seizures. A drug-delivering pump is still in trials, but could make a big difference to daily medication adherence, and wearable or implantable devices are being developed to track seizures. More accurate tracking has also revealed that many people’s seizures are actually quite predictable, with regular cycles allowing for the possibility of prophylactic medication when increased seizure activity is expected.

Despite 30 years of no change in the proportion of epilepsy patients experiencing treatment resistance, Dr. French said that drugs, devices, and surgeries have improved the lives of all patients – both treatment resistant and treatment sensitive. “The difference between almost seizure free and completely seizure free is a big one because it means you can’t drive, you may have difficulty with your employment, but being able to take a pill every day and feel otherwise completely normal? We’ve come a long way.”

Although the past 30 years have stirred up a whirlwind of neurological research that has dramatically expanded therapeutic options for patients with epilepsy, historical pioneers in the field might be disappointed at the fact that treatment response has remained stubbornly stagnant. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” they might say: The more things change, the more they stay the same. In fact, since 1993, despite an explosion of third-generation drugs, an abundance of new surgical approaches, and a whole new category of treatment in the form of neurostimulation devices, response rates in epilepsy have not budged, with roughly two-thirds of patients achieving seizure freedom and a third still struggling with treatment resistance.

But if you widen the lens and look towards the horizon, things are “on the cusp and going like a rocket,” said Jacqueline A. French, MD, professor of neurology in the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at NYU Langone Health, New York. While treatment response rates may be stuck, adverse effects of those treatments have plummeted, and even treatment-resistant patients dealing with residual seizures live a much freer life with far fewer and less serious episodes.
 

Simpler times

In the late 1980s, just as Dr. French was finishing her second epilepsy fellowship at Yale, it was “almost laughable that things were so simple,” she recalls. “There were a few major centers that were doing epilepsy surgery … and in the world of medication, there were just five major drugs: phenobarbital, primidone, carbamazepine, phenytoin, and valproate.” That all changed as she was settling in to her first academic position at the University of Pennsylvania, with the “explosive” introduction of felbamate, a new antiseizure drug whose precipitous rise and fall from favor cast a sobering shadow which set the course for future drug development in the field.

“The felbamate story has a lot to do with what came after, but it was a drug that was much more advantageous in regards to a lot of the things that we didn’t like about antiseizure medicines or antiepileptic drugs as we called them at that time,” she said. The older drugs affected the cerebellum, making people sleepy and unable to concentrate. They also came with the risk of serious adverse effects such as hepatic enzyme induction and teratogenicity. Not only was felbamate nonsedating, “it actually was a little bit alerting,” said Dr. French. “People felt so different and so great on it, and it was effective for some seizure types that we didn’t really have good drugs for.” Very quickly, felbamate became a first-line therapy. Within its first year on the market, 150,000 newly diagnosed patients were started on it, “which is unthinkable now,” she said.

Sure enough, it all came crashing down a year later, on Aug. 1, 1994, when the drug was urgently withdrawn by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration after being linked to the development of aplastic anemia. “There was a day that anybody who was there at the time will remember when we all got the news, that everybody had to be taken off the drug,” Dr. French recalled. “We spent the weekend in the chart room, looking chart by chart by chart, for who was on felbamate.”

Until then, Dr. French had been straddling the line between her interests in pharmacologic versus surgical treatments for epilepsy. In fact, during her second epilepsy fellowship, which was dedicated to surgery, she published “Characteristics of medial temporal lobe epilepsy” in Annals of Neurology, one of the most-cited papers of her career. “Epilepsy from the temporal lobe is the biggest and best shot on goal when you’re talking about sending somebody to epilepsy surgery and rendering them completely seizure free,” she said. “Early in my career at the University of Pennsylvania, it was all about identifying those patients. And you know, there is nothing more gratifying than taking somebody whose life has been devastated by frequent seizures, who is injuring themselves and not able to be independent, and doing a surgery, which is very safe, and then all the seizures are gone – which is probably why I was so excited by surgery at the time.”

For a while, in the early 1990s, temporal lobectomy eclipsed many of the other avenues in epilepsy treatment, but it too has given way to a much wider variety of more complex techniques, which may be less curative but more palliative.
 

More drug options

Meanwhile, the felbamate story had ignited debate in the field about safer drug development – pushing Dr. French into establishing what was then known as the Antiepileptic Drug Trials conference, later renamed the Epilepsy Therapies & Diagnostics Development Symposium – a forum that encouraged safer, but also swifter movement of drugs through the pipeline and onto the market. “After felbamate, came gabapentin, and then came to topiramate and lamotrigine, and very quickly there were many, many, many choices,” she explained. “But once stung, twice shy. Felbamate really gave us a new perspective on which patients we put on the new drugs. Now we have a process of starting them in people with treatment-resistant epilepsy first. The risk-benefit equation is more reasonable because they have lots of risks. And then we work our way back to people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.”

Disease-modifying therapies

Today, the medications used to treat epilepsy are referred to as antiseizure rather than antiepileptic drugs because they simply suppress seizure symptoms and do not address the cause. But the rocket that Dr. French is watching gain speed and momentum is the disease-modifying gene therapies – true antiepileptics that may significantly move the needle on the number and type of patients who can reach seizure freedom. “We spent the last 25 years not even thinking we would ever have antiepileptic therapies, and now in the last 5 years or so, we were pretty sure we will,” she said. “We have gene therapies that can intervene now – none yet that have actually reached approval, these are all currently in trials – but we certainly have high expectations that they will very soon be available.”

Improving patients’ lives

While gene therapy rockets ahead, new device developments are already improving life for patients, even despite ongoing seizures. A drug-delivering pump is still in trials, but could make a big difference to daily medication adherence, and wearable or implantable devices are being developed to track seizures. More accurate tracking has also revealed that many people’s seizures are actually quite predictable, with regular cycles allowing for the possibility of prophylactic medication when increased seizure activity is expected.

Despite 30 years of no change in the proportion of epilepsy patients experiencing treatment resistance, Dr. French said that drugs, devices, and surgeries have improved the lives of all patients – both treatment resistant and treatment sensitive. “The difference between almost seizure free and completely seizure free is a big one because it means you can’t drive, you may have difficulty with your employment, but being able to take a pill every day and feel otherwise completely normal? We’ve come a long way.”

Although the past 30 years have stirred up a whirlwind of neurological research that has dramatically expanded therapeutic options for patients with epilepsy, historical pioneers in the field might be disappointed at the fact that treatment response has remained stubbornly stagnant. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” they might say: The more things change, the more they stay the same. In fact, since 1993, despite an explosion of third-generation drugs, an abundance of new surgical approaches, and a whole new category of treatment in the form of neurostimulation devices, response rates in epilepsy have not budged, with roughly two-thirds of patients achieving seizure freedom and a third still struggling with treatment resistance.

But if you widen the lens and look towards the horizon, things are “on the cusp and going like a rocket,” said Jacqueline A. French, MD, professor of neurology in the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at NYU Langone Health, New York. While treatment response rates may be stuck, adverse effects of those treatments have plummeted, and even treatment-resistant patients dealing with residual seizures live a much freer life with far fewer and less serious episodes.
 

Simpler times

In the late 1980s, just as Dr. French was finishing her second epilepsy fellowship at Yale, it was “almost laughable that things were so simple,” she recalls. “There were a few major centers that were doing epilepsy surgery … and in the world of medication, there were just five major drugs: phenobarbital, primidone, carbamazepine, phenytoin, and valproate.” That all changed as she was settling in to her first academic position at the University of Pennsylvania, with the “explosive” introduction of felbamate, a new antiseizure drug whose precipitous rise and fall from favor cast a sobering shadow which set the course for future drug development in the field.

“The felbamate story has a lot to do with what came after, but it was a drug that was much more advantageous in regards to a lot of the things that we didn’t like about antiseizure medicines or antiepileptic drugs as we called them at that time,” she said. The older drugs affected the cerebellum, making people sleepy and unable to concentrate. They also came with the risk of serious adverse effects such as hepatic enzyme induction and teratogenicity. Not only was felbamate nonsedating, “it actually was a little bit alerting,” said Dr. French. “People felt so different and so great on it, and it was effective for some seizure types that we didn’t really have good drugs for.” Very quickly, felbamate became a first-line therapy. Within its first year on the market, 150,000 newly diagnosed patients were started on it, “which is unthinkable now,” she said.

Sure enough, it all came crashing down a year later, on Aug. 1, 1994, when the drug was urgently withdrawn by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration after being linked to the development of aplastic anemia. “There was a day that anybody who was there at the time will remember when we all got the news, that everybody had to be taken off the drug,” Dr. French recalled. “We spent the weekend in the chart room, looking chart by chart by chart, for who was on felbamate.”

Until then, Dr. French had been straddling the line between her interests in pharmacologic versus surgical treatments for epilepsy. In fact, during her second epilepsy fellowship, which was dedicated to surgery, she published “Characteristics of medial temporal lobe epilepsy” in Annals of Neurology, one of the most-cited papers of her career. “Epilepsy from the temporal lobe is the biggest and best shot on goal when you’re talking about sending somebody to epilepsy surgery and rendering them completely seizure free,” she said. “Early in my career at the University of Pennsylvania, it was all about identifying those patients. And you know, there is nothing more gratifying than taking somebody whose life has been devastated by frequent seizures, who is injuring themselves and not able to be independent, and doing a surgery, which is very safe, and then all the seizures are gone – which is probably why I was so excited by surgery at the time.”

For a while, in the early 1990s, temporal lobectomy eclipsed many of the other avenues in epilepsy treatment, but it too has given way to a much wider variety of more complex techniques, which may be less curative but more palliative.
 

More drug options

Meanwhile, the felbamate story had ignited debate in the field about safer drug development – pushing Dr. French into establishing what was then known as the Antiepileptic Drug Trials conference, later renamed the Epilepsy Therapies & Diagnostics Development Symposium – a forum that encouraged safer, but also swifter movement of drugs through the pipeline and onto the market. “After felbamate, came gabapentin, and then came to topiramate and lamotrigine, and very quickly there were many, many, many choices,” she explained. “But once stung, twice shy. Felbamate really gave us a new perspective on which patients we put on the new drugs. Now we have a process of starting them in people with treatment-resistant epilepsy first. The risk-benefit equation is more reasonable because they have lots of risks. And then we work our way back to people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.”

Disease-modifying therapies

Today, the medications used to treat epilepsy are referred to as antiseizure rather than antiepileptic drugs because they simply suppress seizure symptoms and do not address the cause. But the rocket that Dr. French is watching gain speed and momentum is the disease-modifying gene therapies – true antiepileptics that may significantly move the needle on the number and type of patients who can reach seizure freedom. “We spent the last 25 years not even thinking we would ever have antiepileptic therapies, and now in the last 5 years or so, we were pretty sure we will,” she said. “We have gene therapies that can intervene now – none yet that have actually reached approval, these are all currently in trials – but we certainly have high expectations that they will very soon be available.”

Improving patients’ lives

While gene therapy rockets ahead, new device developments are already improving life for patients, even despite ongoing seizures. A drug-delivering pump is still in trials, but could make a big difference to daily medication adherence, and wearable or implantable devices are being developed to track seizures. More accurate tracking has also revealed that many people’s seizures are actually quite predictable, with regular cycles allowing for the possibility of prophylactic medication when increased seizure activity is expected.

Despite 30 years of no change in the proportion of epilepsy patients experiencing treatment resistance, Dr. French said that drugs, devices, and surgeries have improved the lives of all patients – both treatment resistant and treatment sensitive. “The difference between almost seizure free and completely seizure free is a big one because it means you can’t drive, you may have difficulty with your employment, but being able to take a pill every day and feel otherwise completely normal? We’ve come a long way.”

Atopic dermatitis (AD) monotherapy with the lebrikizumab, an interleukin-13 inhibitor, was shown to be both effective and safe in the induction periods of the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The identically designed, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials enrolled 851 adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD and included a 16-week induction period followed by a 36-week maintenance period. At week 16, the results “show a rapid onset of action in multiple domains of the disease, such as skin clearance and itch,” wrote lead author Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis, at George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues. “Although 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab is not sufficient to assess its long-term safety, the results from the induction period of these two trials suggest a safety profile that is consistent with findings in previous trials,” they added.

Results presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 2022 annual meeting, but not yet published, showed similar efficacy maintained through the end of the trial.

Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either lebrikizumab 250 mg (with a 500-mg loading dose given at baseline and at week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, with concomitant topical or systemic treatments prohibited through week 16 except when deemed appropriate as rescue therapy. In such cases, moderate-potency topical glucocorticoids were preferred as first-line rescue therapy, while the study drug was discontinued if systemic therapy was needed.

In both trials, the primary efficacy outcome – a score of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) – and a reduction of at least 2 points from baseline at week 16, was met by more patients treated with lebrikizumab than with placebo: 43.1% vs. 12.7% respectively in trial 1 (P < .001); and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in trial 2 (P < .001).

Similarly, in both trials, a higher percentage of the lebrikizumab than placebo patients had an EASI-75 response (75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score): 58.8% vs. 16.2% (P < .001) in trial 1 and 52.1% vs. 18.1% (P < .001) in trial 2.

Improvement in itch was also significantly better in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo. This was measured by a reduction of at least 4 points in the Pruritus NRS from baseline to week 16 and a reduction in the Sleep-Loss Scale score of at least 2 points from baseline to week 16 (P < .001 for both measures in both trials).

A higher percentage of placebo vs. lebrikizumab patients discontinued the trials during the induction phases (14.9% vs. 7.1% in trial 1 and 11.0% vs. 7.8% in trial 2), and the use of rescue medication was approximately three times and two times higher in both placebo groups respectively.

Conjunctivitis was the most common adverse event, occurring consistently more frequently in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo (7.4% vs. 2.8% in trial 1 and 7.5% vs. 2.1% in trial 2).

“Although several theories have been proposed for the pathogenesis of conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis treated with this class of biologic agents, the mechanism remains unclear and warrants further study,” the investigators wrote.

Asked to comment on the new results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, who was not involved in the research, said they “continue to demonstrate the superior efficacy and favorable safety profile” of lebrikizumab in adolescents and adults and support the results of earlier phase 2 studies. “The results of these studies thus far continue to offer more hope and the possibility of a better future for our patients with atopic dermatitis who are still struggling to achieve control of their disease.”

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench from the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she looks forward to reviewing the full study results in which patients who achieved the primary outcomes of interest were then rerandomized to either placebo, or lebrikizumab every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks for the 36-week maintenance period “because we know that there is data for other biologics in atopic dermatitis (such as tralokinumab) that demonstrate that a decrease in the frequency of injections may be possible for patients who achieve disease control after an initial 16 weeks of therapy every 2 weeks.”

The research was supported by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Dr. Silverberg disclosed he is a consultant for Dermira and Eli Lilly, as are other coauthors on the paper who additionally disclosed grants from Dermira and other relationships with Eli Lilly such as advisory board membership and having received lecture fees. Three authors are Eli Lilly employees. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she is a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Abbvie, and Incyte for which she has received honoraria for work related to AD. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench has also been a recipient of research grants from Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, Menlo Therapeutics, Leo Pharma, and Eli Lilly for work related to AD as well as honoraria for continuing medical education work related to AD sponsored through educational grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) monotherapy with the lebrikizumab, an interleukin-13 inhibitor, was shown to be both effective and safe in the induction periods of the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The identically designed, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials enrolled 851 adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD and included a 16-week induction period followed by a 36-week maintenance period. At week 16, the results “show a rapid onset of action in multiple domains of the disease, such as skin clearance and itch,” wrote lead author Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis, at George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues. “Although 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab is not sufficient to assess its long-term safety, the results from the induction period of these two trials suggest a safety profile that is consistent with findings in previous trials,” they added.

Results presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 2022 annual meeting, but not yet published, showed similar efficacy maintained through the end of the trial.

Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either lebrikizumab 250 mg (with a 500-mg loading dose given at baseline and at week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, with concomitant topical or systemic treatments prohibited through week 16 except when deemed appropriate as rescue therapy. In such cases, moderate-potency topical glucocorticoids were preferred as first-line rescue therapy, while the study drug was discontinued if systemic therapy was needed.

In both trials, the primary efficacy outcome – a score of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) – and a reduction of at least 2 points from baseline at week 16, was met by more patients treated with lebrikizumab than with placebo: 43.1% vs. 12.7% respectively in trial 1 (P < .001); and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in trial 2 (P < .001).

Similarly, in both trials, a higher percentage of the lebrikizumab than placebo patients had an EASI-75 response (75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score): 58.8% vs. 16.2% (P < .001) in trial 1 and 52.1% vs. 18.1% (P < .001) in trial 2.

Improvement in itch was also significantly better in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo. This was measured by a reduction of at least 4 points in the Pruritus NRS from baseline to week 16 and a reduction in the Sleep-Loss Scale score of at least 2 points from baseline to week 16 (P < .001 for both measures in both trials).

A higher percentage of placebo vs. lebrikizumab patients discontinued the trials during the induction phases (14.9% vs. 7.1% in trial 1 and 11.0% vs. 7.8% in trial 2), and the use of rescue medication was approximately three times and two times higher in both placebo groups respectively.

Conjunctivitis was the most common adverse event, occurring consistently more frequently in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo (7.4% vs. 2.8% in trial 1 and 7.5% vs. 2.1% in trial 2).

“Although several theories have been proposed for the pathogenesis of conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis treated with this class of biologic agents, the mechanism remains unclear and warrants further study,” the investigators wrote.

Asked to comment on the new results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, who was not involved in the research, said they “continue to demonstrate the superior efficacy and favorable safety profile” of lebrikizumab in adolescents and adults and support the results of earlier phase 2 studies. “The results of these studies thus far continue to offer more hope and the possibility of a better future for our patients with atopic dermatitis who are still struggling to achieve control of their disease.”

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench from the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she looks forward to reviewing the full study results in which patients who achieved the primary outcomes of interest were then rerandomized to either placebo, or lebrikizumab every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks for the 36-week maintenance period “because we know that there is data for other biologics in atopic dermatitis (such as tralokinumab) that demonstrate that a decrease in the frequency of injections may be possible for patients who achieve disease control after an initial 16 weeks of therapy every 2 weeks.”

The research was supported by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Dr. Silverberg disclosed he is a consultant for Dermira and Eli Lilly, as are other coauthors on the paper who additionally disclosed grants from Dermira and other relationships with Eli Lilly such as advisory board membership and having received lecture fees. Three authors are Eli Lilly employees. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she is a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Abbvie, and Incyte for which she has received honoraria for work related to AD. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench has also been a recipient of research grants from Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, Menlo Therapeutics, Leo Pharma, and Eli Lilly for work related to AD as well as honoraria for continuing medical education work related to AD sponsored through educational grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) monotherapy with the lebrikizumab, an interleukin-13 inhibitor, was shown to be both effective and safe in the induction periods of the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The identically designed, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials enrolled 851 adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD and included a 16-week induction period followed by a 36-week maintenance period. At week 16, the results “show a rapid onset of action in multiple domains of the disease, such as skin clearance and itch,” wrote lead author Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis, at George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues. “Although 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab is not sufficient to assess its long-term safety, the results from the induction period of these two trials suggest a safety profile that is consistent with findings in previous trials,” they added.

Results presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 2022 annual meeting, but not yet published, showed similar efficacy maintained through the end of the trial.

Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either lebrikizumab 250 mg (with a 500-mg loading dose given at baseline and at week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, with concomitant topical or systemic treatments prohibited through week 16 except when deemed appropriate as rescue therapy. In such cases, moderate-potency topical glucocorticoids were preferred as first-line rescue therapy, while the study drug was discontinued if systemic therapy was needed.

In both trials, the primary efficacy outcome – a score of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) – and a reduction of at least 2 points from baseline at week 16, was met by more patients treated with lebrikizumab than with placebo: 43.1% vs. 12.7% respectively in trial 1 (P < .001); and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in trial 2 (P < .001).

Similarly, in both trials, a higher percentage of the lebrikizumab than placebo patients had an EASI-75 response (75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score): 58.8% vs. 16.2% (P < .001) in trial 1 and 52.1% vs. 18.1% (P < .001) in trial 2.

Improvement in itch was also significantly better in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo. This was measured by a reduction of at least 4 points in the Pruritus NRS from baseline to week 16 and a reduction in the Sleep-Loss Scale score of at least 2 points from baseline to week 16 (P < .001 for both measures in both trials).

A higher percentage of placebo vs. lebrikizumab patients discontinued the trials during the induction phases (14.9% vs. 7.1% in trial 1 and 11.0% vs. 7.8% in trial 2), and the use of rescue medication was approximately three times and two times higher in both placebo groups respectively.

Conjunctivitis was the most common adverse event, occurring consistently more frequently in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo (7.4% vs. 2.8% in trial 1 and 7.5% vs. 2.1% in trial 2).

“Although several theories have been proposed for the pathogenesis of conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis treated with this class of biologic agents, the mechanism remains unclear and warrants further study,” the investigators wrote.

Asked to comment on the new results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, who was not involved in the research, said they “continue to demonstrate the superior efficacy and favorable safety profile” of lebrikizumab in adolescents and adults and support the results of earlier phase 2 studies. “The results of these studies thus far continue to offer more hope and the possibility of a better future for our patients with atopic dermatitis who are still struggling to achieve control of their disease.”

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench from the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she looks forward to reviewing the full study results in which patients who achieved the primary outcomes of interest were then rerandomized to either placebo, or lebrikizumab every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks for the 36-week maintenance period “because we know that there is data for other biologics in atopic dermatitis (such as tralokinumab) that demonstrate that a decrease in the frequency of injections may be possible for patients who achieve disease control after an initial 16 weeks of therapy every 2 weeks.”

The research was supported by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Dr. Silverberg disclosed he is a consultant for Dermira and Eli Lilly, as are other coauthors on the paper who additionally disclosed grants from Dermira and other relationships with Eli Lilly such as advisory board membership and having received lecture fees. Three authors are Eli Lilly employees. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she is a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Abbvie, and Incyte for which she has received honoraria for work related to AD. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench has also been a recipient of research grants from Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, Menlo Therapeutics, Leo Pharma, and Eli Lilly for work related to AD as well as honoraria for continuing medical education work related to AD sponsored through educational grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.

“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.

The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.

To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.

The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.

They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.

The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.

The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.

Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”

Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”

Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”

He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.

Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.

“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.

The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.

To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.

The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.

They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.

The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.

The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.

Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”

Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”

Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”

He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.

Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.

“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.

The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.

To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.

The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.

They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.

The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.

The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.

Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”

Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”

Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”

He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.

When New York oncologist Gabriel Sara, MD, approached the French actress and film director Emmanuelle Bercot after a screening of one of her films in Manhattan, he was thinking big.

He never dreamed she would think bigger.  

“I thought maybe she will do a movie about some of my beliefs,” he said.

“Ma’am, would you like to go in the trenches of cancer?” he asked her, inviting her to tour the oncology department at Mount Sinai West.

Whether it was the Lebanese-born doctor’s Parisian French, his gentle, double-handed handshake, or the perpetual twinkle in his eye, something convinced Ms. Bercot to go. After the visit, she decided to base an entire film on the doctor’s philosophy about death, and she even cast him as one of the leads.

With no formal training in acting, “it’s incredible and prodigious what he did,” Ms. Bercot said in an interview at the 2021 Cannes Film Festival, where the film, “Peaceful” (“De Son Vivant”) premiered.

“This is a guy we took from his cancer ward to a film set, and he was able to be as real and authentic as he is in his doctor’s office,” she said.

Dr. Sara said that authenticity came easily, given that “a lot of my dialogue – maybe most – came from things I shared with Emmanuelle,” he said in an interview with this news organization. “She took the information from me, and she created the whole story. She studied my character and came up with really all the messages that I was hoping to share.”

He said that acting alongside professionals was not intimidating once he realized he was simply playing himself. “At some point ... it clicked in my head. Let me stop acting – I should just be me,” he recalled.

“Peaceful,” performed in French with English subtitles, was nominated for Best Film at the 2022 Lumières Awards.

It tells the story of a 39-year-old man (played by French actor Benoît Magimel) diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer and the journey, along with his mother (played by renowned actress Catherine Deneuve), through diagnosis, denial, and eventual acceptance of his death.

It is also the story of an oncologist, played by Dr. Sara as himself, who takes his patient by the hand, and refuses to sugarcoat the truth, because he believes that it is only by facing the facts that patients can continue to live – and then die – in peace.

“You’ll never hear me say I’ll cure your cancer. I’d be a liar if I did,” he tells his patient in the film.

“Patients put their life in your hands, so if you don’t tell them the truth you are betraying them,” he explained in the interview. “I have refused to see patients whose family did not allow them to come to the consultation to hear the truth. ... Nobody hears the truth and feels great about it the next day, but the truth helps them focus on what they need to deal with. And once they focus, they’re in control ... a big part of what is terrible for patients is that loss of control.”

The approach may sound harsh, but it is conveyed tenderly in the film. “[Your mother] thinks that half-truths will hurt you half as much,” he tells his patient gently, but “the scariest thing is realizing someone is lying to you. ... We have a tough journey ahead, there’s no room for lies. ... For me, truth is nonnegotiable.”  

Dr. Sara is brimming with stories of real-life patients whose lives were enriched and empowered by the clarity they gained in knowing the full truth.

However, not all oncologists agree with his style.

After screenings of the film in other parts of the world, and even in the United States, he has encountered some physicians who strongly disagree with his uncompromising honesty. “You always have somebody who says you know, in America, you will receive the truth but not in our culture – people are not used to it. I hear this all the time,” he said.

“And a long time ago, I decided I’m not going to accept that conversation. Truth works with all patients across all cultures,” Dr. Sara insisted.

“However, as caregivers, we have to be sensitive and present to the kind of culture we are dealing with. The content has to be always 100% honest but we adapt our language to the cultural and emotional state of the patient in order to successfully transmit the message,” he added.

Helping patients digest the news of their diagnosis and prognosis has been Dr. Sara’s recipe for his own survival at work. Now 68 and recently retired as medical director of the chemotherapy infusion suite and executive director of the patient services initiative at Mount Sinai West, he says he emerged from 40 years of practice without burning out by learning to step in time with each patient.

“My recipe for it is tango,” he said. Regular tango performances on his cancer ward were among his many real-life techniques that Ms. Bercot incorporated into the film. “I feel that we have to dance closely with our patients’ emotion,” he explained. “We have to feel our patients’ emotion and work with that. If you don’t move in harmony with your partner, you trip together and both of you will fall,” he told an audience after a screening of his film in New York City.

“I completely try to isolate my mind from anything else in order to be with the patient – this is what presence is about for me – to be right there for them, close to them. To spend that whole moment with them. That’s what will make the consultation really helpful, and will make me feel that I can move to the next page without feeling exhausted from the first one.”

A key scene in the film comes after the patient’s mother is stunned to discover a cheerful tango performance on her son’s ward, and confronts the doctor angrily.

“It’s like I’m abandoning him,” she says tearfully, when the doctor urges her to accept that her son’s chemotherapy is no longer working and let him live what life he has left.

“Give him permission to go,” he urges her. “It would be your greatest gift of love.”

Dr. Sara encourages a similar approach in his staff. He warns them about the “hero syndrome,” in which dying patients are made to feel they need to “hang on” and “fight” for the sake of their caregivers and families.

“The patient never asked to be the hero, but our attitude is telling him that he’s the hero,” he says in the film. “That puts him in an intolerable impasse because he figures that if he gives up, if he dies, he’s betraying his fans. He needs the exact opposite: to be set free. He needs the permission to die. That permission is given by two people: his doctor and his family.”

Of course, not all cancer patients have such a dim prognosis, and Dr. Sara is the first to forge ahead if he feels it’s appropriate. “If, if there is no option for them, I’m going to be aggressive to protect them. But when there is a curable disease, I will go broke to try to treat my patient. I’m willing to give them toxic drugs and hold their hand, get them through the storm if I believe it’s going to cure what they have, and I will coach them to accept being sick.”

He also believes in physical contact with the patient. “If we have some intimacy with the patient, we can at least palpate the kind of person they are,” he said. But his wife Nada pointed out that physical examinations can sometimes make patients nervous. “She told me, if you have a tie, they might have fun looking at it.” Thus began Dr. Sara’s collection of about 30 fun ties decorated with unicorns or jellyfish tailored to various patients’ preferences.

In the film, his patient teases him about this quirk, but Dr. Sara insists it is a small gesture that carries meaning. “One patient told me a story about lovebugs. She would see them in her kitchen when she was feeling well – so lovebugs became a sign of hope for her. I was telling the story to my wife ... so she got me a tie with lovebugs on it, and my patient was so happy when she saw me wearing that.”

In the film – and in real life – Dr. Sara often played guitar at breakfast music sessions with his staff in which he encouraged them to express their feelings about patients’ struggles. “If you cry, don’t be ashamed. Your patient will feel you’re with him,” he said in the film. In the final scenes, wearing a cloud-covered tie, he says goodbye to his patient with tears in his eyes. “They [the tears] are sincere,” he recalled. “Because I really felt I was looking at a dying patient. I really did.”

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

When New York oncologist Gabriel Sara, MD, approached the French actress and film director Emmanuelle Bercot after a screening of one of her films in Manhattan, he was thinking big.

He never dreamed she would think bigger.  

“I thought maybe she will do a movie about some of my beliefs,” he said.

“Ma’am, would you like to go in the trenches of cancer?” he asked her, inviting her to tour the oncology department at Mount Sinai West.

Whether it was the Lebanese-born doctor’s Parisian French, his gentle, double-handed handshake, or the perpetual twinkle in his eye, something convinced Ms. Bercot to go. After the visit, she decided to base an entire film on the doctor’s philosophy about death, and she even cast him as one of the leads.

With no formal training in acting, “it’s incredible and prodigious what he did,” Ms. Bercot said in an interview at the 2021 Cannes Film Festival, where the film, “Peaceful” (“De Son Vivant”) premiered.

“This is a guy we took from his cancer ward to a film set, and he was able to be as real and authentic as he is in his doctor’s office,” she said.

Dr. Sara said that authenticity came easily, given that “a lot of my dialogue – maybe most – came from things I shared with Emmanuelle,” he said in an interview with this news organization. “She took the information from me, and she created the whole story. She studied my character and came up with really all the messages that I was hoping to share.”

He said that acting alongside professionals was not intimidating once he realized he was simply playing himself. “At some point ... it clicked in my head. Let me stop acting – I should just be me,” he recalled.

“Peaceful,” performed in French with English subtitles, was nominated for Best Film at the 2022 Lumières Awards.

It tells the story of a 39-year-old man (played by French actor Benoît Magimel) diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer and the journey, along with his mother (played by renowned actress Catherine Deneuve), through diagnosis, denial, and eventual acceptance of his death.

It is also the story of an oncologist, played by Dr. Sara as himself, who takes his patient by the hand, and refuses to sugarcoat the truth, because he believes that it is only by facing the facts that patients can continue to live – and then die – in peace.

“You’ll never hear me say I’ll cure your cancer. I’d be a liar if I did,” he tells his patient in the film.

“Patients put their life in your hands, so if you don’t tell them the truth you are betraying them,” he explained in the interview. “I have refused to see patients whose family did not allow them to come to the consultation to hear the truth. ... Nobody hears the truth and feels great about it the next day, but the truth helps them focus on what they need to deal with. And once they focus, they’re in control ... a big part of what is terrible for patients is that loss of control.”

The approach may sound harsh, but it is conveyed tenderly in the film. “[Your mother] thinks that half-truths will hurt you half as much,” he tells his patient gently, but “the scariest thing is realizing someone is lying to you. ... We have a tough journey ahead, there’s no room for lies. ... For me, truth is nonnegotiable.”  

Dr. Sara is brimming with stories of real-life patients whose lives were enriched and empowered by the clarity they gained in knowing the full truth.

However, not all oncologists agree with his style.

After screenings of the film in other parts of the world, and even in the United States, he has encountered some physicians who strongly disagree with his uncompromising honesty. “You always have somebody who says you know, in America, you will receive the truth but not in our culture – people are not used to it. I hear this all the time,” he said.

“And a long time ago, I decided I’m not going to accept that conversation. Truth works with all patients across all cultures,” Dr. Sara insisted.

“However, as caregivers, we have to be sensitive and present to the kind of culture we are dealing with. The content has to be always 100% honest but we adapt our language to the cultural and emotional state of the patient in order to successfully transmit the message,” he added.

Helping patients digest the news of their diagnosis and prognosis has been Dr. Sara’s recipe for his own survival at work. Now 68 and recently retired as medical director of the chemotherapy infusion suite and executive director of the patient services initiative at Mount Sinai West, he says he emerged from 40 years of practice without burning out by learning to step in time with each patient.

“My recipe for it is tango,” he said. Regular tango performances on his cancer ward were among his many real-life techniques that Ms. Bercot incorporated into the film. “I feel that we have to dance closely with our patients’ emotion,” he explained. “We have to feel our patients’ emotion and work with that. If you don’t move in harmony with your partner, you trip together and both of you will fall,” he told an audience after a screening of his film in New York City.

“I completely try to isolate my mind from anything else in order to be with the patient – this is what presence is about for me – to be right there for them, close to them. To spend that whole moment with them. That’s what will make the consultation really helpful, and will make me feel that I can move to the next page without feeling exhausted from the first one.”

A key scene in the film comes after the patient’s mother is stunned to discover a cheerful tango performance on her son’s ward, and confronts the doctor angrily.

“It’s like I’m abandoning him,” she says tearfully, when the doctor urges her to accept that her son’s chemotherapy is no longer working and let him live what life he has left.

“Give him permission to go,” he urges her. “It would be your greatest gift of love.”

Dr. Sara encourages a similar approach in his staff. He warns them about the “hero syndrome,” in which dying patients are made to feel they need to “hang on” and “fight” for the sake of their caregivers and families.

“The patient never asked to be the hero, but our attitude is telling him that he’s the hero,” he says in the film. “That puts him in an intolerable impasse because he figures that if he gives up, if he dies, he’s betraying his fans. He needs the exact opposite: to be set free. He needs the permission to die. That permission is given by two people: his doctor and his family.”

Of course, not all cancer patients have such a dim prognosis, and Dr. Sara is the first to forge ahead if he feels it’s appropriate. “If, if there is no option for them, I’m going to be aggressive to protect them. But when there is a curable disease, I will go broke to try to treat my patient. I’m willing to give them toxic drugs and hold their hand, get them through the storm if I believe it’s going to cure what they have, and I will coach them to accept being sick.”

He also believes in physical contact with the patient. “If we have some intimacy with the patient, we can at least palpate the kind of person they are,” he said. But his wife Nada pointed out that physical examinations can sometimes make patients nervous. “She told me, if you have a tie, they might have fun looking at it.” Thus began Dr. Sara’s collection of about 30 fun ties decorated with unicorns or jellyfish tailored to various patients’ preferences.

In the film, his patient teases him about this quirk, but Dr. Sara insists it is a small gesture that carries meaning. “One patient told me a story about lovebugs. She would see them in her kitchen when she was feeling well – so lovebugs became a sign of hope for her. I was telling the story to my wife ... so she got me a tie with lovebugs on it, and my patient was so happy when she saw me wearing that.”

In the film – and in real life – Dr. Sara often played guitar at breakfast music sessions with his staff in which he encouraged them to express their feelings about patients’ struggles. “If you cry, don’t be ashamed. Your patient will feel you’re with him,” he said in the film. In the final scenes, wearing a cloud-covered tie, he says goodbye to his patient with tears in his eyes. “They [the tears] are sincere,” he recalled. “Because I really felt I was looking at a dying patient. I really did.”

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

When New York oncologist Gabriel Sara, MD, approached the French actress and film director Emmanuelle Bercot after a screening of one of her films in Manhattan, he was thinking big.

He never dreamed she would think bigger.  

“I thought maybe she will do a movie about some of my beliefs,” he said.

“Ma’am, would you like to go in the trenches of cancer?” he asked her, inviting her to tour the oncology department at Mount Sinai West.

Whether it was the Lebanese-born doctor’s Parisian French, his gentle, double-handed handshake, or the perpetual twinkle in his eye, something convinced Ms. Bercot to go. After the visit, she decided to base an entire film on the doctor’s philosophy about death, and she even cast him as one of the leads.

With no formal training in acting, “it’s incredible and prodigious what he did,” Ms. Bercot said in an interview at the 2021 Cannes Film Festival, where the film, “Peaceful” (“De Son Vivant”) premiered.

“This is a guy we took from his cancer ward to a film set, and he was able to be as real and authentic as he is in his doctor’s office,” she said.

Dr. Sara said that authenticity came easily, given that “a lot of my dialogue – maybe most – came from things I shared with Emmanuelle,” he said in an interview with this news organization. “She took the information from me, and she created the whole story. She studied my character and came up with really all the messages that I was hoping to share.”

He said that acting alongside professionals was not intimidating once he realized he was simply playing himself. “At some point ... it clicked in my head. Let me stop acting – I should just be me,” he recalled.

“Peaceful,” performed in French with English subtitles, was nominated for Best Film at the 2022 Lumières Awards.

It tells the story of a 39-year-old man (played by French actor Benoît Magimel) diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer and the journey, along with his mother (played by renowned actress Catherine Deneuve), through diagnosis, denial, and eventual acceptance of his death.

It is also the story of an oncologist, played by Dr. Sara as himself, who takes his patient by the hand, and refuses to sugarcoat the truth, because he believes that it is only by facing the facts that patients can continue to live – and then die – in peace.

“You’ll never hear me say I’ll cure your cancer. I’d be a liar if I did,” he tells his patient in the film.

“Patients put their life in your hands, so if you don’t tell them the truth you are betraying them,” he explained in the interview. “I have refused to see patients whose family did not allow them to come to the consultation to hear the truth. ... Nobody hears the truth and feels great about it the next day, but the truth helps them focus on what they need to deal with. And once they focus, they’re in control ... a big part of what is terrible for patients is that loss of control.”

The approach may sound harsh, but it is conveyed tenderly in the film. “[Your mother] thinks that half-truths will hurt you half as much,” he tells his patient gently, but “the scariest thing is realizing someone is lying to you. ... We have a tough journey ahead, there’s no room for lies. ... For me, truth is nonnegotiable.”  

Dr. Sara is brimming with stories of real-life patients whose lives were enriched and empowered by the clarity they gained in knowing the full truth.

However, not all oncologists agree with his style.

After screenings of the film in other parts of the world, and even in the United States, he has encountered some physicians who strongly disagree with his uncompromising honesty. “You always have somebody who says you know, in America, you will receive the truth but not in our culture – people are not used to it. I hear this all the time,” he said.

“And a long time ago, I decided I’m not going to accept that conversation. Truth works with all patients across all cultures,” Dr. Sara insisted.

“However, as caregivers, we have to be sensitive and present to the kind of culture we are dealing with. The content has to be always 100% honest but we adapt our language to the cultural and emotional state of the patient in order to successfully transmit the message,” he added.

Helping patients digest the news of their diagnosis and prognosis has been Dr. Sara’s recipe for his own survival at work. Now 68 and recently retired as medical director of the chemotherapy infusion suite and executive director of the patient services initiative at Mount Sinai West, he says he emerged from 40 years of practice without burning out by learning to step in time with each patient.

“My recipe for it is tango,” he said. Regular tango performances on his cancer ward were among his many real-life techniques that Ms. Bercot incorporated into the film. “I feel that we have to dance closely with our patients’ emotion,” he explained. “We have to feel our patients’ emotion and work with that. If you don’t move in harmony with your partner, you trip together and both of you will fall,” he told an audience after a screening of his film in New York City.

“I completely try to isolate my mind from anything else in order to be with the patient – this is what presence is about for me – to be right there for them, close to them. To spend that whole moment with them. That’s what will make the consultation really helpful, and will make me feel that I can move to the next page without feeling exhausted from the first one.”

A key scene in the film comes after the patient’s mother is stunned to discover a cheerful tango performance on her son’s ward, and confronts the doctor angrily.

“It’s like I’m abandoning him,” she says tearfully, when the doctor urges her to accept that her son’s chemotherapy is no longer working and let him live what life he has left.

“Give him permission to go,” he urges her. “It would be your greatest gift of love.”

Dr. Sara encourages a similar approach in his staff. He warns them about the “hero syndrome,” in which dying patients are made to feel they need to “hang on” and “fight” for the sake of their caregivers and families.

“The patient never asked to be the hero, but our attitude is telling him that he’s the hero,” he says in the film. “That puts him in an intolerable impasse because he figures that if he gives up, if he dies, he’s betraying his fans. He needs the exact opposite: to be set free. He needs the permission to die. That permission is given by two people: his doctor and his family.”

Of course, not all cancer patients have such a dim prognosis, and Dr. Sara is the first to forge ahead if he feels it’s appropriate. “If, if there is no option for them, I’m going to be aggressive to protect them. But when there is a curable disease, I will go broke to try to treat my patient. I’m willing to give them toxic drugs and hold their hand, get them through the storm if I believe it’s going to cure what they have, and I will coach them to accept being sick.”

He also believes in physical contact with the patient. “If we have some intimacy with the patient, we can at least palpate the kind of person they are,” he said. But his wife Nada pointed out that physical examinations can sometimes make patients nervous. “She told me, if you have a tie, they might have fun looking at it.” Thus began Dr. Sara’s collection of about 30 fun ties decorated with unicorns or jellyfish tailored to various patients’ preferences.

In the film, his patient teases him about this quirk, but Dr. Sara insists it is a small gesture that carries meaning. “One patient told me a story about lovebugs. She would see them in her kitchen when she was feeling well – so lovebugs became a sign of hope for her. I was telling the story to my wife ... so she got me a tie with lovebugs on it, and my patient was so happy when she saw me wearing that.”

In the film – and in real life – Dr. Sara often played guitar at breakfast music sessions with his staff in which he encouraged them to express their feelings about patients’ struggles. “If you cry, don’t be ashamed. Your patient will feel you’re with him,” he said in the film. In the final scenes, wearing a cloud-covered tie, he says goodbye to his patient with tears in his eyes. “They [the tears] are sincere,” he recalled. “Because I really felt I was looking at a dying patient. I really did.”

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

Adult and adolescent patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) showed significant improvements with the addition of lebrikizumab to topical corticosteroid (TCS) therapy, compared with TCS plus placebo, according to results of the 16-week phase 3 ADhere trial.

“Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody inhibiting interleukin-13, combined with TCS was associated with reduced overall disease severity of moderate to severe AD in adolescents and adults, and had a safety profile consistent with previous lebrikizumab AD studies,” noted lead author Eric L. Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors in their article on the study, which was published in JAMA Dermatology.

The double-blind trial, conducted at 54 sites across Germany, Poland, Canada, and the United States, included 211 patients, mean age 37.2 years, of whom 48.8% were female and roughly 22% were adolescents. Almost 15% were Asian, and about 13% were Black.

At baseline, participants had a score of 16 or higher on the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), a score of 3 or higher on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) scale, AD covering a body surface area of 10% or greater, and a history of inadequate response to treatment with topical medications.

After a minimum 1-week washout period from topical and systemic therapy, participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive lebrikizumab plus TCS (n = 145) or placebo plus TCS (n = 66) for 16 weeks.

Lebrikizumab or placebo was administered by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks; the loading and week-2 doses of lebrikizumab were 500 mg, followed by 250 mg thereafter. All patients were instructed to use low- to mid-potency TCS at their own discretion. Study sites provided a mid-potency TCS (triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% cream) and a low-potency TCS (hydrocortisone 1% cream), with topical calcineurin inhibitors permitted for sensitive skin areas.

Primary outcomes at 16 weeks included a 2-point or more reduction in IGA score from baseline and EASI-75 response. Patients in the lebrikizumab arm had superior responses on both of these outcomes, with statistical significance achieved as early as week 8 and week 4, respectively, and maintained through week 16. Specifically, 41.2% of those treated with lebrikizumab had an IGA reduction of 2 points or more, compared with 22.1% of those receiving placebo plus TCS (P = .01), and the proportion of patients achieving EASI-75 responses was 69.5% vs. 42.2%, respectively (P < .001).

Patients treated with lebrikizumab also showed statistically significant improvements, compared with TCS alone in all key secondary endpoints, “including skin clearance, improvement in itch, itch interference on sleep, and enhanced QoL [quality of life],” noted the authors. “This study captured the clinical benefit of lebrikizumab through the combined end point of physician-assessed clinical sign of skin clearance (EASI-75) and patient-reported outcome of improvement in itch (Pruritus NRS).”

The percentage of patients who achieved the combined endpoint was more than double for the lebrikizumab plus TCS group vs. the group on TCS alone, indicating that patients treated with lebrikizumab plus TCS “were more likely to experience improvement in skin symptoms and itch,” the investigators added.

The authors noted that most treatment-emergent adverse events “were nonserious, mild, or moderate in severity, and did not lead to study discontinuation.” These included conjunctivitis (4.8%), headache (4.8%), hypertension (2.8%), injection-site reactions (2.8%), and herpes infection (3.4%) – all of which occurred in 1.5% or less of patients in the placebo group.

“The higher incidence of conjunctivitis has also been reported in other biologics inhibiting IL [interleukin]–13 and/or IL-4 signaling, as well as lebrikizumab monotherapy studies,” they noted. The 4.8% rate of conjunctivitis reported in the combination study, they added, is “compared with 7.5% frequency in 16-week data from the lebrikizumab monotherapy studies. Although the mechanism remains unclear, it has been reported that conjunctival goblet cell scarcity due to IL-13 and IL-4 inhibition, and subsequent effects on the homeostasis of the conjunctival mucosal surface, results in ocular AEs [adverse events].”

“This truly is a time of great hope and promise for our patients with AD,” commented Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, who was not involved in the study. “The advent of newer, targeted therapeutic agents for AD continues to revolutionize the treatment experience for our patients, offering the possibility of greater AD disease control with a favorable risk profile and less need for blood work monitoring compared to traditional systemic agents.”

On the basis of the study results, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview that “lebrikizumab represents an additional option in the treatment armamentarium for providers who care for patients with AD.” She added that, “while head-to-head trials comparing lebrikizumab to dupilumab, the first FDA-approved biologic for AD, would be beneficial, to the best of my knowledge this data is currently lacking. However, based on the results of this study, we would expect lebrikizumab to work at least similarly to dupilumab, based on the reported improvements in IGA and EASI score.”

Additionally, lebrikizumab showed a favorable safety profile, “with most treatment-emergent adverse effects reported as nonserious and not leading to drug discontinuation,” she said. “Of interest to clinicians may be the reported rates of conjunctivitis in this study. Rates of conjunctivitis for lebrikizumab appear to be lower than those reported in the LIBERTY AD CHRONOS study for dupilumab – a finding that merits further scrutiny in my opinion, as this one of the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events that I encounter in my clinical practice.”

The study was funded by Dermira, a subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Dr. Simpson reported personal fees and grants from multiple sources, including Dermira and Eli Lilly, the companies developing lebrikizumab. Several authors were employees of Eli Lilly. Dr. Fuxench disclosed serving as a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Incyte, for which she has received honoraria for AD-related work. She is the recipient of research grants through Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, Menlo Therapeutics, Leo Pharma, and Eli Lilly for work related to AD as well as honoraria for continuing medical education work related to AD sponsored through educational grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

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

Adult and adolescent patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) showed significant improvements with the addition of lebrikizumab to topical corticosteroid (TCS) therapy, compared with TCS plus placebo, according to results of the 16-week phase 3 ADhere trial.

“Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody inhibiting interleukin-13, combined with TCS was associated with reduced overall disease severity of moderate to severe AD in adolescents and adults, and had a safety profile consistent with previous lebrikizumab AD studies,” noted lead author Eric L. Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors in their article on the study, which was published in JAMA Dermatology.

The double-blind trial, conducted at 54 sites across Germany, Poland, Canada, and the United States, included 211 patients, mean age 37.2 years, of whom 48.8% were female and roughly 22% were adolescents. Almost 15% were Asian, and about 13% were Black.

At baseline, participants had a score of 16 or higher on the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), a score of 3 or higher on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) scale, AD covering a body surface area of 10% or greater, and a history of inadequate response to treatment with topical medications.

After a minimum 1-week washout period from topical and systemic therapy, participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive lebrikizumab plus TCS (n = 145) or placebo plus TCS (n = 66) for 16 weeks.

Lebrikizumab or placebo was administered by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks; the loading and week-2 doses of lebrikizumab were 500 mg, followed by 250 mg thereafter. All patients were instructed to use low- to mid-potency TCS at their own discretion. Study sites provided a mid-potency TCS (triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% cream) and a low-potency TCS (hydrocortisone 1% cream), with topical calcineurin inhibitors permitted for sensitive skin areas.

Primary outcomes at 16 weeks included a 2-point or more reduction in IGA score from baseline and EASI-75 response. Patients in the lebrikizumab arm had superior responses on both of these outcomes, with statistical significance achieved as early as week 8 and week 4, respectively, and maintained through week 16. Specifically, 41.2% of those treated with lebrikizumab had an IGA reduction of 2 points or more, compared with 22.1% of those receiving placebo plus TCS (P = .01), and the proportion of patients achieving EASI-75 responses was 69.5% vs. 42.2%, respectively (P < .001).

Patients treated with lebrikizumab also showed statistically significant improvements, compared with TCS alone in all key secondary endpoints, “including skin clearance, improvement in itch, itch interference on sleep, and enhanced QoL [quality of life],” noted the authors. “This study captured the clinical benefit of lebrikizumab through the combined end point of physician-assessed clinical sign of skin clearance (EASI-75) and patient-reported outcome of improvement in itch (Pruritus NRS).”

The percentage of patients who achieved the combined endpoint was more than double for the lebrikizumab plus TCS group vs. the group on TCS alone, indicating that patients treated with lebrikizumab plus TCS “were more likely to experience improvement in skin symptoms and itch,” the investigators added.

The authors noted that most treatment-emergent adverse events “were nonserious, mild, or moderate in severity, and did not lead to study discontinuation.” These included conjunctivitis (4.8%), headache (4.8%), hypertension (2.8%), injection-site reactions (2.8%), and herpes infection (3.4%) – all of which occurred in 1.5% or less of patients in the placebo group.

“The higher incidence of conjunctivitis has also been reported in other biologics inhibiting IL [interleukin]–13 and/or IL-4 signaling, as well as lebrikizumab monotherapy studies,” they noted. The 4.8% rate of conjunctivitis reported in the combination study, they added, is “compared with 7.5% frequency in 16-week data from the lebrikizumab monotherapy studies. Although the mechanism remains unclear, it has been reported that conjunctival goblet cell scarcity due to IL-13 and IL-4 inhibition, and subsequent effects on the homeostasis of the conjunctival mucosal surface, results in ocular AEs [adverse events].”

“This truly is a time of great hope and promise for our patients with AD,” commented Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, who was not involved in the study. “The advent of newer, targeted therapeutic agents for AD continues to revolutionize the treatment experience for our patients, offering the possibility of greater AD disease control with a favorable risk profile and less need for blood work monitoring compared to traditional systemic agents.”

On the basis of the study results, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview that “lebrikizumab represents an additional option in the treatment armamentarium for providers who care for patients with AD.” She added that, “while head-to-head trials comparing lebrikizumab to dupilumab, the first FDA-approved biologic for AD, would be beneficial, to the best of my knowledge this data is currently lacking. However, based on the results of this study, we would expect lebrikizumab to work at least similarly to dupilumab, based on the reported improvements in IGA and EASI score.”

Additionally, lebrikizumab showed a favorable safety profile, “with most treatment-emergent adverse effects reported as nonserious and not leading to drug discontinuation,” she said. “Of interest to clinicians may be the reported rates of conjunctivitis in this study. Rates of conjunctivitis for lebrikizumab appear to be lower than those reported in the LIBERTY AD CHRONOS study for dupilumab – a finding that merits further scrutiny in my opinion, as this one of the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events that I encounter in my clinical practice.”

The study was funded by Dermira, a subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Dr. Simpson reported personal fees and grants from multiple sources, including Dermira and Eli Lilly, the companies developing lebrikizumab. Several authors were employees of Eli Lilly. Dr. Fuxench disclosed serving as a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Incyte, for which she has received honoraria for AD-related work. She is the recipient of research grants through Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, Menlo Therapeutics, Leo Pharma, and Eli Lilly for work related to AD as well as honoraria for continuing medical education work related to AD sponsored through educational grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

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

Adult and adolescent patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) showed significant improvements with the addition of lebrikizumab to topical corticosteroid (TCS) therapy, compared with TCS plus placebo, according to results of the 16-week phase 3 ADhere trial.

“Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody inhibiting interleukin-13, combined with TCS was associated with reduced overall disease severity of moderate to severe AD in adolescents and adults, and had a safety profile consistent with previous lebrikizumab AD studies,” noted lead author Eric L. Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors in their article on the study, which was published in JAMA Dermatology.

The double-blind trial, conducted at 54 sites across Germany, Poland, Canada, and the United States, included 211 patients, mean age 37.2 years, of whom 48.8% were female and roughly 22% were adolescents. Almost 15% were Asian, and about 13% were Black.

At baseline, participants had a score of 16 or higher on the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), a score of 3 or higher on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) scale, AD covering a body surface area of 10% or greater, and a history of inadequate response to treatment with topical medications.

After a minimum 1-week washout period from topical and systemic therapy, participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive lebrikizumab plus TCS (n = 145) or placebo plus TCS (n = 66) for 16 weeks.

Lebrikizumab or placebo was administered by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks; the loading and week-2 doses of lebrikizumab were 500 mg, followed by 250 mg thereafter. All patients were instructed to use low- to mid-potency TCS at their own discretion. Study sites provided a mid-potency TCS (triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% cream) and a low-potency TCS (hydrocortisone 1% cream), with topical calcineurin inhibitors permitted for sensitive skin areas.

Primary outcomes at 16 weeks included a 2-point or more reduction in IGA score from baseline and EASI-75 response. Patients in the lebrikizumab arm had superior responses on both of these outcomes, with statistical significance achieved as early as week 8 and week 4, respectively, and maintained through week 16. Specifically, 41.2% of those treated with lebrikizumab had an IGA reduction of 2 points or more, compared with 22.1% of those receiving placebo plus TCS (P = .01), and the proportion of patients achieving EASI-75 responses was 69.5% vs. 42.2%, respectively (P < .001).

Patients treated with lebrikizumab also showed statistically significant improvements, compared with TCS alone in all key secondary endpoints, “including skin clearance, improvement in itch, itch interference on sleep, and enhanced QoL [quality of life],” noted the authors. “This study captured the clinical benefit of lebrikizumab through the combined end point of physician-assessed clinical sign of skin clearance (EASI-75) and patient-reported outcome of improvement in itch (Pruritus NRS).”

The percentage of patients who achieved the combined endpoint was more than double for the lebrikizumab plus TCS group vs. the group on TCS alone, indicating that patients treated with lebrikizumab plus TCS “were more likely to experience improvement in skin symptoms and itch,” the investigators added.

The authors noted that most treatment-emergent adverse events “were nonserious, mild, or moderate in severity, and did not lead to study discontinuation.” These included conjunctivitis (4.8%), headache (4.8%), hypertension (2.8%), injection-site reactions (2.8%), and herpes infection (3.4%) – all of which occurred in 1.5% or less of patients in the placebo group.

“The higher incidence of conjunctivitis has also been reported in other biologics inhibiting IL [interleukin]–13 and/or IL-4 signaling, as well as lebrikizumab monotherapy studies,” they noted. The 4.8% rate of conjunctivitis reported in the combination study, they added, is “compared with 7.5% frequency in 16-week data from the lebrikizumab monotherapy studies. Although the mechanism remains unclear, it has been reported that conjunctival goblet cell scarcity due to IL-13 and IL-4 inhibition, and subsequent effects on the homeostasis of the conjunctival mucosal surface, results in ocular AEs [adverse events].”

“This truly is a time of great hope and promise for our patients with AD,” commented Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, who was not involved in the study. “The advent of newer, targeted therapeutic agents for AD continues to revolutionize the treatment experience for our patients, offering the possibility of greater AD disease control with a favorable risk profile and less need for blood work monitoring compared to traditional systemic agents.”

On the basis of the study results, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview that “lebrikizumab represents an additional option in the treatment armamentarium for providers who care for patients with AD.” She added that, “while head-to-head trials comparing lebrikizumab to dupilumab, the first FDA-approved biologic for AD, would be beneficial, to the best of my knowledge this data is currently lacking. However, based on the results of this study, we would expect lebrikizumab to work at least similarly to dupilumab, based on the reported improvements in IGA and EASI score.”

Additionally, lebrikizumab showed a favorable safety profile, “with most treatment-emergent adverse effects reported as nonserious and not leading to drug discontinuation,” she said. “Of interest to clinicians may be the reported rates of conjunctivitis in this study. Rates of conjunctivitis for lebrikizumab appear to be lower than those reported in the LIBERTY AD CHRONOS study for dupilumab – a finding that merits further scrutiny in my opinion, as this one of the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events that I encounter in my clinical practice.”

The study was funded by Dermira, a subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Dr. Simpson reported personal fees and grants from multiple sources, including Dermira and Eli Lilly, the companies developing lebrikizumab. Several authors were employees of Eli Lilly. Dr. Fuxench disclosed serving as a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Incyte, for which she has received honoraria for AD-related work. She is the recipient of research grants through Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, Menlo Therapeutics, Leo Pharma, and Eli Lilly for work related to AD as well as honoraria for continuing medical education work related to AD sponsored through educational grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

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

Doug Flora, MD, knows the value of early cancer detection because it helped him survive kidney cancer 5 years ago. But as a medical oncologist and hematologist, and the executive medical director of oncology services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare in Edgewood, Ky., he also knows that a new era of early cancer detection testing poses big challenges for his network of six hospitals and 169 specialty and primary care offices throughout Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana.

Multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are finally a reality and could be a potential game changer because they can screen for the possibility of up to 50 different cancers in asymptomatic individuals with one blood draw. They represent one of the fastest growing segments in medical diagnostics with a projected value of $2.77 billion by 2030, according to the market research firm Grand View Research.

These tests are different from traditional liquid biopsies, which are designed to identify actionable gene mutations to help inform treatment decisions of patients already diagnosed with cancer. Instead, MCED tests work to detect fragments of circulating free DNA that have been shed by tumors and released into the bloodstream. Detecting these cancer signals could indicate that an individual has cancer well before they ever develop symptoms.

For some cancer types, particularly those commonly diagnosed at advanced stages or those without general population screening tests, MCED testing could have a significant impact.

In its new report, Grand View Research highlights nine “prominent players” active in the MCED market; of these, two have been granted breakthrough device designation by the Food and Drug Administration: OverC MCDBT by Burning Rock on Jan. 3, 2023, and Galleri by Grail in 2019. Galleri was launched in June 2021 and can be obtained with a prescription at a cost of $949.

Yet, while patients are asking for these tests and primary care physicians are prescribing them, oncologists are grappling with how to manage the first patients whose tests tell them they may have cancer.

Ordering the tests may seem straightforward, but in reality, it is not. In fact, they are so new that most health systems have no internal guidelines for physicians. Guidelines would address when the tests should be prescribed, and whether a patient should undergo more testing or be referred to an oncologist.
 

Clinical trials underway

There are currently at least 17 clinical trials underway to investigate the performance and clinical utility of MCED tests. Six of these involve Grail, including NHS-Galleri, the largest study to date of 140,000 participants in the United Kingdom where participants will be followed for 3 years with annual visits at 12 and 24 months. And, the National Cancer Institute is spearheading a clinical trial of its own, according to a search of ClinicalTrials.gov.

In September 2022, Grail presented findings from its pivotal PATHFINDER study at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology. Researchers reported that cancer signals were detected in 1.4% (92) of 6,621 participants enrolled in the study. Of the 92, 35 people were diagnosed with 36 cancers: 19 were solid tumors (2 oropharyngeal, 5 breast, l liver, 1 intrahepatic bile duct, 2 colon/rectum, 2 prostate, 1 lung, 1 pancreas, 1 small intestine, 1 uterus, 1 ovary and 1 bone) and 17 hematologic cancers (1 plasma cell myeloma/disorders, 2 lymphoid leukemia, 2 Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, and 12 lymphoma).

Almost half of newly diagnosed cases were cancers in stage 1 or 2. Of stage 1 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. Of stage 2 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. All other cancers were in stage 3 and 4 or were listed as recurrent or no stage. Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, chair of the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who presented the results from PATHFINDER at ESMO, reported that, of all diagnosed cancers, only breast, colon/rectum, prostate, and lung have established screening protocols.

The findings were so striking that the meeting scientific co-chair, Fabrice André, MD, PhD, told ESMO the oncology field must prepare for an onslaught of new patients.

“Within the next 5 years, we will need more doctors, surgeons and nurses with more diagnostic and treatment infrastructures to care for the rising number of people who will be identified by multicancer early detection tests,” said Dr. André, who is director of research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, and future president of ESMO (2025-2026). “We need to involve all stakeholders in deciding new pathways of care. We need to agree who will be tested and when and where tests will be carried out, and to anticipate the changes that will happen as a result of these tests.”

But first, he urged, the need for comparative trials “across all types of cancer to find out if having an early detection test affects morbidity and mortality. We also need to know how the tests benefit patients, and how to discuss the results with them,” Dr. André said.
 

Demand may burden health systems

Dr. Flora suggested that companies like Grail are rushing their product to market without conducting long-term sizable clinical trials.

“These diagnostic companies are a billion dollar publicly traded or venture capital-funded companies that are losing millions of dollars a quarter as they’re scaling up these tests. So, there is some pressure on the sales forces ... to start moving product long before the science has met our lowest areas for entry,” Dr. Flora said. “They are aggressively marketing to a primary care audience that knows nothing about MCEDs. It’s a sales-driven development solving a problem we all believe is real, but we don’t know if it actually solves the problem.”

There are many unanswered questions, he said. Among these include whether the tests do indeed extend survival. “What they’re suggesting – that is if the blood test detects it – that we’re going to save your life. That’s not yet been proven. This is where the providers are pushing back against these industry types to say: ‘This is the wild west right now.’ It’s very irresponsible to go out there and try to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of product to doctors who have never studied genetics,” Dr. Flora said.

Grail’s chief medical officer Jeff Venstrom, MD, however, said physicians don’t need a background in genetic testing to order or interpret Galleri because it’s not a genetic test. Genetic tests look for genetic variants associated with cancer risk, which Galleri does not. MCED tests rely on genomic profiling to identify alterations in tumors.

“Maybe there’s still confusion in the market, which is common for new technologies when they’re initially launched. This is not a 23andMe test. We do not report germline mutations that have implications for cancer risk. We’re using this blood sample to test for the presence or absence of a cancer signal. The test result is very clear and simple: One area of the report says ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ It is a binary result that says if a signal is detected or not. The second provides additional information around where that signal could be coming from,” he said.

Galleri could fill a huge unmet need in cancer prevention, Dr. Venstrom said. Not only could it detect cancer at an earlier stage, but it could serve as a screening tool for cancers like pancreatic cancer in which screening is not available.

The test is not intended to replace standard of care screening, he said. The ordering provider should have a conversation with the patient about overall cancer risk. “Are you smoking? What’s your risk of obesity-associated cancers? Do you have a family history of cancer? I think this should all be in the context of a good conversation around preventative care,” he said.
 

Planning and prep in Boston

In Boston, Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist who specializes in gastrointestinal cancers, agreed that MCED testing has forced her team at the Mass General Cancer Center global cancer care program to think outside of the box.

“We’re a major academic center and it’s not easy [because] this is all uncharted territory,” she said. “We all recognize there are more tests coming, and they are here to stay. As a health system, we have to be ready to manage not only the tests, but patient anxieties, and all the complexities that come with it. We just don’t know yet how to best navigate.”

Although Dr. Parikh’s center has set up a working group tasked with organizing an outpatient clinic for patients with positive MCED tests, the current system is haphazard.

“Right now, it gets bounced around between people,” she explained. “Sometimes, patients are getting referred to the oncology team rather than the primary care team to try to sort out where the cancer signal is coming from, that is, if it’s not immediately obvious. No one really knows who should be the right person to own it,” Dr. Parikh said. While the test is supposed to give tissue-specific results, “it’s not perfect” and sometimes imaging and other work-ups are needed to locate the source of the signa.

“A group of four or five oncologists get looped in and then we’re trying to sort it out on a case-by-case basis, but understanding that with more and more tests coming, that kind of ad hoc approach isn’t going to be sufficient. We need a happy medium between the primary care and the disease specific oncologist, someone who can kind of help think through the diagnostic workup until they have a cancer diagnosis to get them to the right place,” Dr. Parikh said.

Dr. Venstrom said Grail is committed to providing support to clinicians in these situations. “We’re doing everything we can with our medical education forums. We have this pretty intense and extensive postpositive suite of resources,” he explained. “Some of our doctors on staff call the ordering provider within 24 hours just to clarify if there are any questions or confusion from the report. For example, if it suggests the signal is coming from the lung, we provide additional support around additional workups.”
 

Out-of-pocket test may widen disparities in care

With the exception of a few health insurance companies that have committed to covering some of the cost for the test, Galleri is an out-of-pocket expense.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledged that broad insurance coverage for the Galleri test remains a hurdle, although “we’ve secured coverage for a handful of companies of self-insured employers and forward-thinking insurers.” This includes partnerships with Point32Health, and Alignment Health, among others, he said.

There is also growing support among more than 400 cancer organizations for the Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act to accelerate coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. “We are constantly trying to understand the evidence that’s needed for payors to make sure that we get the broadest access possible for this test,” he said.
 

The first positive test result

Back at St. Elizabeth Healthcare where they’ve only seen one positive MCED test result thus far, Dr. Flora is more concerned about patients giving informed consent before they even get the test. “When the reps started hammering our primary care doctors, we sent communiques throughout the system saying that we would very much like to regulate this to make sure that before our patients receive accidental harm, that they at least have a conversation with somebody who understands the test,” he explained.

All 15 patients who requested the test at the hospital were first required to discuss the implications with a genetic counselor who is part of the system. “We are really pro–cancer screening,” he said, but added his hospital is “not pumped” about the Galleri test. “We’re being very cautious about overstatements made by sales guys to our primary care doctors, so we’re letting our own precision medicine people handle it.”

There’s a similar system in place at Community Health Network, a nonprofit health system with nine hospitals and 1,300 employee providers throughout Central Indiana. Patrick McGill, MD, a primary care physician and chief analytics officer for the network says they have streamlined patients with positive tests through their high-risk oncology clinic. “They don’t go straight to a medical oncologist which I know some systems are struggling with,” he said. “They get additional testing, whether it’s imaging they might need or other lab testing. We’ve had a few lung positives, and a few leukemia positives which might go straight to medical oncology. I think we had one breast that was positive so she got additional breast imaging.”

Through its foundation, CHN will offer 2,000 tests free of charge. “We decided to take cost off the table with this funding,” Dr. McGill said. “A lot of health systems I talk to are always concerned that insurance doesn’t cover it and it’s cost prohibitive. Is it creating additional disparities because only people who can afford it can get the test?”

Dr. Schrag serves as an uncompensated advisor for Grail. Previously, while with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, she received research funding from Grail.

Doug Flora, MD, knows the value of early cancer detection because it helped him survive kidney cancer 5 years ago. But as a medical oncologist and hematologist, and the executive medical director of oncology services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare in Edgewood, Ky., he also knows that a new era of early cancer detection testing poses big challenges for his network of six hospitals and 169 specialty and primary care offices throughout Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana.

Multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are finally a reality and could be a potential game changer because they can screen for the possibility of up to 50 different cancers in asymptomatic individuals with one blood draw. They represent one of the fastest growing segments in medical diagnostics with a projected value of $2.77 billion by 2030, according to the market research firm Grand View Research.

These tests are different from traditional liquid biopsies, which are designed to identify actionable gene mutations to help inform treatment decisions of patients already diagnosed with cancer. Instead, MCED tests work to detect fragments of circulating free DNA that have been shed by tumors and released into the bloodstream. Detecting these cancer signals could indicate that an individual has cancer well before they ever develop symptoms.

For some cancer types, particularly those commonly diagnosed at advanced stages or those without general population screening tests, MCED testing could have a significant impact.

In its new report, Grand View Research highlights nine “prominent players” active in the MCED market; of these, two have been granted breakthrough device designation by the Food and Drug Administration: OverC MCDBT by Burning Rock on Jan. 3, 2023, and Galleri by Grail in 2019. Galleri was launched in June 2021 and can be obtained with a prescription at a cost of $949.

Yet, while patients are asking for these tests and primary care physicians are prescribing them, oncologists are grappling with how to manage the first patients whose tests tell them they may have cancer.

Ordering the tests may seem straightforward, but in reality, it is not. In fact, they are so new that most health systems have no internal guidelines for physicians. Guidelines would address when the tests should be prescribed, and whether a patient should undergo more testing or be referred to an oncologist.
 

Clinical trials underway

There are currently at least 17 clinical trials underway to investigate the performance and clinical utility of MCED tests. Six of these involve Grail, including NHS-Galleri, the largest study to date of 140,000 participants in the United Kingdom where participants will be followed for 3 years with annual visits at 12 and 24 months. And, the National Cancer Institute is spearheading a clinical trial of its own, according to a search of ClinicalTrials.gov.

In September 2022, Grail presented findings from its pivotal PATHFINDER study at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology. Researchers reported that cancer signals were detected in 1.4% (92) of 6,621 participants enrolled in the study. Of the 92, 35 people were diagnosed with 36 cancers: 19 were solid tumors (2 oropharyngeal, 5 breast, l liver, 1 intrahepatic bile duct, 2 colon/rectum, 2 prostate, 1 lung, 1 pancreas, 1 small intestine, 1 uterus, 1 ovary and 1 bone) and 17 hematologic cancers (1 plasma cell myeloma/disorders, 2 lymphoid leukemia, 2 Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, and 12 lymphoma).

Almost half of newly diagnosed cases were cancers in stage 1 or 2. Of stage 1 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. Of stage 2 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. All other cancers were in stage 3 and 4 or were listed as recurrent or no stage. Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, chair of the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who presented the results from PATHFINDER at ESMO, reported that, of all diagnosed cancers, only breast, colon/rectum, prostate, and lung have established screening protocols.

The findings were so striking that the meeting scientific co-chair, Fabrice André, MD, PhD, told ESMO the oncology field must prepare for an onslaught of new patients.

“Within the next 5 years, we will need more doctors, surgeons and nurses with more diagnostic and treatment infrastructures to care for the rising number of people who will be identified by multicancer early detection tests,” said Dr. André, who is director of research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, and future president of ESMO (2025-2026). “We need to involve all stakeholders in deciding new pathways of care. We need to agree who will be tested and when and where tests will be carried out, and to anticipate the changes that will happen as a result of these tests.”

But first, he urged, the need for comparative trials “across all types of cancer to find out if having an early detection test affects morbidity and mortality. We also need to know how the tests benefit patients, and how to discuss the results with them,” Dr. André said.
 

Demand may burden health systems

Dr. Flora suggested that companies like Grail are rushing their product to market without conducting long-term sizable clinical trials.

“These diagnostic companies are a billion dollar publicly traded or venture capital-funded companies that are losing millions of dollars a quarter as they’re scaling up these tests. So, there is some pressure on the sales forces ... to start moving product long before the science has met our lowest areas for entry,” Dr. Flora said. “They are aggressively marketing to a primary care audience that knows nothing about MCEDs. It’s a sales-driven development solving a problem we all believe is real, but we don’t know if it actually solves the problem.”

There are many unanswered questions, he said. Among these include whether the tests do indeed extend survival. “What they’re suggesting – that is if the blood test detects it – that we’re going to save your life. That’s not yet been proven. This is where the providers are pushing back against these industry types to say: ‘This is the wild west right now.’ It’s very irresponsible to go out there and try to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of product to doctors who have never studied genetics,” Dr. Flora said.

Grail’s chief medical officer Jeff Venstrom, MD, however, said physicians don’t need a background in genetic testing to order or interpret Galleri because it’s not a genetic test. Genetic tests look for genetic variants associated with cancer risk, which Galleri does not. MCED tests rely on genomic profiling to identify alterations in tumors.

“Maybe there’s still confusion in the market, which is common for new technologies when they’re initially launched. This is not a 23andMe test. We do not report germline mutations that have implications for cancer risk. We’re using this blood sample to test for the presence or absence of a cancer signal. The test result is very clear and simple: One area of the report says ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ It is a binary result that says if a signal is detected or not. The second provides additional information around where that signal could be coming from,” he said.

Galleri could fill a huge unmet need in cancer prevention, Dr. Venstrom said. Not only could it detect cancer at an earlier stage, but it could serve as a screening tool for cancers like pancreatic cancer in which screening is not available.

The test is not intended to replace standard of care screening, he said. The ordering provider should have a conversation with the patient about overall cancer risk. “Are you smoking? What’s your risk of obesity-associated cancers? Do you have a family history of cancer? I think this should all be in the context of a good conversation around preventative care,” he said.
 

Planning and prep in Boston

In Boston, Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist who specializes in gastrointestinal cancers, agreed that MCED testing has forced her team at the Mass General Cancer Center global cancer care program to think outside of the box.

“We’re a major academic center and it’s not easy [because] this is all uncharted territory,” she said. “We all recognize there are more tests coming, and they are here to stay. As a health system, we have to be ready to manage not only the tests, but patient anxieties, and all the complexities that come with it. We just don’t know yet how to best navigate.”

Although Dr. Parikh’s center has set up a working group tasked with organizing an outpatient clinic for patients with positive MCED tests, the current system is haphazard.

“Right now, it gets bounced around between people,” she explained. “Sometimes, patients are getting referred to the oncology team rather than the primary care team to try to sort out where the cancer signal is coming from, that is, if it’s not immediately obvious. No one really knows who should be the right person to own it,” Dr. Parikh said. While the test is supposed to give tissue-specific results, “it’s not perfect” and sometimes imaging and other work-ups are needed to locate the source of the signa.

“A group of four or five oncologists get looped in and then we’re trying to sort it out on a case-by-case basis, but understanding that with more and more tests coming, that kind of ad hoc approach isn’t going to be sufficient. We need a happy medium between the primary care and the disease specific oncologist, someone who can kind of help think through the diagnostic workup until they have a cancer diagnosis to get them to the right place,” Dr. Parikh said.

Dr. Venstrom said Grail is committed to providing support to clinicians in these situations. “We’re doing everything we can with our medical education forums. We have this pretty intense and extensive postpositive suite of resources,” he explained. “Some of our doctors on staff call the ordering provider within 24 hours just to clarify if there are any questions or confusion from the report. For example, if it suggests the signal is coming from the lung, we provide additional support around additional workups.”
 

Out-of-pocket test may widen disparities in care

With the exception of a few health insurance companies that have committed to covering some of the cost for the test, Galleri is an out-of-pocket expense.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledged that broad insurance coverage for the Galleri test remains a hurdle, although “we’ve secured coverage for a handful of companies of self-insured employers and forward-thinking insurers.” This includes partnerships with Point32Health, and Alignment Health, among others, he said.

There is also growing support among more than 400 cancer organizations for the Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act to accelerate coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. “We are constantly trying to understand the evidence that’s needed for payors to make sure that we get the broadest access possible for this test,” he said.
 

The first positive test result

Back at St. Elizabeth Healthcare where they’ve only seen one positive MCED test result thus far, Dr. Flora is more concerned about patients giving informed consent before they even get the test. “When the reps started hammering our primary care doctors, we sent communiques throughout the system saying that we would very much like to regulate this to make sure that before our patients receive accidental harm, that they at least have a conversation with somebody who understands the test,” he explained.

All 15 patients who requested the test at the hospital were first required to discuss the implications with a genetic counselor who is part of the system. “We are really pro–cancer screening,” he said, but added his hospital is “not pumped” about the Galleri test. “We’re being very cautious about overstatements made by sales guys to our primary care doctors, so we’re letting our own precision medicine people handle it.”

There’s a similar system in place at Community Health Network, a nonprofit health system with nine hospitals and 1,300 employee providers throughout Central Indiana. Patrick McGill, MD, a primary care physician and chief analytics officer for the network says they have streamlined patients with positive tests through their high-risk oncology clinic. “They don’t go straight to a medical oncologist which I know some systems are struggling with,” he said. “They get additional testing, whether it’s imaging they might need or other lab testing. We’ve had a few lung positives, and a few leukemia positives which might go straight to medical oncology. I think we had one breast that was positive so she got additional breast imaging.”

Through its foundation, CHN will offer 2,000 tests free of charge. “We decided to take cost off the table with this funding,” Dr. McGill said. “A lot of health systems I talk to are always concerned that insurance doesn’t cover it and it’s cost prohibitive. Is it creating additional disparities because only people who can afford it can get the test?”

Dr. Schrag serves as an uncompensated advisor for Grail. Previously, while with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, she received research funding from Grail.

Doug Flora, MD, knows the value of early cancer detection because it helped him survive kidney cancer 5 years ago. But as a medical oncologist and hematologist, and the executive medical director of oncology services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare in Edgewood, Ky., he also knows that a new era of early cancer detection testing poses big challenges for his network of six hospitals and 169 specialty and primary care offices throughout Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana.

Multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are finally a reality and could be a potential game changer because they can screen for the possibility of up to 50 different cancers in asymptomatic individuals with one blood draw. They represent one of the fastest growing segments in medical diagnostics with a projected value of $2.77 billion by 2030, according to the market research firm Grand View Research.

These tests are different from traditional liquid biopsies, which are designed to identify actionable gene mutations to help inform treatment decisions of patients already diagnosed with cancer. Instead, MCED tests work to detect fragments of circulating free DNA that have been shed by tumors and released into the bloodstream. Detecting these cancer signals could indicate that an individual has cancer well before they ever develop symptoms.

For some cancer types, particularly those commonly diagnosed at advanced stages or those without general population screening tests, MCED testing could have a significant impact.

In its new report, Grand View Research highlights nine “prominent players” active in the MCED market; of these, two have been granted breakthrough device designation by the Food and Drug Administration: OverC MCDBT by Burning Rock on Jan. 3, 2023, and Galleri by Grail in 2019. Galleri was launched in June 2021 and can be obtained with a prescription at a cost of $949.

Yet, while patients are asking for these tests and primary care physicians are prescribing them, oncologists are grappling with how to manage the first patients whose tests tell them they may have cancer.

Ordering the tests may seem straightforward, but in reality, it is not. In fact, they are so new that most health systems have no internal guidelines for physicians. Guidelines would address when the tests should be prescribed, and whether a patient should undergo more testing or be referred to an oncologist.
 

Clinical trials underway

There are currently at least 17 clinical trials underway to investigate the performance and clinical utility of MCED tests. Six of these involve Grail, including NHS-Galleri, the largest study to date of 140,000 participants in the United Kingdom where participants will be followed for 3 years with annual visits at 12 and 24 months. And, the National Cancer Institute is spearheading a clinical trial of its own, according to a search of ClinicalTrials.gov.

In September 2022, Grail presented findings from its pivotal PATHFINDER study at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology. Researchers reported that cancer signals were detected in 1.4% (92) of 6,621 participants enrolled in the study. Of the 92, 35 people were diagnosed with 36 cancers: 19 were solid tumors (2 oropharyngeal, 5 breast, l liver, 1 intrahepatic bile duct, 2 colon/rectum, 2 prostate, 1 lung, 1 pancreas, 1 small intestine, 1 uterus, 1 ovary and 1 bone) and 17 hematologic cancers (1 plasma cell myeloma/disorders, 2 lymphoid leukemia, 2 Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, and 12 lymphoma).

Almost half of newly diagnosed cases were cancers in stage 1 or 2. Of stage 1 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. Of stage 2 cancers, three were solid tumors and four were hematologic cancers. All other cancers were in stage 3 and 4 or were listed as recurrent or no stage. Deb Schrag, MD, MPH, chair of the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who presented the results from PATHFINDER at ESMO, reported that, of all diagnosed cancers, only breast, colon/rectum, prostate, and lung have established screening protocols.

The findings were so striking that the meeting scientific co-chair, Fabrice André, MD, PhD, told ESMO the oncology field must prepare for an onslaught of new patients.

“Within the next 5 years, we will need more doctors, surgeons and nurses with more diagnostic and treatment infrastructures to care for the rising number of people who will be identified by multicancer early detection tests,” said Dr. André, who is director of research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France, and future president of ESMO (2025-2026). “We need to involve all stakeholders in deciding new pathways of care. We need to agree who will be tested and when and where tests will be carried out, and to anticipate the changes that will happen as a result of these tests.”

But first, he urged, the need for comparative trials “across all types of cancer to find out if having an early detection test affects morbidity and mortality. We also need to know how the tests benefit patients, and how to discuss the results with them,” Dr. André said.
 

Demand may burden health systems

Dr. Flora suggested that companies like Grail are rushing their product to market without conducting long-term sizable clinical trials.

“These diagnostic companies are a billion dollar publicly traded or venture capital-funded companies that are losing millions of dollars a quarter as they’re scaling up these tests. So, there is some pressure on the sales forces ... to start moving product long before the science has met our lowest areas for entry,” Dr. Flora said. “They are aggressively marketing to a primary care audience that knows nothing about MCEDs. It’s a sales-driven development solving a problem we all believe is real, but we don’t know if it actually solves the problem.”

There are many unanswered questions, he said. Among these include whether the tests do indeed extend survival. “What they’re suggesting – that is if the blood test detects it – that we’re going to save your life. That’s not yet been proven. This is where the providers are pushing back against these industry types to say: ‘This is the wild west right now.’ It’s very irresponsible to go out there and try to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of product to doctors who have never studied genetics,” Dr. Flora said.

Grail’s chief medical officer Jeff Venstrom, MD, however, said physicians don’t need a background in genetic testing to order or interpret Galleri because it’s not a genetic test. Genetic tests look for genetic variants associated with cancer risk, which Galleri does not. MCED tests rely on genomic profiling to identify alterations in tumors.

“Maybe there’s still confusion in the market, which is common for new technologies when they’re initially launched. This is not a 23andMe test. We do not report germline mutations that have implications for cancer risk. We’re using this blood sample to test for the presence or absence of a cancer signal. The test result is very clear and simple: One area of the report says ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ It is a binary result that says if a signal is detected or not. The second provides additional information around where that signal could be coming from,” he said.

Galleri could fill a huge unmet need in cancer prevention, Dr. Venstrom said. Not only could it detect cancer at an earlier stage, but it could serve as a screening tool for cancers like pancreatic cancer in which screening is not available.

The test is not intended to replace standard of care screening, he said. The ordering provider should have a conversation with the patient about overall cancer risk. “Are you smoking? What’s your risk of obesity-associated cancers? Do you have a family history of cancer? I think this should all be in the context of a good conversation around preventative care,” he said.
 

Planning and prep in Boston

In Boston, Aparna Parikh, MD, an oncologist who specializes in gastrointestinal cancers, agreed that MCED testing has forced her team at the Mass General Cancer Center global cancer care program to think outside of the box.

“We’re a major academic center and it’s not easy [because] this is all uncharted territory,” she said. “We all recognize there are more tests coming, and they are here to stay. As a health system, we have to be ready to manage not only the tests, but patient anxieties, and all the complexities that come with it. We just don’t know yet how to best navigate.”

Although Dr. Parikh’s center has set up a working group tasked with organizing an outpatient clinic for patients with positive MCED tests, the current system is haphazard.

“Right now, it gets bounced around between people,” she explained. “Sometimes, patients are getting referred to the oncology team rather than the primary care team to try to sort out where the cancer signal is coming from, that is, if it’s not immediately obvious. No one really knows who should be the right person to own it,” Dr. Parikh said. While the test is supposed to give tissue-specific results, “it’s not perfect” and sometimes imaging and other work-ups are needed to locate the source of the signa.

“A group of four or five oncologists get looped in and then we’re trying to sort it out on a case-by-case basis, but understanding that with more and more tests coming, that kind of ad hoc approach isn’t going to be sufficient. We need a happy medium between the primary care and the disease specific oncologist, someone who can kind of help think through the diagnostic workup until they have a cancer diagnosis to get them to the right place,” Dr. Parikh said.

Dr. Venstrom said Grail is committed to providing support to clinicians in these situations. “We’re doing everything we can with our medical education forums. We have this pretty intense and extensive postpositive suite of resources,” he explained. “Some of our doctors on staff call the ordering provider within 24 hours just to clarify if there are any questions or confusion from the report. For example, if it suggests the signal is coming from the lung, we provide additional support around additional workups.”
 

Out-of-pocket test may widen disparities in care

With the exception of a few health insurance companies that have committed to covering some of the cost for the test, Galleri is an out-of-pocket expense.

Dr. Venstrom acknowledged that broad insurance coverage for the Galleri test remains a hurdle, although “we’ve secured coverage for a handful of companies of self-insured employers and forward-thinking insurers.” This includes partnerships with Point32Health, and Alignment Health, among others, he said.

There is also growing support among more than 400 cancer organizations for the Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act to accelerate coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. “We are constantly trying to understand the evidence that’s needed for payors to make sure that we get the broadest access possible for this test,” he said.
 

The first positive test result

Back at St. Elizabeth Healthcare where they’ve only seen one positive MCED test result thus far, Dr. Flora is more concerned about patients giving informed consent before they even get the test. “When the reps started hammering our primary care doctors, we sent communiques throughout the system saying that we would very much like to regulate this to make sure that before our patients receive accidental harm, that they at least have a conversation with somebody who understands the test,” he explained.

All 15 patients who requested the test at the hospital were first required to discuss the implications with a genetic counselor who is part of the system. “We are really pro–cancer screening,” he said, but added his hospital is “not pumped” about the Galleri test. “We’re being very cautious about overstatements made by sales guys to our primary care doctors, so we’re letting our own precision medicine people handle it.”

There’s a similar system in place at Community Health Network, a nonprofit health system with nine hospitals and 1,300 employee providers throughout Central Indiana. Patrick McGill, MD, a primary care physician and chief analytics officer for the network says they have streamlined patients with positive tests through their high-risk oncology clinic. “They don’t go straight to a medical oncologist which I know some systems are struggling with,” he said. “They get additional testing, whether it’s imaging they might need or other lab testing. We’ve had a few lung positives, and a few leukemia positives which might go straight to medical oncology. I think we had one breast that was positive so she got additional breast imaging.”

Through its foundation, CHN will offer 2,000 tests free of charge. “We decided to take cost off the table with this funding,” Dr. McGill said. “A lot of health systems I talk to are always concerned that insurance doesn’t cover it and it’s cost prohibitive. Is it creating additional disparities because only people who can afford it can get the test?”

Dr. Schrag serves as an uncompensated advisor for Grail. Previously, while with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, she received research funding from Grail.