Key clinical point: Intensive screening for distant metastasis during posttreatment follow-up was not associated with improved overall survival (OS) in disease-free patients initially diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer.

Major finding: OS was not significantly different among patients receiving intensive vs. less intensive screening (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.21; P = .124).

Study details: This retrospective study evaluated the effect of intensive (n=199) vs. less intensive (n=199) screening on survival in 398 patients initially diagnosed with nonmetastatic, resectable breast cancer who eventually developed distant metastasis after initial curative treatment.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants received by the Korea Health Industry Development Institute funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea, and the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT, Republic of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Cheun J-H et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Feb 2. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82485-w.

Key clinical point: Intensive screening for distant metastasis during posttreatment follow-up was not associated with improved overall survival (OS) in disease-free patients initially diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer.

Major finding: OS was not significantly different among patients receiving intensive vs. less intensive screening (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.21; P = .124).

Study details: This retrospective study evaluated the effect of intensive (n=199) vs. less intensive (n=199) screening on survival in 398 patients initially diagnosed with nonmetastatic, resectable breast cancer who eventually developed distant metastasis after initial curative treatment.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants received by the Korea Health Industry Development Institute funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea, and the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT, Republic of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Cheun J-H et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Feb 2. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82485-w.

Key clinical point: Intensive screening for distant metastasis during posttreatment follow-up was not associated with improved overall survival (OS) in disease-free patients initially diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer.

Major finding: OS was not significantly different among patients receiving intensive vs. less intensive screening (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.21; P = .124).

Study details: This retrospective study evaluated the effect of intensive (n=199) vs. less intensive (n=199) screening on survival in 398 patients initially diagnosed with nonmetastatic, resectable breast cancer who eventually developed distant metastasis after initial curative treatment.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants received by the Korea Health Industry Development Institute funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea, and the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT, Republic of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Cheun J-H et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Feb 2. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82485-w.

Key clinical point: By opting initially for breast-conserving therapy (BCT) over mastectomy, majority of women with T1-2 node-negative breast cancer with positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) can avoid completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND), often done in mastectomy.

Major finding: Patients treated with mastectomy vs. BCT were more likely to receive cALND after positive SLN (71% vs. 26.6%; P less than .001). Extracapsular extension (ECE) in the SLN was observed in 31.6% of patients treated with mastectomy and cALND. However, remaining 68.4% of patients without ECE in the SLN could have avoided cALND if they had chosen BCT initially.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 306 women with T1-2 clinically node-negative breast cancer with metastases in the SLN who were treated with mastectomy (n=107) or BCT (n=199).

Disclosures: Programmatic support was provided by the Fashion Footwear Charitable Foundation of New York, Inc., the Margie and Robert E. Peterson Foundation, and the Linda and Jim Lippman. ML Smidt reported receiving a grant from Servier Pharma. The remaining authors had no disclosures.

Source: Vane MLG et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Feb 14. doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-09674-9. 

Key clinical point: By opting initially for breast-conserving therapy (BCT) over mastectomy, majority of women with T1-2 node-negative breast cancer with positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) can avoid completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND), often done in mastectomy.

Major finding: Patients treated with mastectomy vs. BCT were more likely to receive cALND after positive SLN (71% vs. 26.6%; P less than .001). Extracapsular extension (ECE) in the SLN was observed in 31.6% of patients treated with mastectomy and cALND. However, remaining 68.4% of patients without ECE in the SLN could have avoided cALND if they had chosen BCT initially.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 306 women with T1-2 clinically node-negative breast cancer with metastases in the SLN who were treated with mastectomy (n=107) or BCT (n=199).

Disclosures: Programmatic support was provided by the Fashion Footwear Charitable Foundation of New York, Inc., the Margie and Robert E. Peterson Foundation, and the Linda and Jim Lippman. ML Smidt reported receiving a grant from Servier Pharma. The remaining authors had no disclosures.

Source: Vane MLG et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Feb 14. doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-09674-9. 

Key clinical point: By opting initially for breast-conserving therapy (BCT) over mastectomy, majority of women with T1-2 node-negative breast cancer with positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) can avoid completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND), often done in mastectomy.

Major finding: Patients treated with mastectomy vs. BCT were more likely to receive cALND after positive SLN (71% vs. 26.6%; P less than .001). Extracapsular extension (ECE) in the SLN was observed in 31.6% of patients treated with mastectomy and cALND. However, remaining 68.4% of patients without ECE in the SLN could have avoided cALND if they had chosen BCT initially.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 306 women with T1-2 clinically node-negative breast cancer with metastases in the SLN who were treated with mastectomy (n=107) or BCT (n=199).

Disclosures: Programmatic support was provided by the Fashion Footwear Charitable Foundation of New York, Inc., the Margie and Robert E. Peterson Foundation, and the Linda and Jim Lippman. ML Smidt reported receiving a grant from Servier Pharma. The remaining authors had no disclosures.

Source: Vane MLG et al. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Feb 14. doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-09674-9. 

Type 3 von Willebrand disease (VWD) is rare, but this form of the disease is associated with severe bleeding, particularly in muscles and joints, a bleeding disorders expert said.

“There’s a virtually complete deficiency in von Willebrand factor [in type 3 disease], so usually it’s defined as below 5 or in some studies below 3 IU/dL, but also due to the very low levels of von Willebrand factor, there’s also a very low level of factor VIII,” said Jeroen Eikenboom, MD, PhD, from Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The inheritance pattern is autosomal recessive, and the prevalence is about 1 in a million,” he said during the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.

Erik Adolf von Willenbrand, MD, PhD, first described this form of VWD in a family from the Åland Islands, an autonomous region of Finland. The disease, later discovered to be caused in this family by a cytosine deletion in exon 18 of the von Willebrand factor (VWF) gene, was associated with fatal bleeding events in several family members.

“As VWF is the carrier protein of factor VIII, the very low VWF level leads to a strongly reduced factor VIII level, comparable to the levels seen in mild to moderate hemophilia A. As a consequence, VWD type 3 has the combined characteristics of a primary as well as a secondary hemostasis defect,” Dr. Eikenboom explained in an abstract accompanying his talk.

Compared with VWD type 1 or 2, type 3 VWD is associated with bleeding episodes more commonly seen in patients with hemophilia A, notably mucocutaneous bleeding, bleeding after trauma or during surgery, and bleeding into joints and/or muscles.
 

Treatment

The goals of treatment for patients with type 3 VWD are to correct the dual hemostasis defects of impaired platelet adhesion because of low VWF levels, and the intrinsic coagulation defect because of levels of factor VIII.

Desmopressin is not effective in type 3 VWD, Dr. Eikenboom said, so treatment requires the use of either plasma-derived VWF, with or without factor VIII, or recombinant VWF.

In the United States, the only standalone VWF concentrate approved by the Food and Drug Administration is a recombinant product (Vonvendi), Three other human plasma–derived concentrates containing both VWF and factor VIII are also licensed (Alpanate, Humate-P, Wilate).

Clinicians prescribing the combined factor concentrates need to be aware of differences in pharmacokinetics between the products.

For example, following infusion of Wilate, which has equal amounts of von Willebrand factor and factor VIII, there is an increase in circulation of both von Willebrand factor and factor VIII and a similar decline in each factor over time.

In contrast, following an infusion of Humate-P, which contains lower levels of factor VIII, “interestingly, you see a secondary rise of factor VIII in Humate-P–infused patients, whereas the secondary rise is not visible in the Wilate patients,” he said.

Approximately 22% of patients with type 3 VWD also receive prophylaxis with VWF concentrate, which has been shown to decrease the median annualized bleeding rate from 25% to 6.1%.

Dr. Eikenboom cautioned that 5%-10% of patients with type 3 VWD may develop allo-antibodies against VWF concentrates, which can complicate treatment and carries risk of anaphylactic shock.

“It’s also been mentioned in literature that there may be an association with partial or complete von Willebrand factor gene deletions or nonsense mutations and the development of allo-antibodies,” he said.
 

Prophylaxis burdensome but helpful

Veronica H. Flood, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who specializes in the treatment of patients with von Willebrand disease, follows a number of both girls and boys with type 3 VWD.

“Those are the people who will have bleeding into their joints, and for the girls, worse periods than some of those with other types of von Willebrand disease, and it is true that if you want to stop their bleeding, you cannot use desmopressin like we use in most other von Willebrand patients. They will need factor, although for the heavy menstrual bleeding you can use hormones or tranexamic acid – there are some other options for that,” she said in an interview.

She also noted that type 3 von Willebrand disease can be highly variable. For patients with especially frequent joint bleeding, her center recommends prophylaxis.

“Prophylaxis can be very burdensome for patients. You’re talking about IV therapy several times a week, but it’s very helpful for the joint bleeds. Episodic prophylaxis can be very helpful for heavy menstrual bleeding, and we actually have type 2, type 3, and some type 1 patients with bad enough nose bleeds that they end up on prophylaxis,” she said.

Patients with gastrointestinal bleeding are the most challenging to care for, she noted.

“You can put them on factor prophylaxis, but even that isn’t always enough to help some adults with bad GI bleeding, and we’re investigating other options for that,” she said.

Dr. Eikenboom disclosed research support from CSL Behring and honoraria (directed to his institution) for educational activities sponsored by Roche and Celgene. Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Type 3 von Willebrand disease (VWD) is rare, but this form of the disease is associated with severe bleeding, particularly in muscles and joints, a bleeding disorders expert said.

“There’s a virtually complete deficiency in von Willebrand factor [in type 3 disease], so usually it’s defined as below 5 or in some studies below 3 IU/dL, but also due to the very low levels of von Willebrand factor, there’s also a very low level of factor VIII,” said Jeroen Eikenboom, MD, PhD, from Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The inheritance pattern is autosomal recessive, and the prevalence is about 1 in a million,” he said during the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.

Erik Adolf von Willenbrand, MD, PhD, first described this form of VWD in a family from the Åland Islands, an autonomous region of Finland. The disease, later discovered to be caused in this family by a cytosine deletion in exon 18 of the von Willebrand factor (VWF) gene, was associated with fatal bleeding events in several family members.

“As VWF is the carrier protein of factor VIII, the very low VWF level leads to a strongly reduced factor VIII level, comparable to the levels seen in mild to moderate hemophilia A. As a consequence, VWD type 3 has the combined characteristics of a primary as well as a secondary hemostasis defect,” Dr. Eikenboom explained in an abstract accompanying his talk.

Compared with VWD type 1 or 2, type 3 VWD is associated with bleeding episodes more commonly seen in patients with hemophilia A, notably mucocutaneous bleeding, bleeding after trauma or during surgery, and bleeding into joints and/or muscles.
 

Treatment

The goals of treatment for patients with type 3 VWD are to correct the dual hemostasis defects of impaired platelet adhesion because of low VWF levels, and the intrinsic coagulation defect because of levels of factor VIII.

Desmopressin is not effective in type 3 VWD, Dr. Eikenboom said, so treatment requires the use of either plasma-derived VWF, with or without factor VIII, or recombinant VWF.

In the United States, the only standalone VWF concentrate approved by the Food and Drug Administration is a recombinant product (Vonvendi), Three other human plasma–derived concentrates containing both VWF and factor VIII are also licensed (Alpanate, Humate-P, Wilate).

Clinicians prescribing the combined factor concentrates need to be aware of differences in pharmacokinetics between the products.

For example, following infusion of Wilate, which has equal amounts of von Willebrand factor and factor VIII, there is an increase in circulation of both von Willebrand factor and factor VIII and a similar decline in each factor over time.

In contrast, following an infusion of Humate-P, which contains lower levels of factor VIII, “interestingly, you see a secondary rise of factor VIII in Humate-P–infused patients, whereas the secondary rise is not visible in the Wilate patients,” he said.

Approximately 22% of patients with type 3 VWD also receive prophylaxis with VWF concentrate, which has been shown to decrease the median annualized bleeding rate from 25% to 6.1%.

Dr. Eikenboom cautioned that 5%-10% of patients with type 3 VWD may develop allo-antibodies against VWF concentrates, which can complicate treatment and carries risk of anaphylactic shock.

“It’s also been mentioned in literature that there may be an association with partial or complete von Willebrand factor gene deletions or nonsense mutations and the development of allo-antibodies,” he said.
 

Prophylaxis burdensome but helpful

Veronica H. Flood, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who specializes in the treatment of patients with von Willebrand disease, follows a number of both girls and boys with type 3 VWD.

“Those are the people who will have bleeding into their joints, and for the girls, worse periods than some of those with other types of von Willebrand disease, and it is true that if you want to stop their bleeding, you cannot use desmopressin like we use in most other von Willebrand patients. They will need factor, although for the heavy menstrual bleeding you can use hormones or tranexamic acid – there are some other options for that,” she said in an interview.

She also noted that type 3 von Willebrand disease can be highly variable. For patients with especially frequent joint bleeding, her center recommends prophylaxis.

“Prophylaxis can be very burdensome for patients. You’re talking about IV therapy several times a week, but it’s very helpful for the joint bleeds. Episodic prophylaxis can be very helpful for heavy menstrual bleeding, and we actually have type 2, type 3, and some type 1 patients with bad enough nose bleeds that they end up on prophylaxis,” she said.

Patients with gastrointestinal bleeding are the most challenging to care for, she noted.

“You can put them on factor prophylaxis, but even that isn’t always enough to help some adults with bad GI bleeding, and we’re investigating other options for that,” she said.

Dr. Eikenboom disclosed research support from CSL Behring and honoraria (directed to his institution) for educational activities sponsored by Roche and Celgene. Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Type 3 von Willebrand disease (VWD) is rare, but this form of the disease is associated with severe bleeding, particularly in muscles and joints, a bleeding disorders expert said.

“There’s a virtually complete deficiency in von Willebrand factor [in type 3 disease], so usually it’s defined as below 5 or in some studies below 3 IU/dL, but also due to the very low levels of von Willebrand factor, there’s also a very low level of factor VIII,” said Jeroen Eikenboom, MD, PhD, from Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The inheritance pattern is autosomal recessive, and the prevalence is about 1 in a million,” he said during the annual congress of the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders.

Erik Adolf von Willenbrand, MD, PhD, first described this form of VWD in a family from the Åland Islands, an autonomous region of Finland. The disease, later discovered to be caused in this family by a cytosine deletion in exon 18 of the von Willebrand factor (VWF) gene, was associated with fatal bleeding events in several family members.

“As VWF is the carrier protein of factor VIII, the very low VWF level leads to a strongly reduced factor VIII level, comparable to the levels seen in mild to moderate hemophilia A. As a consequence, VWD type 3 has the combined characteristics of a primary as well as a secondary hemostasis defect,” Dr. Eikenboom explained in an abstract accompanying his talk.

Compared with VWD type 1 or 2, type 3 VWD is associated with bleeding episodes more commonly seen in patients with hemophilia A, notably mucocutaneous bleeding, bleeding after trauma or during surgery, and bleeding into joints and/or muscles.
 

Treatment

The goals of treatment for patients with type 3 VWD are to correct the dual hemostasis defects of impaired platelet adhesion because of low VWF levels, and the intrinsic coagulation defect because of levels of factor VIII.

Desmopressin is not effective in type 3 VWD, Dr. Eikenboom said, so treatment requires the use of either plasma-derived VWF, with or without factor VIII, or recombinant VWF.

In the United States, the only standalone VWF concentrate approved by the Food and Drug Administration is a recombinant product (Vonvendi), Three other human plasma–derived concentrates containing both VWF and factor VIII are also licensed (Alpanate, Humate-P, Wilate).

Clinicians prescribing the combined factor concentrates need to be aware of differences in pharmacokinetics between the products.

For example, following infusion of Wilate, which has equal amounts of von Willebrand factor and factor VIII, there is an increase in circulation of both von Willebrand factor and factor VIII and a similar decline in each factor over time.

In contrast, following an infusion of Humate-P, which contains lower levels of factor VIII, “interestingly, you see a secondary rise of factor VIII in Humate-P–infused patients, whereas the secondary rise is not visible in the Wilate patients,” he said.

Approximately 22% of patients with type 3 VWD also receive prophylaxis with VWF concentrate, which has been shown to decrease the median annualized bleeding rate from 25% to 6.1%.

Dr. Eikenboom cautioned that 5%-10% of patients with type 3 VWD may develop allo-antibodies against VWF concentrates, which can complicate treatment and carries risk of anaphylactic shock.

“It’s also been mentioned in literature that there may be an association with partial or complete von Willebrand factor gene deletions or nonsense mutations and the development of allo-antibodies,” he said.
 

Prophylaxis burdensome but helpful

Veronica H. Flood, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who specializes in the treatment of patients with von Willebrand disease, follows a number of both girls and boys with type 3 VWD.

“Those are the people who will have bleeding into their joints, and for the girls, worse periods than some of those with other types of von Willebrand disease, and it is true that if you want to stop their bleeding, you cannot use desmopressin like we use in most other von Willebrand patients. They will need factor, although for the heavy menstrual bleeding you can use hormones or tranexamic acid – there are some other options for that,” she said in an interview.

She also noted that type 3 von Willebrand disease can be highly variable. For patients with especially frequent joint bleeding, her center recommends prophylaxis.

“Prophylaxis can be very burdensome for patients. You’re talking about IV therapy several times a week, but it’s very helpful for the joint bleeds. Episodic prophylaxis can be very helpful for heavy menstrual bleeding, and we actually have type 2, type 3, and some type 1 patients with bad enough nose bleeds that they end up on prophylaxis,” she said.

Patients with gastrointestinal bleeding are the most challenging to care for, she noted.

“You can put them on factor prophylaxis, but even that isn’t always enough to help some adults with bad GI bleeding, and we’re investigating other options for that,” she said.

Dr. Eikenboom disclosed research support from CSL Behring and honoraria (directed to his institution) for educational activities sponsored by Roche and Celgene. Dr. Flood reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Key clinical point: The 6-year follow-up data from APHINITY trial confirm invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) benefits of adding pertuzumab to adjuvant trastuzumab and chemotherapy in node-positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer.

Major finding: At 6 years, IDFS was longer in pertuzumab vs. placebo (91% vs. 88%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91) group, particularly in node-positive cohort (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87) but not in node-negative cohort. The overall survival analysis did not reach the required statistical significance (HR, 0.85; P = .17).

Study details: Findings are from a second interim analysis of the phase 3 APHINITY trial including 4,805 patients with node-positive or high-risk node-negative HER2+ breast cancer randomly allocated to receive chemotherapy with either 1 year of trastuzumab + placebo (n = 2,404) or trastuzumab + pertuzumab (n = 2,400) post-surgery.

Disclosures: This study was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech. The lead author reported ties with AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Debiopharm Group, Odonate Therapeutics, Menarini, Seattle Genetics, Camel-IDS, Immunomedics, Roche/Genentech, Immutep, Radius Health, Synthon, Servier, Oncolytics, and EU Cancer Mission Board. Other investigators declared ties with various pharmaceutical companies including Roche/Genentech.

Source: Piccart M et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Feb 4. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01204.

Key clinical point: The 6-year follow-up data from APHINITY trial confirm invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) benefits of adding pertuzumab to adjuvant trastuzumab and chemotherapy in node-positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer.

Major finding: At 6 years, IDFS was longer in pertuzumab vs. placebo (91% vs. 88%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91) group, particularly in node-positive cohort (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87) but not in node-negative cohort. The overall survival analysis did not reach the required statistical significance (HR, 0.85; P = .17).

Study details: Findings are from a second interim analysis of the phase 3 APHINITY trial including 4,805 patients with node-positive or high-risk node-negative HER2+ breast cancer randomly allocated to receive chemotherapy with either 1 year of trastuzumab + placebo (n = 2,404) or trastuzumab + pertuzumab (n = 2,400) post-surgery.

Disclosures: This study was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech. The lead author reported ties with AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Debiopharm Group, Odonate Therapeutics, Menarini, Seattle Genetics, Camel-IDS, Immunomedics, Roche/Genentech, Immutep, Radius Health, Synthon, Servier, Oncolytics, and EU Cancer Mission Board. Other investigators declared ties with various pharmaceutical companies including Roche/Genentech.

Source: Piccart M et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Feb 4. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01204.

Key clinical point: The 6-year follow-up data from APHINITY trial confirm invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) benefits of adding pertuzumab to adjuvant trastuzumab and chemotherapy in node-positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer.

Major finding: At 6 years, IDFS was longer in pertuzumab vs. placebo (91% vs. 88%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91) group, particularly in node-positive cohort (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87) but not in node-negative cohort. The overall survival analysis did not reach the required statistical significance (HR, 0.85; P = .17).

Study details: Findings are from a second interim analysis of the phase 3 APHINITY trial including 4,805 patients with node-positive or high-risk node-negative HER2+ breast cancer randomly allocated to receive chemotherapy with either 1 year of trastuzumab + placebo (n = 2,404) or trastuzumab + pertuzumab (n = 2,400) post-surgery.

Disclosures: This study was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech. The lead author reported ties with AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Debiopharm Group, Odonate Therapeutics, Menarini, Seattle Genetics, Camel-IDS, Immunomedics, Roche/Genentech, Immutep, Radius Health, Synthon, Servier, Oncolytics, and EU Cancer Mission Board. Other investigators declared ties with various pharmaceutical companies including Roche/Genentech.

Source: Piccart M et al. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Feb 4. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01204.

Key clinical point: Pyrotinib+capecitabine significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs. lapatinib+capecitabine with manageable toxicity in women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after treatment with trastuzumab and taxanes.

Major finding: Median PFS was significantly longer in the pyrotinib+capecitabine vs. lapatinib+capecitabine group (12.5 vs. 6.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.39; one-sided P less than .0001). Serious adverse events were reported by 10% vs. 8% of patients in the pyrotinib vs. lapatinib group.

Study details: Findings are from an interim analysis of the phase 3 PHOEBE trial including 267 patients with HER2+ MBC previously treated with trastuzumab and taxanes randomly allocated to receive either pyrotinib+capecitabine (n=134) or lapatinib+capecitabine (n=132).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and the National Key R&D Program of China. The lead author reported ties with Hengrui, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Eisai. Some other investigators also reported employment or receiving grants and fees from various pharmaceutical companies including Hengrui.

Source: Xu B et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Feb 11. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30702-6.

Key clinical point: Pyrotinib+capecitabine significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs. lapatinib+capecitabine with manageable toxicity in women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after treatment with trastuzumab and taxanes.

Major finding: Median PFS was significantly longer in the pyrotinib+capecitabine vs. lapatinib+capecitabine group (12.5 vs. 6.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.39; one-sided P less than .0001). Serious adverse events were reported by 10% vs. 8% of patients in the pyrotinib vs. lapatinib group.

Study details: Findings are from an interim analysis of the phase 3 PHOEBE trial including 267 patients with HER2+ MBC previously treated with trastuzumab and taxanes randomly allocated to receive either pyrotinib+capecitabine (n=134) or lapatinib+capecitabine (n=132).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and the National Key R&D Program of China. The lead author reported ties with Hengrui, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Eisai. Some other investigators also reported employment or receiving grants and fees from various pharmaceutical companies including Hengrui.

Source: Xu B et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Feb 11. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30702-6.

Key clinical point: Pyrotinib+capecitabine significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs. lapatinib+capecitabine with manageable toxicity in women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after treatment with trastuzumab and taxanes.

Major finding: Median PFS was significantly longer in the pyrotinib+capecitabine vs. lapatinib+capecitabine group (12.5 vs. 6.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.39; one-sided P less than .0001). Serious adverse events were reported by 10% vs. 8% of patients in the pyrotinib vs. lapatinib group.

Study details: Findings are from an interim analysis of the phase 3 PHOEBE trial including 267 patients with HER2+ MBC previously treated with trastuzumab and taxanes randomly allocated to receive either pyrotinib+capecitabine (n=134) or lapatinib+capecitabine (n=132).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and the National Key R&D Program of China. The lead author reported ties with Hengrui, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Eisai. Some other investigators also reported employment or receiving grants and fees from various pharmaceutical companies including Hengrui.

Source: Xu B et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Feb 11. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30702-6.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has expanded the criteria for lung cancer screening. The updated final recommendations have lowered the age at which screening starts from 55 to 50 years and have reduced the criterion regarding smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years.

“This is great news because it means that nearly twice as many people are eligible to be screened, which we hope will allow clinicians to save more lives and help people remain healthy longer,” commented John Wong, MD, chief science officer, vice chair for clinical affairs, and chief of the Division of Clinical Decision Making at USPSTF.

The updated final recommendations were published online on March 9 in JAMA.

The USPSTF recommends annual screening with low-dose CT for adults aged 50-80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

This updates guidance issued in 2013, which recommended annual screening for lung cancer for adults aged 55-80 years who had a 30 pack-year smoking history and who were either current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years.

The move will nearly double the number of people are now eligible for screening, up to 14.5 million individuals – an increase of 81% (6.4 million adults) from the 2013 recommendations.

The expanded criteria may help increase screening among Black individuals and women. Data show that both groups tend to smoke fewer cigarettes than White men and that Black persons are at higher risk for lung cancer than White persons. In addition, research has shown that about one-third of Black patients with lung cancer were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening under the previous guidelines.

Uptake has been limited

To date, uptake of lung cancer screening has been very limited, from 6% to 18% of individuals who meet the eligibility criteria.

The new recommendations will open up screening to many more people, but challenges to implementation remain.

“The science is clear that lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives,” Dr. Wong told this news organization. “We recognize that there are existing barriers to screening everyone who is eligible, but clinicians and patients both deserve to know that screening can detect lung cancer early, when treatment has the best chance of being beneficial.”

He added that the hope is that these recommendations will encourage clinicians to examine the barriers to effective lung cancer screening in their communities and to do what they can to improve implementation. “We also hope to encourage patients to have conversations with their clinicians about whether they are eligible for screening and to discuss smoking cessation treatments if they are still smoking,” Dr. Wong added.

In an accompanying editorial, Louise M. Henderson, PhD, M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, and Ethan Basch, MD, all from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, address some of the current challenges in implementation.

They note that reimbursement for lung cancer screening by Medicare requires submission of data to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–approved registry, and this can present problems for facilities serving less affluent communities or that have limited resources.

Medicaid coverage is also uneven. As of September 2020, lung cancer screening was covered by 38 Medicaid programs, but not by 9. For three programs, data on coverage were not available.

“With the new recommendations lowering the screening-eligible age to 50 years, many eligible individuals who are uninsured or who are receiving Medicaid and living in states that do not cover screening will have financial barriers to undergo screening,” they write.

In addition, many individuals in at-risk populations lack adequate geographic access to comprehensive lung cancer screening programs.

Expanding eligibility criteria is important, the editorialists point out, but barriers to screening, which include lack of insurance coverage and limited physical access to high-quality screening programs, highlight the complex problems with implementation that need to be addressed.

“A concerted effort to increase the reach of lung cancer screening is needed,” they write. “The 2021 USPSTF recommendation statement represents a leap forward in evidence and offers promise to prevent more cancer deaths and address screening disparities. But the greatest work lies ahead to ensure this promise is actualized.”

Advocacy needed

When approached for comment, Jianjun Zhang, MD, PhD, from the department of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said he supports the new guidelines, and they will lower mortality. “The data are pretty strong overall,” he said in an interview.

Although the uptake of screening is currently very low, he pointed out that, even if uptake remains the same, more lives will be saved because eligibility has been expanded. “More people will be getting screened, so it’s a start,” he said.

Aside from factors such as insurance and access, another problem involves primary care. “Time is very limited in primary care,” he said. “You have about 15 minutes, and it can be really hard to fit everything into a visit. Screening may get left out or may only get a brief mention.”

Advocacy is needed, Dr. Zhang pointed out. “Breast cancer has strong voices and advocacy, and people are more aware of mammography,” he said. “The information is disseminated out into the community. We need the same for lung cancer.”

Dr. Zhang emphasized that, even with the expanded criteria, many individuals will still be missed. “There are other risk factors besides smoking,” he said. “About 10% of lung cancers occur in never-smokers.”

Other risk factors include a family history of lung cancer, exposure to certain materials and chemicals, working in the mining industry, and genetics.

“We will move on to more personalized screening at some point,” he said. “But right now, we can’t make it too complicated for patients and doctors. We need to concentrate on increasing screening rates within these current criteria.”

The updated guidelines have been given a B recommendation, meaning the USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide the service to eligible patients, there is at least fair evidence that this service improves important health outcomes, and benefits outweigh harms.

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. The original article lists relevant financial relationships of task force members. Dr. Zhang has received grants from Johnson & Johnson and Merck, and adversary/consulting/honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenePlus, Innovent, OrigMed, and Roche.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has expanded the criteria for lung cancer screening. The updated final recommendations have lowered the age at which screening starts from 55 to 50 years and have reduced the criterion regarding smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years.

“This is great news because it means that nearly twice as many people are eligible to be screened, which we hope will allow clinicians to save more lives and help people remain healthy longer,” commented John Wong, MD, chief science officer, vice chair for clinical affairs, and chief of the Division of Clinical Decision Making at USPSTF.

The updated final recommendations were published online on March 9 in JAMA.

The USPSTF recommends annual screening with low-dose CT for adults aged 50-80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

This updates guidance issued in 2013, which recommended annual screening for lung cancer for adults aged 55-80 years who had a 30 pack-year smoking history and who were either current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years.

The move will nearly double the number of people are now eligible for screening, up to 14.5 million individuals – an increase of 81% (6.4 million adults) from the 2013 recommendations.

The expanded criteria may help increase screening among Black individuals and women. Data show that both groups tend to smoke fewer cigarettes than White men and that Black persons are at higher risk for lung cancer than White persons. In addition, research has shown that about one-third of Black patients with lung cancer were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening under the previous guidelines.

Uptake has been limited

To date, uptake of lung cancer screening has been very limited, from 6% to 18% of individuals who meet the eligibility criteria.

The new recommendations will open up screening to many more people, but challenges to implementation remain.

“The science is clear that lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives,” Dr. Wong told this news organization. “We recognize that there are existing barriers to screening everyone who is eligible, but clinicians and patients both deserve to know that screening can detect lung cancer early, when treatment has the best chance of being beneficial.”

He added that the hope is that these recommendations will encourage clinicians to examine the barriers to effective lung cancer screening in their communities and to do what they can to improve implementation. “We also hope to encourage patients to have conversations with their clinicians about whether they are eligible for screening and to discuss smoking cessation treatments if they are still smoking,” Dr. Wong added.

In an accompanying editorial, Louise M. Henderson, PhD, M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, and Ethan Basch, MD, all from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, address some of the current challenges in implementation.

They note that reimbursement for lung cancer screening by Medicare requires submission of data to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–approved registry, and this can present problems for facilities serving less affluent communities or that have limited resources.

Medicaid coverage is also uneven. As of September 2020, lung cancer screening was covered by 38 Medicaid programs, but not by 9. For three programs, data on coverage were not available.

“With the new recommendations lowering the screening-eligible age to 50 years, many eligible individuals who are uninsured or who are receiving Medicaid and living in states that do not cover screening will have financial barriers to undergo screening,” they write.

In addition, many individuals in at-risk populations lack adequate geographic access to comprehensive lung cancer screening programs.

Expanding eligibility criteria is important, the editorialists point out, but barriers to screening, which include lack of insurance coverage and limited physical access to high-quality screening programs, highlight the complex problems with implementation that need to be addressed.

“A concerted effort to increase the reach of lung cancer screening is needed,” they write. “The 2021 USPSTF recommendation statement represents a leap forward in evidence and offers promise to prevent more cancer deaths and address screening disparities. But the greatest work lies ahead to ensure this promise is actualized.”

Advocacy needed

When approached for comment, Jianjun Zhang, MD, PhD, from the department of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said he supports the new guidelines, and they will lower mortality. “The data are pretty strong overall,” he said in an interview.

Although the uptake of screening is currently very low, he pointed out that, even if uptake remains the same, more lives will be saved because eligibility has been expanded. “More people will be getting screened, so it’s a start,” he said.

Aside from factors such as insurance and access, another problem involves primary care. “Time is very limited in primary care,” he said. “You have about 15 minutes, and it can be really hard to fit everything into a visit. Screening may get left out or may only get a brief mention.”

Advocacy is needed, Dr. Zhang pointed out. “Breast cancer has strong voices and advocacy, and people are more aware of mammography,” he said. “The information is disseminated out into the community. We need the same for lung cancer.”

Dr. Zhang emphasized that, even with the expanded criteria, many individuals will still be missed. “There are other risk factors besides smoking,” he said. “About 10% of lung cancers occur in never-smokers.”

Other risk factors include a family history of lung cancer, exposure to certain materials and chemicals, working in the mining industry, and genetics.

“We will move on to more personalized screening at some point,” he said. “But right now, we can’t make it too complicated for patients and doctors. We need to concentrate on increasing screening rates within these current criteria.”

The updated guidelines have been given a B recommendation, meaning the USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide the service to eligible patients, there is at least fair evidence that this service improves important health outcomes, and benefits outweigh harms.

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. The original article lists relevant financial relationships of task force members. Dr. Zhang has received grants from Johnson & Johnson and Merck, and adversary/consulting/honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenePlus, Innovent, OrigMed, and Roche.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has expanded the criteria for lung cancer screening. The updated final recommendations have lowered the age at which screening starts from 55 to 50 years and have reduced the criterion regarding smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years.

“This is great news because it means that nearly twice as many people are eligible to be screened, which we hope will allow clinicians to save more lives and help people remain healthy longer,” commented John Wong, MD, chief science officer, vice chair for clinical affairs, and chief of the Division of Clinical Decision Making at USPSTF.

The updated final recommendations were published online on March 9 in JAMA.

The USPSTF recommends annual screening with low-dose CT for adults aged 50-80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

This updates guidance issued in 2013, which recommended annual screening for lung cancer for adults aged 55-80 years who had a 30 pack-year smoking history and who were either current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years.

The move will nearly double the number of people are now eligible for screening, up to 14.5 million individuals – an increase of 81% (6.4 million adults) from the 2013 recommendations.

The expanded criteria may help increase screening among Black individuals and women. Data show that both groups tend to smoke fewer cigarettes than White men and that Black persons are at higher risk for lung cancer than White persons. In addition, research has shown that about one-third of Black patients with lung cancer were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening under the previous guidelines.

Uptake has been limited

To date, uptake of lung cancer screening has been very limited, from 6% to 18% of individuals who meet the eligibility criteria.

The new recommendations will open up screening to many more people, but challenges to implementation remain.

“The science is clear that lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives,” Dr. Wong told this news organization. “We recognize that there are existing barriers to screening everyone who is eligible, but clinicians and patients both deserve to know that screening can detect lung cancer early, when treatment has the best chance of being beneficial.”

He added that the hope is that these recommendations will encourage clinicians to examine the barriers to effective lung cancer screening in their communities and to do what they can to improve implementation. “We also hope to encourage patients to have conversations with their clinicians about whether they are eligible for screening and to discuss smoking cessation treatments if they are still smoking,” Dr. Wong added.

In an accompanying editorial, Louise M. Henderson, PhD, M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, and Ethan Basch, MD, all from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, address some of the current challenges in implementation.

They note that reimbursement for lung cancer screening by Medicare requires submission of data to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–approved registry, and this can present problems for facilities serving less affluent communities or that have limited resources.

Medicaid coverage is also uneven. As of September 2020, lung cancer screening was covered by 38 Medicaid programs, but not by 9. For three programs, data on coverage were not available.

“With the new recommendations lowering the screening-eligible age to 50 years, many eligible individuals who are uninsured or who are receiving Medicaid and living in states that do not cover screening will have financial barriers to undergo screening,” they write.

In addition, many individuals in at-risk populations lack adequate geographic access to comprehensive lung cancer screening programs.

Expanding eligibility criteria is important, the editorialists point out, but barriers to screening, which include lack of insurance coverage and limited physical access to high-quality screening programs, highlight the complex problems with implementation that need to be addressed.

“A concerted effort to increase the reach of lung cancer screening is needed,” they write. “The 2021 USPSTF recommendation statement represents a leap forward in evidence and offers promise to prevent more cancer deaths and address screening disparities. But the greatest work lies ahead to ensure this promise is actualized.”

Advocacy needed

When approached for comment, Jianjun Zhang, MD, PhD, from the department of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said he supports the new guidelines, and they will lower mortality. “The data are pretty strong overall,” he said in an interview.

Although the uptake of screening is currently very low, he pointed out that, even if uptake remains the same, more lives will be saved because eligibility has been expanded. “More people will be getting screened, so it’s a start,” he said.

Aside from factors such as insurance and access, another problem involves primary care. “Time is very limited in primary care,” he said. “You have about 15 minutes, and it can be really hard to fit everything into a visit. Screening may get left out or may only get a brief mention.”

Advocacy is needed, Dr. Zhang pointed out. “Breast cancer has strong voices and advocacy, and people are more aware of mammography,” he said. “The information is disseminated out into the community. We need the same for lung cancer.”

Dr. Zhang emphasized that, even with the expanded criteria, many individuals will still be missed. “There are other risk factors besides smoking,” he said. “About 10% of lung cancers occur in never-smokers.”

Other risk factors include a family history of lung cancer, exposure to certain materials and chemicals, working in the mining industry, and genetics.

“We will move on to more personalized screening at some point,” he said. “But right now, we can’t make it too complicated for patients and doctors. We need to concentrate on increasing screening rates within these current criteria.”

The updated guidelines have been given a B recommendation, meaning the USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide the service to eligible patients, there is at least fair evidence that this service improves important health outcomes, and benefits outweigh harms.

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. The original article lists relevant financial relationships of task force members. Dr. Zhang has received grants from Johnson & Johnson and Merck, and adversary/consulting/honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenePlus, Innovent, OrigMed, and Roche.

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

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

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

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

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

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

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

It’s been a banner year for treatment advances in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with two drugs gaining approval for lupus nephritis while other promising molecules with novel mechanisms of action advanced smartly through the developmental pipeline, speakers agreed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think the most important thing in rheumatology in the last year is where we are now with lupus. With two drugs being approved for lupus nephritis, I think that’s really huge as we talk about treat-to-target,” said Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

Martin Bergman, MD, concurred.

“Lupus has been blowing up in the past year. We have two new medications for lupus nephritis, we have two or three new mechanisms of action for therapy. I think that was one of the biggest things in rheumatology in the past year,” said Dr. Bergman, a rheumatologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Together with Roy Fleischmann, MD, Dr. Wells spotlighted promising new molecules for the treatment of SLE, giant cell arteritis, vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis.
 

SLE

The two drugs approved in recent months specifically for lupus nephritis are voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), which has been approved for lupus for a decade. Voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, is a modification of cyclosporine offering significant advantages over the older drug: It’s more potent, requires no dose titration, has a better safety profile, and is metabolized more quickly.

“A safer and easier-to-use calcineurin inhibitor is going to be huge,” Dr. Wells predicted.

Up for Food and Drug Administration review in the coming year on the basis of the positive phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials is anifrolumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1d. At 52 weeks in the pooled analysis, one or more SLE flares occurred in 33.6% of patients on anifrolumab and 42.9% of placebo-treated controls.

“This is not a blockbuster, but it’s a worthwhile addition, like belimumab,” according to Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas, Dallas.

Dr. Wells concurred, with a reservation: In a subgroup analysis of the TULIP trials, anifrolumab wasn’t significantly better than placebo in black patients, who tend to have more severe and tough-to-treat renal disease.

“Anifrolumab doesn’t look as effective as some other agents, and I’d be disinclined to give it to my black patients,” the rheumatologist said.

Dr. Fleischmann was far more enthusiastic about obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A humanized monoclonal antibody known for now as BIIB059 demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in the phase 2 LILAC trial. BIIB059 binds to blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2), a receptor specific to plasmacytoid dendritic cells, resulting in decreased production of type 1 interferon and other inflammatory cytokines. The LILAC trial included 132 SLE patients with active arthritis and skin disease who received subcutaneous injections of BIIB059 at 450 mg or placebo every 4 weeks, with an extra dose at week 2. The primary endpoint was met, with an absolute 15-joint reduction in the total number of tender or swollen joints from baseline to week 24 in the BIIB059 group, compared to an 11.6-joint reduction with placebo. In addition, the likelihood of an SRI-4 response at week 24 was 3.49-fold greater with BIIB059 than with placebo.

Dr. Wells noted that the BIIB059 group showed continued improvement from week 12 to week 24, unlike the response pattern seen with many biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, where a plateau is reached by 8-12 weeks.

Vasculitis

The positive results for the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan for treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis in the phase-3 ADVOCATE trial have been hailed by some rheumatologists as a major breakthrough, but Dr. Fleischmann isn’t so sure.

The trial randomized 331 patients to oral avacopan at 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone, with all patients on either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. Avacopan was noninferior to prednisone in terms of remission at week 26, but superior to prednisone for sustained taper at week 52. The rate of serious adverse events was 45.1% with prednisone and 42.2% in the avacopan arm.

“This is a drug that’s going to be much, much more expensive than prednisone. There were people in our group who were ecstatic that this drug is going to come, but how much it’s going to be used, I don’t know,” Dr. Fleischmann said.

Dr. Wells said cost-benefit analyses will be needed in order to learn if avacopan’s anticipated high sticker price is offset by the cost of serious corticosteroid side effects such as avascular necrosis.
 

Giant cell arteritis

Mavrilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits human granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha. It demonstrated impressive efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 70 patients with biopsy-confirmed giant cell arteritis. Participants were on corticosteroids until they went into remission and were then randomized to mavrilimumab or placebo, with the steroids stopped. By week 26, 19% of patients in the mavrilimumab arm had flared, as compared to 46.4% of controls.

“This is a game changer,” Dr. Wells declared. “I struggle with these patients because I can’t get the IL-6 drugs approved for them. I need something else.”

Dr. Fleischmann has a good idea how he’ll use mavrilimumab, if it wins approval: “I think this is clearly a drug you would use in a patient you can’t get off steroids and you’re having all the steroid toxicity. I don’t know that you’d use it right away.”

Osteoarthritis

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, will win FDA approval in 2021 for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to standard-of-care NSAIDs and opioids. But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect too much from the biologic, which has a long and checkered developmental history.

“It works better than placebo. It does not work better than an NSAID or an opioid. So it should be reasonable in patients who cannot take an NSAID or cannot or will not take an opioid,” he said.

There are safety issues to be aware of with tanezumab, he added: clinically significant increased risks of peripheral neuropathy and joint space narrowing.
 

Rheumatoid arthritis

Dr. Wells thought one of the most interesting novel therapies for RA in the past year didn’t involve a pharmaceutical, but rather noninvasive auricular branch stimulation of the vagus nerve. He cited an open-label, 12-week, uncontrolled study in 27 patients with active RA who wore an ear clip for vagal nerve stimulation for 12 weeks. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) – the primary study endpoint – improved from 6.30 at baseline to 3.76 at week 12. The number of tender joints dropped from 12.17 to 4.7, while the swollen joint count went from 7.0 to 3.44. Pain scores improved from 75.23 to 43.3. Scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index improved from 1.59 to 1.05. There was no significant change in CRP. All in all, a modest clinical effect achieved noninvasively.

“The thing that did it for me was the effect on MRI from baseline: decreased synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion scores,” Dr. Wells said. “This is noninvasive, so patients who want to do medical marijuana or CBD can put an earring on their auricular nerve.”

Dr. Fleischmann scoffed. “An open-label study, 27 patients? Let me see the real study,” he quipped.

Dr. Fleischmann reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wells serves as a consultant to MiCare Path.

bjancin@mdedge.com

It’s been a banner year for treatment advances in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with two drugs gaining approval for lupus nephritis while other promising molecules with novel mechanisms of action advanced smartly through the developmental pipeline, speakers agreed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think the most important thing in rheumatology in the last year is where we are now with lupus. With two drugs being approved for lupus nephritis, I think that’s really huge as we talk about treat-to-target,” said Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

Martin Bergman, MD, concurred.

“Lupus has been blowing up in the past year. We have two new medications for lupus nephritis, we have two or three new mechanisms of action for therapy. I think that was one of the biggest things in rheumatology in the past year,” said Dr. Bergman, a rheumatologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Together with Roy Fleischmann, MD, Dr. Wells spotlighted promising new molecules for the treatment of SLE, giant cell arteritis, vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis.
 

SLE

The two drugs approved in recent months specifically for lupus nephritis are voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), which has been approved for lupus for a decade. Voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, is a modification of cyclosporine offering significant advantages over the older drug: It’s more potent, requires no dose titration, has a better safety profile, and is metabolized more quickly.

“A safer and easier-to-use calcineurin inhibitor is going to be huge,” Dr. Wells predicted.

Up for Food and Drug Administration review in the coming year on the basis of the positive phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials is anifrolumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1d. At 52 weeks in the pooled analysis, one or more SLE flares occurred in 33.6% of patients on anifrolumab and 42.9% of placebo-treated controls.

“This is not a blockbuster, but it’s a worthwhile addition, like belimumab,” according to Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas, Dallas.

Dr. Wells concurred, with a reservation: In a subgroup analysis of the TULIP trials, anifrolumab wasn’t significantly better than placebo in black patients, who tend to have more severe and tough-to-treat renal disease.

“Anifrolumab doesn’t look as effective as some other agents, and I’d be disinclined to give it to my black patients,” the rheumatologist said.

Dr. Fleischmann was far more enthusiastic about obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A humanized monoclonal antibody known for now as BIIB059 demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in the phase 2 LILAC trial. BIIB059 binds to blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2), a receptor specific to plasmacytoid dendritic cells, resulting in decreased production of type 1 interferon and other inflammatory cytokines. The LILAC trial included 132 SLE patients with active arthritis and skin disease who received subcutaneous injections of BIIB059 at 450 mg or placebo every 4 weeks, with an extra dose at week 2. The primary endpoint was met, with an absolute 15-joint reduction in the total number of tender or swollen joints from baseline to week 24 in the BIIB059 group, compared to an 11.6-joint reduction with placebo. In addition, the likelihood of an SRI-4 response at week 24 was 3.49-fold greater with BIIB059 than with placebo.

Dr. Wells noted that the BIIB059 group showed continued improvement from week 12 to week 24, unlike the response pattern seen with many biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, where a plateau is reached by 8-12 weeks.

Vasculitis

The positive results for the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan for treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis in the phase-3 ADVOCATE trial have been hailed by some rheumatologists as a major breakthrough, but Dr. Fleischmann isn’t so sure.

The trial randomized 331 patients to oral avacopan at 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone, with all patients on either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. Avacopan was noninferior to prednisone in terms of remission at week 26, but superior to prednisone for sustained taper at week 52. The rate of serious adverse events was 45.1% with prednisone and 42.2% in the avacopan arm.

“This is a drug that’s going to be much, much more expensive than prednisone. There were people in our group who were ecstatic that this drug is going to come, but how much it’s going to be used, I don’t know,” Dr. Fleischmann said.

Dr. Wells said cost-benefit analyses will be needed in order to learn if avacopan’s anticipated high sticker price is offset by the cost of serious corticosteroid side effects such as avascular necrosis.
 

Giant cell arteritis

Mavrilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits human granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha. It demonstrated impressive efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 70 patients with biopsy-confirmed giant cell arteritis. Participants were on corticosteroids until they went into remission and were then randomized to mavrilimumab or placebo, with the steroids stopped. By week 26, 19% of patients in the mavrilimumab arm had flared, as compared to 46.4% of controls.

“This is a game changer,” Dr. Wells declared. “I struggle with these patients because I can’t get the IL-6 drugs approved for them. I need something else.”

Dr. Fleischmann has a good idea how he’ll use mavrilimumab, if it wins approval: “I think this is clearly a drug you would use in a patient you can’t get off steroids and you’re having all the steroid toxicity. I don’t know that you’d use it right away.”

Osteoarthritis

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, will win FDA approval in 2021 for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to standard-of-care NSAIDs and opioids. But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect too much from the biologic, which has a long and checkered developmental history.

“It works better than placebo. It does not work better than an NSAID or an opioid. So it should be reasonable in patients who cannot take an NSAID or cannot or will not take an opioid,” he said.

There are safety issues to be aware of with tanezumab, he added: clinically significant increased risks of peripheral neuropathy and joint space narrowing.
 

Rheumatoid arthritis

Dr. Wells thought one of the most interesting novel therapies for RA in the past year didn’t involve a pharmaceutical, but rather noninvasive auricular branch stimulation of the vagus nerve. He cited an open-label, 12-week, uncontrolled study in 27 patients with active RA who wore an ear clip for vagal nerve stimulation for 12 weeks. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) – the primary study endpoint – improved from 6.30 at baseline to 3.76 at week 12. The number of tender joints dropped from 12.17 to 4.7, while the swollen joint count went from 7.0 to 3.44. Pain scores improved from 75.23 to 43.3. Scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index improved from 1.59 to 1.05. There was no significant change in CRP. All in all, a modest clinical effect achieved noninvasively.

“The thing that did it for me was the effect on MRI from baseline: decreased synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion scores,” Dr. Wells said. “This is noninvasive, so patients who want to do medical marijuana or CBD can put an earring on their auricular nerve.”

Dr. Fleischmann scoffed. “An open-label study, 27 patients? Let me see the real study,” he quipped.

Dr. Fleischmann reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wells serves as a consultant to MiCare Path.

bjancin@mdedge.com

It’s been a banner year for treatment advances in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with two drugs gaining approval for lupus nephritis while other promising molecules with novel mechanisms of action advanced smartly through the developmental pipeline, speakers agreed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think the most important thing in rheumatology in the last year is where we are now with lupus. With two drugs being approved for lupus nephritis, I think that’s really huge as we talk about treat-to-target,” said Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

Martin Bergman, MD, concurred.

“Lupus has been blowing up in the past year. We have two new medications for lupus nephritis, we have two or three new mechanisms of action for therapy. I think that was one of the biggest things in rheumatology in the past year,” said Dr. Bergman, a rheumatologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Together with Roy Fleischmann, MD, Dr. Wells spotlighted promising new molecules for the treatment of SLE, giant cell arteritis, vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis.
 

SLE

The two drugs approved in recent months specifically for lupus nephritis are voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), which has been approved for lupus for a decade. Voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, is a modification of cyclosporine offering significant advantages over the older drug: It’s more potent, requires no dose titration, has a better safety profile, and is metabolized more quickly.

“A safer and easier-to-use calcineurin inhibitor is going to be huge,” Dr. Wells predicted.

Up for Food and Drug Administration review in the coming year on the basis of the positive phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials is anifrolumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1d. At 52 weeks in the pooled analysis, one or more SLE flares occurred in 33.6% of patients on anifrolumab and 42.9% of placebo-treated controls.

“This is not a blockbuster, but it’s a worthwhile addition, like belimumab,” according to Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas, Dallas.

Dr. Wells concurred, with a reservation: In a subgroup analysis of the TULIP trials, anifrolumab wasn’t significantly better than placebo in black patients, who tend to have more severe and tough-to-treat renal disease.

“Anifrolumab doesn’t look as effective as some other agents, and I’d be disinclined to give it to my black patients,” the rheumatologist said.

Dr. Fleischmann was far more enthusiastic about obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A humanized monoclonal antibody known for now as BIIB059 demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in the phase 2 LILAC trial. BIIB059 binds to blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2), a receptor specific to plasmacytoid dendritic cells, resulting in decreased production of type 1 interferon and other inflammatory cytokines. The LILAC trial included 132 SLE patients with active arthritis and skin disease who received subcutaneous injections of BIIB059 at 450 mg or placebo every 4 weeks, with an extra dose at week 2. The primary endpoint was met, with an absolute 15-joint reduction in the total number of tender or swollen joints from baseline to week 24 in the BIIB059 group, compared to an 11.6-joint reduction with placebo. In addition, the likelihood of an SRI-4 response at week 24 was 3.49-fold greater with BIIB059 than with placebo.

Dr. Wells noted that the BIIB059 group showed continued improvement from week 12 to week 24, unlike the response pattern seen with many biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, where a plateau is reached by 8-12 weeks.

Vasculitis

The positive results for the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan for treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis in the phase-3 ADVOCATE trial have been hailed by some rheumatologists as a major breakthrough, but Dr. Fleischmann isn’t so sure.

The trial randomized 331 patients to oral avacopan at 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone, with all patients on either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. Avacopan was noninferior to prednisone in terms of remission at week 26, but superior to prednisone for sustained taper at week 52. The rate of serious adverse events was 45.1% with prednisone and 42.2% in the avacopan arm.

“This is a drug that’s going to be much, much more expensive than prednisone. There were people in our group who were ecstatic that this drug is going to come, but how much it’s going to be used, I don’t know,” Dr. Fleischmann said.

Dr. Wells said cost-benefit analyses will be needed in order to learn if avacopan’s anticipated high sticker price is offset by the cost of serious corticosteroid side effects such as avascular necrosis.
 

Giant cell arteritis

Mavrilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits human granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha. It demonstrated impressive efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 70 patients with biopsy-confirmed giant cell arteritis. Participants were on corticosteroids until they went into remission and were then randomized to mavrilimumab or placebo, with the steroids stopped. By week 26, 19% of patients in the mavrilimumab arm had flared, as compared to 46.4% of controls.

“This is a game changer,” Dr. Wells declared. “I struggle with these patients because I can’t get the IL-6 drugs approved for them. I need something else.”

Dr. Fleischmann has a good idea how he’ll use mavrilimumab, if it wins approval: “I think this is clearly a drug you would use in a patient you can’t get off steroids and you’re having all the steroid toxicity. I don’t know that you’d use it right away.”

Osteoarthritis

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, will win FDA approval in 2021 for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to standard-of-care NSAIDs and opioids. But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect too much from the biologic, which has a long and checkered developmental history.

“It works better than placebo. It does not work better than an NSAID or an opioid. So it should be reasonable in patients who cannot take an NSAID or cannot or will not take an opioid,” he said.

There are safety issues to be aware of with tanezumab, he added: clinically significant increased risks of peripheral neuropathy and joint space narrowing.
 

Rheumatoid arthritis

Dr. Wells thought one of the most interesting novel therapies for RA in the past year didn’t involve a pharmaceutical, but rather noninvasive auricular branch stimulation of the vagus nerve. He cited an open-label, 12-week, uncontrolled study in 27 patients with active RA who wore an ear clip for vagal nerve stimulation for 12 weeks. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) – the primary study endpoint – improved from 6.30 at baseline to 3.76 at week 12. The number of tender joints dropped from 12.17 to 4.7, while the swollen joint count went from 7.0 to 3.44. Pain scores improved from 75.23 to 43.3. Scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index improved from 1.59 to 1.05. There was no significant change in CRP. All in all, a modest clinical effect achieved noninvasively.

“The thing that did it for me was the effect on MRI from baseline: decreased synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion scores,” Dr. Wells said. “This is noninvasive, so patients who want to do medical marijuana or CBD can put an earring on their auricular nerve.”

Dr. Fleischmann scoffed. “An open-label study, 27 patients? Let me see the real study,” he quipped.

Dr. Fleischmann reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wells serves as a consultant to MiCare Path.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over The Counter Use (Cue OTC Test, Cue Health).

The Cue OTC Test is the first molecular diagnostic test available to consumers without a prescription.

The test detects genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 present in the nostrils and delivers results in about 20 minutes to the user’s mobile smart device via the Cue Health app.

In testing, the Cue OTC Test correctly identified 96% of positive nasal swab samples from individuals known to have symptoms and correctly identified 100% of positive samples from individuals without symptoms.

The test is intended for use in people aged 2 years and older with and without symptoms.

“With this authorization, consumers can purchase and self-administer one of the easiest, fastest, and most accurate tests without a prescription,” Clint Sever, cofounder and chief product officer of Cue Health, said in a news release.

“This FDA authorization will help us improve patient outcomes with a solution that provides the accuracy of central lab tests, with the speed and accessibility required to address emergent global health issues,” he said.

Cue Health expects to produce more than 100,000 single-use test kits per day by this summer. Dena Cook, the company’s chief communications officer, told this news organization that the company hasn’t announced pricing information yet, but the price will be “comparable” to other price points and other products on the market.  

“The FDA continues to prioritize the availability of more at-home testing options in response to the pandemic,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over-the-Counter Use provides access to accurate and reliable testing at home, without a prescription. The FDA will continue to work collaboratively with test developers to advance effective testing options for doctors, clinicians, and the public,” he said.

In June, the FDA granted an EUA to Cue Health’s COVID-19 test for use in clinical and point-of-care settings.

The test is currently being used in hospitals, physicians’ offices, and dental clinics, as well as schools, essential businesses, nursing homes, and other congregate-care facilities. The test is also being distributed through a program led by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services across several states.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over The Counter Use (Cue OTC Test, Cue Health).

The Cue OTC Test is the first molecular diagnostic test available to consumers without a prescription.

The test detects genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 present in the nostrils and delivers results in about 20 minutes to the user’s mobile smart device via the Cue Health app.

In testing, the Cue OTC Test correctly identified 96% of positive nasal swab samples from individuals known to have symptoms and correctly identified 100% of positive samples from individuals without symptoms.

The test is intended for use in people aged 2 years and older with and without symptoms.

“With this authorization, consumers can purchase and self-administer one of the easiest, fastest, and most accurate tests without a prescription,” Clint Sever, cofounder and chief product officer of Cue Health, said in a news release.

“This FDA authorization will help us improve patient outcomes with a solution that provides the accuracy of central lab tests, with the speed and accessibility required to address emergent global health issues,” he said.

Cue Health expects to produce more than 100,000 single-use test kits per day by this summer. Dena Cook, the company’s chief communications officer, told this news organization that the company hasn’t announced pricing information yet, but the price will be “comparable” to other price points and other products on the market.  

“The FDA continues to prioritize the availability of more at-home testing options in response to the pandemic,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over-the-Counter Use provides access to accurate and reliable testing at home, without a prescription. The FDA will continue to work collaboratively with test developers to advance effective testing options for doctors, clinicians, and the public,” he said.

In June, the FDA granted an EUA to Cue Health’s COVID-19 test for use in clinical and point-of-care settings.

The test is currently being used in hospitals, physicians’ offices, and dental clinics, as well as schools, essential businesses, nursing homes, and other congregate-care facilities. The test is also being distributed through a program led by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services across several states.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over The Counter Use (Cue OTC Test, Cue Health).

The Cue OTC Test is the first molecular diagnostic test available to consumers without a prescription.

The test detects genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 present in the nostrils and delivers results in about 20 minutes to the user’s mobile smart device via the Cue Health app.

In testing, the Cue OTC Test correctly identified 96% of positive nasal swab samples from individuals known to have symptoms and correctly identified 100% of positive samples from individuals without symptoms.

The test is intended for use in people aged 2 years and older with and without symptoms.

“With this authorization, consumers can purchase and self-administer one of the easiest, fastest, and most accurate tests without a prescription,” Clint Sever, cofounder and chief product officer of Cue Health, said in a news release.

“This FDA authorization will help us improve patient outcomes with a solution that provides the accuracy of central lab tests, with the speed and accessibility required to address emergent global health issues,” he said.

Cue Health expects to produce more than 100,000 single-use test kits per day by this summer. Dena Cook, the company’s chief communications officer, told this news organization that the company hasn’t announced pricing information yet, but the price will be “comparable” to other price points and other products on the market.  

“The FDA continues to prioritize the availability of more at-home testing options in response to the pandemic,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over-the-Counter Use provides access to accurate and reliable testing at home, without a prescription. The FDA will continue to work collaboratively with test developers to advance effective testing options for doctors, clinicians, and the public,” he said.

In June, the FDA granted an EUA to Cue Health’s COVID-19 test for use in clinical and point-of-care settings.

The test is currently being used in hospitals, physicians’ offices, and dental clinics, as well as schools, essential businesses, nursing homes, and other congregate-care facilities. The test is also being distributed through a program led by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services across several states.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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