This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Brian Rini. I’m an Ingram Professor of Medicine at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tennessee. I’m going to talk to you briefly today about some major highlights in renal cancer from the Genitourinary (GU) Cancer Symposium that was just held. I think there’s three main areas: adjuvant therapy in kidney cancer, frontline therapy in advanced disease, and the refractory space.

To open with adjuvant therapy, the biggest news in kidney cancer, and probably all of GU cancer at ASCO GU this year, was the adjuvant pembrolizumab overall survival data. This KEYNOTE study had previously shown disease-free survival advantages over placebo in a population with high-risk resected kidney cancer. There was a trend toward overall survival, but it was not significant in those early analyses.

Now with nearly 5 years of follow-up, we see an overall survival advantage, with a hazard ratio in the 0.6 range — so, about a 40% reduction in the risk for death among these patients receiving adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembro). This was really important for the field. It’s been difficult to show a survival advantage, even in diseases like melanoma, which is considered at least as much, if not more immune responsive, and I think puts into perspective whether to offer this drug to high-risk resected patients. And it certainly needs to be considered for this population.

I think the balance on that — and this came out in some of the questions after the session — was around how many of the placebo recipients got salvage immune therapy, which would be a standard of care. But in the countries where this was done, it’s not really clear how many actually got therapy. We know most patients got some salvage therapy, be it local or systemic, and about half the patients got immune therapy. But some more granular detail would be necessary.

The other thing I would mention is that this was paired with the previous presentation, which was adjuvant nivolumab. It was a very similar study, a similar drug in a similar setting, but it did not show any advantages of either disease-free or overall survival. This comes on the heels of other negative studies and a negative ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo) study in this setting, part of the same study.

The reasons for these discrepancies are not entirely clear. There’s differences in populations and duration of therapy and mechanism, and all sorts of things. I don’t think anybody’s really been able to come up with one reason why we have some negative immune trials in kidney cancer and one shiningly positive one. But be that as it may, I think the take-home was that adjuvant pembro is certainly a standard of care in high-risk disease, and a benefit/risk discussion needs to be had with each individual patient. And I think pembro will be the building block for future studies, some of which are ongoing.

The second major area of update was in frontline kidney cancer. There weren’t a lot of new data, but there were updates to the existing trials. As you may know, frontline immune-based doublet is a standard of care in this disease: either ipi/nivo or one of the immuno-oncology/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO/TKI) regimens. We had two updates. One was an 8-year update on ipi/nivo. It’s a really long follow-up for these patients now, and what was observed was that these results remain remarkably consistent.

The hazard ratios for benefit in terms of survival and durability of response are really consistent over the past several years — again, a hallmark of immune therapy. Over half the responders are still responding now, many years later. I think that only strengthens the position of ipi/nivo as a choice for advanced clear cell kidney cancer patients. Again, there are good long-term toxicity data, and some patients can remain off treatment in what’s called treatment-free survival. So, an important update. We look forward to future, probably 10-year, data.

The CheckMate 9ER cabozantinib/nivolumab (cabo/nivo) study was updated now with many years of follow-up, as some of the other IO/TKI regimens have as well. And I think there is a similar theme, although a few years behind in maturity from the ipi/nivo data. It shows persistence of benefit. With IO/TKI regimens, a lot of the benefit is up front. It’s high response rates. It’s progression-free survival (PFS). But we’re starting to see some of that durability.

Where it’ll land, if there will be a tail of the curve and where it will be, is unclear, but these updates are important in terms of counseling patients. Patients want to know not just what’s going to happen at their first scan but also years from now. And they’re planning to be around years from now. So, I think these data are important.

The last thing I’ll mention is a health-related quality-of-life update from what was called the 005 trial of belzutifan, an oral HIF inhibitor, compared with everolimus. We heard data at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023 on a PFS and response-rate advantage. The drug was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in late December, and now we see some quality-of-life data.

Quality-of-life questionnaires and scales have a lot of imperfections. I don’t think they necessarily capture everything we want. But in this case, it was fairly clean in that belzutifan is known to be a well-tolerated agent. The toxicity profile is clean. It’s been used for years in patients with Von Hippel-Lindau syndrome, certainly in the trials for years, and has shown good tolerance over time. So, I view these data as complementary to what we already knew about the drug, but they’re nice to see.

It’s nice to see datasets come together and show the same thing: Not only is the drug active in a refractory renal cell carcinoma (RCC) setting, but also it’s really well tolerated and does not adversely impact patients› quality of life. I use this drug a lot in refractory kidney cancer, and because it’s so well tolerated. That means it’s also combinable. And there are some very large studies in the front-end second-line space combining it, in a space where people believe that it has more activity. But there are some complementary data as we wait for the overall survival signal, hopefully, from this regimen.

So, there have been some exciting updates, mostly in the adjuvant space but also in some other spaces in kidney cancer and building upon some of the clinical advances that we had seen from previous meetings. I’m Brian Rini, and I appreciate you attending.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Brian Rini. I’m an Ingram Professor of Medicine at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tennessee. I’m going to talk to you briefly today about some major highlights in renal cancer from the Genitourinary (GU) Cancer Symposium that was just held. I think there’s three main areas: adjuvant therapy in kidney cancer, frontline therapy in advanced disease, and the refractory space.

To open with adjuvant therapy, the biggest news in kidney cancer, and probably all of GU cancer at ASCO GU this year, was the adjuvant pembrolizumab overall survival data. This KEYNOTE study had previously shown disease-free survival advantages over placebo in a population with high-risk resected kidney cancer. There was a trend toward overall survival, but it was not significant in those early analyses.

Now with nearly 5 years of follow-up, we see an overall survival advantage, with a hazard ratio in the 0.6 range — so, about a 40% reduction in the risk for death among these patients receiving adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembro). This was really important for the field. It’s been difficult to show a survival advantage, even in diseases like melanoma, which is considered at least as much, if not more immune responsive, and I think puts into perspective whether to offer this drug to high-risk resected patients. And it certainly needs to be considered for this population.

I think the balance on that — and this came out in some of the questions after the session — was around how many of the placebo recipients got salvage immune therapy, which would be a standard of care. But in the countries where this was done, it’s not really clear how many actually got therapy. We know most patients got some salvage therapy, be it local or systemic, and about half the patients got immune therapy. But some more granular detail would be necessary.

The other thing I would mention is that this was paired with the previous presentation, which was adjuvant nivolumab. It was a very similar study, a similar drug in a similar setting, but it did not show any advantages of either disease-free or overall survival. This comes on the heels of other negative studies and a negative ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo) study in this setting, part of the same study.

The reasons for these discrepancies are not entirely clear. There’s differences in populations and duration of therapy and mechanism, and all sorts of things. I don’t think anybody’s really been able to come up with one reason why we have some negative immune trials in kidney cancer and one shiningly positive one. But be that as it may, I think the take-home was that adjuvant pembro is certainly a standard of care in high-risk disease, and a benefit/risk discussion needs to be had with each individual patient. And I think pembro will be the building block for future studies, some of which are ongoing.

The second major area of update was in frontline kidney cancer. There weren’t a lot of new data, but there were updates to the existing trials. As you may know, frontline immune-based doublet is a standard of care in this disease: either ipi/nivo or one of the immuno-oncology/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO/TKI) regimens. We had two updates. One was an 8-year update on ipi/nivo. It’s a really long follow-up for these patients now, and what was observed was that these results remain remarkably consistent.

The hazard ratios for benefit in terms of survival and durability of response are really consistent over the past several years — again, a hallmark of immune therapy. Over half the responders are still responding now, many years later. I think that only strengthens the position of ipi/nivo as a choice for advanced clear cell kidney cancer patients. Again, there are good long-term toxicity data, and some patients can remain off treatment in what’s called treatment-free survival. So, an important update. We look forward to future, probably 10-year, data.

The CheckMate 9ER cabozantinib/nivolumab (cabo/nivo) study was updated now with many years of follow-up, as some of the other IO/TKI regimens have as well. And I think there is a similar theme, although a few years behind in maturity from the ipi/nivo data. It shows persistence of benefit. With IO/TKI regimens, a lot of the benefit is up front. It’s high response rates. It’s progression-free survival (PFS). But we’re starting to see some of that durability.

Where it’ll land, if there will be a tail of the curve and where it will be, is unclear, but these updates are important in terms of counseling patients. Patients want to know not just what’s going to happen at their first scan but also years from now. And they’re planning to be around years from now. So, I think these data are important.

The last thing I’ll mention is a health-related quality-of-life update from what was called the 005 trial of belzutifan, an oral HIF inhibitor, compared with everolimus. We heard data at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023 on a PFS and response-rate advantage. The drug was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in late December, and now we see some quality-of-life data.

Quality-of-life questionnaires and scales have a lot of imperfections. I don’t think they necessarily capture everything we want. But in this case, it was fairly clean in that belzutifan is known to be a well-tolerated agent. The toxicity profile is clean. It’s been used for years in patients with Von Hippel-Lindau syndrome, certainly in the trials for years, and has shown good tolerance over time. So, I view these data as complementary to what we already knew about the drug, but they’re nice to see.

It’s nice to see datasets come together and show the same thing: Not only is the drug active in a refractory renal cell carcinoma (RCC) setting, but also it’s really well tolerated and does not adversely impact patients› quality of life. I use this drug a lot in refractory kidney cancer, and because it’s so well tolerated. That means it’s also combinable. And there are some very large studies in the front-end second-line space combining it, in a space where people believe that it has more activity. But there are some complementary data as we wait for the overall survival signal, hopefully, from this regimen.

So, there have been some exciting updates, mostly in the adjuvant space but also in some other spaces in kidney cancer and building upon some of the clinical advances that we had seen from previous meetings. I’m Brian Rini, and I appreciate you attending.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Brian Rini. I’m an Ingram Professor of Medicine at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tennessee. I’m going to talk to you briefly today about some major highlights in renal cancer from the Genitourinary (GU) Cancer Symposium that was just held. I think there’s three main areas: adjuvant therapy in kidney cancer, frontline therapy in advanced disease, and the refractory space.

To open with adjuvant therapy, the biggest news in kidney cancer, and probably all of GU cancer at ASCO GU this year, was the adjuvant pembrolizumab overall survival data. This KEYNOTE study had previously shown disease-free survival advantages over placebo in a population with high-risk resected kidney cancer. There was a trend toward overall survival, but it was not significant in those early analyses.

Now with nearly 5 years of follow-up, we see an overall survival advantage, with a hazard ratio in the 0.6 range — so, about a 40% reduction in the risk for death among these patients receiving adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembro). This was really important for the field. It’s been difficult to show a survival advantage, even in diseases like melanoma, which is considered at least as much, if not more immune responsive, and I think puts into perspective whether to offer this drug to high-risk resected patients. And it certainly needs to be considered for this population.

I think the balance on that — and this came out in some of the questions after the session — was around how many of the placebo recipients got salvage immune therapy, which would be a standard of care. But in the countries where this was done, it’s not really clear how many actually got therapy. We know most patients got some salvage therapy, be it local or systemic, and about half the patients got immune therapy. But some more granular detail would be necessary.

The other thing I would mention is that this was paired with the previous presentation, which was adjuvant nivolumab. It was a very similar study, a similar drug in a similar setting, but it did not show any advantages of either disease-free or overall survival. This comes on the heels of other negative studies and a negative ipilimumab/nivolumab (ipi/nivo) study in this setting, part of the same study.

The reasons for these discrepancies are not entirely clear. There’s differences in populations and duration of therapy and mechanism, and all sorts of things. I don’t think anybody’s really been able to come up with one reason why we have some negative immune trials in kidney cancer and one shiningly positive one. But be that as it may, I think the take-home was that adjuvant pembro is certainly a standard of care in high-risk disease, and a benefit/risk discussion needs to be had with each individual patient. And I think pembro will be the building block for future studies, some of which are ongoing.

The second major area of update was in frontline kidney cancer. There weren’t a lot of new data, but there were updates to the existing trials. As you may know, frontline immune-based doublet is a standard of care in this disease: either ipi/nivo or one of the immuno-oncology/tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO/TKI) regimens. We had two updates. One was an 8-year update on ipi/nivo. It’s a really long follow-up for these patients now, and what was observed was that these results remain remarkably consistent.

The hazard ratios for benefit in terms of survival and durability of response are really consistent over the past several years — again, a hallmark of immune therapy. Over half the responders are still responding now, many years later. I think that only strengthens the position of ipi/nivo as a choice for advanced clear cell kidney cancer patients. Again, there are good long-term toxicity data, and some patients can remain off treatment in what’s called treatment-free survival. So, an important update. We look forward to future, probably 10-year, data.

The CheckMate 9ER cabozantinib/nivolumab (cabo/nivo) study was updated now with many years of follow-up, as some of the other IO/TKI regimens have as well. And I think there is a similar theme, although a few years behind in maturity from the ipi/nivo data. It shows persistence of benefit. With IO/TKI regimens, a lot of the benefit is up front. It’s high response rates. It’s progression-free survival (PFS). But we’re starting to see some of that durability.

Where it’ll land, if there will be a tail of the curve and where it will be, is unclear, but these updates are important in terms of counseling patients. Patients want to know not just what’s going to happen at their first scan but also years from now. And they’re planning to be around years from now. So, I think these data are important.

The last thing I’ll mention is a health-related quality-of-life update from what was called the 005 trial of belzutifan, an oral HIF inhibitor, compared with everolimus. We heard data at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023 on a PFS and response-rate advantage. The drug was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in late December, and now we see some quality-of-life data.

Quality-of-life questionnaires and scales have a lot of imperfections. I don’t think they necessarily capture everything we want. But in this case, it was fairly clean in that belzutifan is known to be a well-tolerated agent. The toxicity profile is clean. It’s been used for years in patients with Von Hippel-Lindau syndrome, certainly in the trials for years, and has shown good tolerance over time. So, I view these data as complementary to what we already knew about the drug, but they’re nice to see.

It’s nice to see datasets come together and show the same thing: Not only is the drug active in a refractory renal cell carcinoma (RCC) setting, but also it’s really well tolerated and does not adversely impact patients› quality of life. I use this drug a lot in refractory kidney cancer, and because it’s so well tolerated. That means it’s also combinable. And there are some very large studies in the front-end second-line space combining it, in a space where people believe that it has more activity. But there are some complementary data as we wait for the overall survival signal, hopefully, from this regimen.

So, there have been some exciting updates, mostly in the adjuvant space but also in some other spaces in kidney cancer and building upon some of the clinical advances that we had seen from previous meetings. I’m Brian Rini, and I appreciate you attending.

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

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently sent a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opposing the extension of virtual supervision for radiation oncology services.

Although serious errors during virtual supervision are rare, ASTRO said radiation treatments (RT) should be done with a radiation oncologist on site to ensure high-quality care. But some radiation oncologists do not agree with the proposal to move back to direct in-person supervision only. 
 

Changes to Direct Supervision

Most radiation oncology treatments are delivered in an outpatient setting under a physician’s direction and control. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing mandates were in place, CMS temporarily changed the definition of “direct supervision” to include telehealth, specifying that a physician must be immediately available to assist and direct a procedure virtually using real-time audio and video. In other words, a physician did not need to be physically present in the room when the treatment was being performed. 

CMS has extended this rule until the end of 2024 and is considering making it a permanent change. In the Calendar Year (CY) 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, CMS asked for comments on whether to extend the rule. 

“We received input from interested parties on potential patient safety or quality concerns when direct supervision occurs virtually, which we will consider for future rulemaking,” a CMS spokesperson told this news organization. “CMS is currently considering the best approach that will protect patient access and safety as well as quality of care and program integrity concerns following CY 2024.”

CMS also noted its concerns that an abrupt transition back to requiring a physician’s physical presence could interrupt care from practitioners who have established new patterns of practice with telehealth. 
 

What Are ASTRO’s Concerns?

Late last month, ASTRO sent CMS a letter, asking the agency to change the rules back to direct in-person supervision for all radiation services, citing that virtual supervision jeopardizes patient safety and quality of care. 

Jeff Michalski, MD, MBA, chair of the ASTRO Board of Directors, said in an interview that radiation oncologists should be physically present to supervise the treatments.

“ASTRO is concerned that blanket policies of general or virtual supervision could lead to patients not having direct, in-person access to their doctors’ care,” he said. “While serious errors are rare, real-world experiences of radiation oncologists across practice settings demonstrate how an in-person radiation oncology physician is best suited to ensure high-quality care.”
 

What Do Radiation Oncologists Think?

According to ASTRO, most radiation oncologists would agree that in-person supervision is best for patients. 

But that might not be the case. 

Radiation oncologists took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice their opinions about ASTRO’s letter. 

Jason Beckta, MD, PhD, of Rutland Regional’s Foley Cancer Center, Vermont, said “the February 26th ASTRO letter reads like an Onion article.” 

“I’m struggling to understand the Luddite-level myopia around this topic,” he said in another tweet. “Virtual direct/outpatient general supervision has done nothing but boost my productivity and in particular, face-to-face patient contact.”

Join Y. Luh, MD, with the Providence Medical Network in Eureka, California, said he understands the challenges faced by clinicians working in more isolated rural settings. “For them, it’s either having virtual supervision or closing the center,” Dr. Luh said.

“Virtual care is definitely at my clinic and is not only an option but is critical to my patients who are 2+ snowy, mountainous hours away,” Dr. Luh wrote. “But I’m still in the clinic directly supervising treatments.”

Sidney Roberts, MD, with the CHI St. Luke’s Health-Memorial, Texas, tweeted that supervision does require some face-to-face care but contended that “babysitting trained therapists for every routine treatment is a farce.”

Another issue Dr. Luh brought up is reimbursement for virtual supervision, noting that “the elephant in the room is whether that level of service should be reimbursed at the same rate. Reimbursement has not changed — but will it stay that way?”

ASTRO has acknowledged that radiation oncologists will have varying opinions and says it is working to balance these challenges.

CMS has not reached a decision on whether the change will be implemented permanently. The organization will assess concern, patient safety, and quality of care at the end of the year.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

TOPLINE:

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is a safe, noninvasive, and effective strategy for treating primary renal cell cancer (RCC) in patients not suited to undergo surgical resection.

METHODOLOGY:

• SABR is a promising treatment strategy for patients with inoperable kidney cancer because it is a noninvasive procedure that does not require general anesthesia and can be used to treat stages TIa and TIb, as well as larger tumors.
• The nonrandomized, phase 2, FASTRACK II trial, conducted in Australia and the Netherlands, investigated the efficacy of SABR in 70 patients with primary RCC who had a single lesion and were considered medically inoperable, were at a high risk for surgical complications, or had declined surgery. Patients also had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤ 2 and an estimated glomerular filtration rate above 30 mL/min.
• The median age of participants was 77 years, median body mass index was 32, and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 7; 30% of the patients were women.
• Patients with tumors ≤ 4 cm (n = 23) received a single fraction of 26 Gy SABR, while those with tumors of 4-10 cm in maximum diameter (n = 47) received 42 Gy SABR in three fractions. The median tumor size was 4.6 cm.
• The primary endpoint was local control, defined as no progression of the primary RCC.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 1 year, no patients experienced local progression of their cancer, for a 100% local control rate.
• Cancer-specific survival was also 100% at 12 months from the start of SABR treatment, while the overall survival rate was 99% at 1 year and 82% at 3 years.
• Treatment-related grade 3 adverse events, such as nausea and vomiting, colonic obstruction, and diarrhea were reported by 10% of patients, with no incidences of grade 4 treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related or cancer-related deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite a larger average tumor size (4.6 cm) than in many preexisting prospective trials of surgery or SABR in primary renal cell cancer, there were no local treatment failures observed and no patients died from cancer during the study period,” the authors noted. This trial and others “support SABR as a therapeutic option for patients with inoperable or high-risk primary renal cell cancer.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shankar Siva, PhD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia, and published online in The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a small sample size and less mature data at follow-up. The absence of a control group made it impossible to assess if SABR had superior, inferior, or similar efficacy to other treatment options. The definitions of operability or technically high risk might vary between different multidisciplinary teams.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a grant from the Cancer Australia Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme. The study authors declared receiving grants, contracts, payments, honoraria, and research funding and having other ties with several sources.

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

TOPLINE:

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is a safe, noninvasive, and effective strategy for treating primary renal cell cancer (RCC) in patients not suited to undergo surgical resection.

METHODOLOGY:

• SABR is a promising treatment strategy for patients with inoperable kidney cancer because it is a noninvasive procedure that does not require general anesthesia and can be used to treat stages TIa and TIb, as well as larger tumors.
• The nonrandomized, phase 2, FASTRACK II trial, conducted in Australia and the Netherlands, investigated the efficacy of SABR in 70 patients with primary RCC who had a single lesion and were considered medically inoperable, were at a high risk for surgical complications, or had declined surgery. Patients also had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤ 2 and an estimated glomerular filtration rate above 30 mL/min.
• The median age of participants was 77 years, median body mass index was 32, and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 7; 30% of the patients were women.
• Patients with tumors ≤ 4 cm (n = 23) received a single fraction of 26 Gy SABR, while those with tumors of 4-10 cm in maximum diameter (n = 47) received 42 Gy SABR in three fractions. The median tumor size was 4.6 cm.
• The primary endpoint was local control, defined as no progression of the primary RCC.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 1 year, no patients experienced local progression of their cancer, for a 100% local control rate.
• Cancer-specific survival was also 100% at 12 months from the start of SABR treatment, while the overall survival rate was 99% at 1 year and 82% at 3 years.
• Treatment-related grade 3 adverse events, such as nausea and vomiting, colonic obstruction, and diarrhea were reported by 10% of patients, with no incidences of grade 4 treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related or cancer-related deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite a larger average tumor size (4.6 cm) than in many preexisting prospective trials of surgery or SABR in primary renal cell cancer, there were no local treatment failures observed and no patients died from cancer during the study period,” the authors noted. This trial and others “support SABR as a therapeutic option for patients with inoperable or high-risk primary renal cell cancer.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shankar Siva, PhD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia, and published online in The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a small sample size and less mature data at follow-up. The absence of a control group made it impossible to assess if SABR had superior, inferior, or similar efficacy to other treatment options. The definitions of operability or technically high risk might vary between different multidisciplinary teams.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a grant from the Cancer Australia Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme. The study authors declared receiving grants, contracts, payments, honoraria, and research funding and having other ties with several sources.

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

TOPLINE:

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is a safe, noninvasive, and effective strategy for treating primary renal cell cancer (RCC) in patients not suited to undergo surgical resection.

METHODOLOGY:

• SABR is a promising treatment strategy for patients with inoperable kidney cancer because it is a noninvasive procedure that does not require general anesthesia and can be used to treat stages TIa and TIb, as well as larger tumors.
• The nonrandomized, phase 2, FASTRACK II trial, conducted in Australia and the Netherlands, investigated the efficacy of SABR in 70 patients with primary RCC who had a single lesion and were considered medically inoperable, were at a high risk for surgical complications, or had declined surgery. Patients also had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤ 2 and an estimated glomerular filtration rate above 30 mL/min.
• The median age of participants was 77 years, median body mass index was 32, and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 7; 30% of the patients were women.
• Patients with tumors ≤ 4 cm (n = 23) received a single fraction of 26 Gy SABR, while those with tumors of 4-10 cm in maximum diameter (n = 47) received 42 Gy SABR in three fractions. The median tumor size was 4.6 cm.
• The primary endpoint was local control, defined as no progression of the primary RCC.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 1 year, no patients experienced local progression of their cancer, for a 100% local control rate.
• Cancer-specific survival was also 100% at 12 months from the start of SABR treatment, while the overall survival rate was 99% at 1 year and 82% at 3 years.
• Treatment-related grade 3 adverse events, such as nausea and vomiting, colonic obstruction, and diarrhea were reported by 10% of patients, with no incidences of grade 4 treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related or cancer-related deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite a larger average tumor size (4.6 cm) than in many preexisting prospective trials of surgery or SABR in primary renal cell cancer, there were no local treatment failures observed and no patients died from cancer during the study period,” the authors noted. This trial and others “support SABR as a therapeutic option for patients with inoperable or high-risk primary renal cell cancer.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shankar Siva, PhD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia, and published online in The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a small sample size and less mature data at follow-up. The absence of a control group made it impossible to assess if SABR had superior, inferior, or similar efficacy to other treatment options. The definitions of operability or technically high risk might vary between different multidisciplinary teams.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a grant from the Cancer Australia Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme. The study authors declared receiving grants, contracts, payments, honoraria, and research funding and having other ties with several sources.

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

SAN DIEGO — Multiple topical and systemic medications are safe for treating pregnant women with bacterial, viral, and fungal infections, a dermatologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. However, several drugs should be avoided or used with caution because of potential risks during pregnancy. 

When treating bacterial infections in pregnant women, there are many options, “especially for the sort of short-term antibiotic use that we tend to use for treating infections,” said Jenny Murase, MD, of the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group and the University of California San Francisco.

During a presentation on treating infections in pregnant patients, she made the following recommendations for treating pyogenic infections: 

• Impetigo: First-line treatments are topical mupirocin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Cellulitis: Recommended treatments are oral or intravenous penicillin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): “Clindamycin is first-line, dependent on bacteria culture and sensitivities,” and because of its safety, “it’s a really good choice for a pregnant woman.” Dr. Murase said. However, be aware of potential inducible resistance and test for the erm gene, she said.
• Abscesses: Incision and drainage are recommended. “Whenever we’re managing a patient with a condition during pregnancy, we want to try to use nonmedications when possible,” Dr. Murase said. “No antibiotic is necessary unless the abscess is greater than 5 cm or if it’s greater than 2 cm with erythema around the abscess.”
• Tuberculosis: The best strategy is rifampin, but peripartum vitamin K prophylaxis for mother and fetus should be used, she said. 

General Infections

With regard to antibiotics to treat general infections — for instance, if a patient with atopic dermatitis has a secondary skin infection — Dr. Murase recommended first-line oral antibiotic therapy with penicillin, first-generation cephalosporins, or dicloxacillin. For second-line therapy, erythromycin is the preferred macrolide over azithromycin and clarithromycin, she said. 

She noted that there is an increased risk for atrial/ventricular septal defects and pyloric stenosis associated with the use of erythromycin when used during the first trimester of pregnancy. In addition, erythromycin estolate increases the risk of liver toxicity, while erythromycin base and erythromycin ethylsuccinate do not. 

Sulfonamides are a second-line line choice up until the third trimester. If given to a patient in the first trimester, she said, “make sure that they are supplementing with folic acid efficiently, at least 0.5 mg a day.” During the peripartum period they are contraindicated, as they pose a risk for hemolytic anemia, hyperbilirubinemia, and kernicterus.

The combination drug trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole is a second-line choice for complicated infections because of the associated risk for low birth weight and prematurity, Dr. Murase said.

Quinolones are also a second-line option during pregnancy she said, and ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin have been studied the most. “If you have to choose a quinolone for a complicated infection in pregnancy, those would be the quinolones of choice,” Dr. Murase said.

Considering the bad reputation of tetracyclines in pregnancy, dermatologists may be surprised to learn that they are considered a second-line therapy up to 14 weeks’ gestation, she said. After that time, however, they’re contraindicated because of bone growth inhibition, teeth discoloration, and maternal hepatitis.


 

Fungal Infections

As for fungal infections, clotrimazole is the first choice for topical treatment of tinea corporis, followed by miconazole and then ketoconazole, according to Dr. Murase. There are limited data for topical terbinafine, naftifine, and ciclopirox during pregnancy she noted, but they are likely safe.

There is also limited data about these drugs when used for topical treatment of candidiasis during pregnancy. Nystatin is safe, but less effective than other options, Dr. Murase said. Other options include clotrimazole, miconazole, and ketoconazole, which, in animals exposed to high doses, have not been associated with defects, and topical gentian violet (0.5%-1% solution), she noted.

For topical treatment of tinea versicolor during pregnancy, limited application of clotrimazole or miconazole is considered safe, and zinc pyrithione soap or topical benzoyl peroxide soap can be used for more widespread areas. 

Dr. Murase recommended caution when using selenium sulfide since poisoning has been linked to miscarriages, she said. Limited application appears to be safe, “so make sure that the patient is using it on smaller body surface areas.”

As for systemic antifungal treatments, fluconazole, ketoconazole, and itraconazole should be avoided in pregnancy because of the risks of craniosynostosis, congenital heart defects, and skeletal anomalies, Dr. Murase said. However, she referred to a study that found no increased risk of congenital malformations with fluconazole during the first trimester, and a patient could be reassured if, for example, she was treated for a yeast infection before she knew she was pregnant, she said.

Griseofulvin is not recommended during pregnancy, but a 2020 study suggests that terbinafine is safe, she said. In that study, oral or topical terbinafine did not appear to be associated with an increased risk for spontaneous abortion or major malformations. “Certainly, we can wait until after the pregnancy to treat onychomycosis. But I have had situations that even in spite of regular topical therapy, pregnant patients needed to take some kind of oral agent” because of severe itching. 

Viral Infections

For herpes simplex, acyclovir is the top choice, and famciclovir and valacyclovir (Valtrex) are likely safe, but daily prophylaxis is not recommended during pregnancy, Dr. Murase said. 

Because of a lack of data, podofilox, cantharidin, and imiquimod for treating human papillomavirus (HPV) should be avoided, she said. Podophyllin is extremely dangerous in pregnancy and has been linked to maternal and fetal deaths, and malformations, and is contraindicated in pregnancy, she added.

Instead, liquid nitrogen is the treatment of choice for HPV in pregnant patients, she said. 

Trichloracetic acid is the treatment of choice for condylomata acuminata, and squaric acid or intralesional Candida antigen injection for periungual verrucas can be used, she said, and limited applications of salicylic acid are considered safe. 

Dr. Murase highlighted a 2014 paper that she coauthored on the safety of dermatologic medications during pregnancy, noting that an updated report will be published later this year.

Dr. Murase disclosed relationships with Regeneron and UCB (speaker), Sanofi/Regeneron and Bristol-Myers Squibb (advisory board), and UCB, AbbVie, and UpToDate (consulting). 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Multiple topical and systemic medications are safe for treating pregnant women with bacterial, viral, and fungal infections, a dermatologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. However, several drugs should be avoided or used with caution because of potential risks during pregnancy. 

When treating bacterial infections in pregnant women, there are many options, “especially for the sort of short-term antibiotic use that we tend to use for treating infections,” said Jenny Murase, MD, of the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group and the University of California San Francisco.

During a presentation on treating infections in pregnant patients, she made the following recommendations for treating pyogenic infections: 

• Impetigo: First-line treatments are topical mupirocin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Cellulitis: Recommended treatments are oral or intravenous penicillin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): “Clindamycin is first-line, dependent on bacteria culture and sensitivities,” and because of its safety, “it’s a really good choice for a pregnant woman.” Dr. Murase said. However, be aware of potential inducible resistance and test for the erm gene, she said.
• Abscesses: Incision and drainage are recommended. “Whenever we’re managing a patient with a condition during pregnancy, we want to try to use nonmedications when possible,” Dr. Murase said. “No antibiotic is necessary unless the abscess is greater than 5 cm or if it’s greater than 2 cm with erythema around the abscess.”
• Tuberculosis: The best strategy is rifampin, but peripartum vitamin K prophylaxis for mother and fetus should be used, she said. 

General Infections

With regard to antibiotics to treat general infections — for instance, if a patient with atopic dermatitis has a secondary skin infection — Dr. Murase recommended first-line oral antibiotic therapy with penicillin, first-generation cephalosporins, or dicloxacillin. For second-line therapy, erythromycin is the preferred macrolide over azithromycin and clarithromycin, she said. 

She noted that there is an increased risk for atrial/ventricular septal defects and pyloric stenosis associated with the use of erythromycin when used during the first trimester of pregnancy. In addition, erythromycin estolate increases the risk of liver toxicity, while erythromycin base and erythromycin ethylsuccinate do not. 

Sulfonamides are a second-line line choice up until the third trimester. If given to a patient in the first trimester, she said, “make sure that they are supplementing with folic acid efficiently, at least 0.5 mg a day.” During the peripartum period they are contraindicated, as they pose a risk for hemolytic anemia, hyperbilirubinemia, and kernicterus.

The combination drug trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole is a second-line choice for complicated infections because of the associated risk for low birth weight and prematurity, Dr. Murase said.

Quinolones are also a second-line option during pregnancy she said, and ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin have been studied the most. “If you have to choose a quinolone for a complicated infection in pregnancy, those would be the quinolones of choice,” Dr. Murase said.

Considering the bad reputation of tetracyclines in pregnancy, dermatologists may be surprised to learn that they are considered a second-line therapy up to 14 weeks’ gestation, she said. After that time, however, they’re contraindicated because of bone growth inhibition, teeth discoloration, and maternal hepatitis.


 

Fungal Infections

As for fungal infections, clotrimazole is the first choice for topical treatment of tinea corporis, followed by miconazole and then ketoconazole, according to Dr. Murase. There are limited data for topical terbinafine, naftifine, and ciclopirox during pregnancy she noted, but they are likely safe.

There is also limited data about these drugs when used for topical treatment of candidiasis during pregnancy. Nystatin is safe, but less effective than other options, Dr. Murase said. Other options include clotrimazole, miconazole, and ketoconazole, which, in animals exposed to high doses, have not been associated with defects, and topical gentian violet (0.5%-1% solution), she noted.

For topical treatment of tinea versicolor during pregnancy, limited application of clotrimazole or miconazole is considered safe, and zinc pyrithione soap or topical benzoyl peroxide soap can be used for more widespread areas. 

Dr. Murase recommended caution when using selenium sulfide since poisoning has been linked to miscarriages, she said. Limited application appears to be safe, “so make sure that the patient is using it on smaller body surface areas.”

As for systemic antifungal treatments, fluconazole, ketoconazole, and itraconazole should be avoided in pregnancy because of the risks of craniosynostosis, congenital heart defects, and skeletal anomalies, Dr. Murase said. However, she referred to a study that found no increased risk of congenital malformations with fluconazole during the first trimester, and a patient could be reassured if, for example, she was treated for a yeast infection before she knew she was pregnant, she said.

Griseofulvin is not recommended during pregnancy, but a 2020 study suggests that terbinafine is safe, she said. In that study, oral or topical terbinafine did not appear to be associated with an increased risk for spontaneous abortion or major malformations. “Certainly, we can wait until after the pregnancy to treat onychomycosis. But I have had situations that even in spite of regular topical therapy, pregnant patients needed to take some kind of oral agent” because of severe itching. 

Viral Infections

For herpes simplex, acyclovir is the top choice, and famciclovir and valacyclovir (Valtrex) are likely safe, but daily prophylaxis is not recommended during pregnancy, Dr. Murase said. 

Because of a lack of data, podofilox, cantharidin, and imiquimod for treating human papillomavirus (HPV) should be avoided, she said. Podophyllin is extremely dangerous in pregnancy and has been linked to maternal and fetal deaths, and malformations, and is contraindicated in pregnancy, she added.

Instead, liquid nitrogen is the treatment of choice for HPV in pregnant patients, she said. 

Trichloracetic acid is the treatment of choice for condylomata acuminata, and squaric acid or intralesional Candida antigen injection for periungual verrucas can be used, she said, and limited applications of salicylic acid are considered safe. 

Dr. Murase highlighted a 2014 paper that she coauthored on the safety of dermatologic medications during pregnancy, noting that an updated report will be published later this year.

Dr. Murase disclosed relationships with Regeneron and UCB (speaker), Sanofi/Regeneron and Bristol-Myers Squibb (advisory board), and UCB, AbbVie, and UpToDate (consulting). 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Multiple topical and systemic medications are safe for treating pregnant women with bacterial, viral, and fungal infections, a dermatologist told colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. However, several drugs should be avoided or used with caution because of potential risks during pregnancy. 

When treating bacterial infections in pregnant women, there are many options, “especially for the sort of short-term antibiotic use that we tend to use for treating infections,” said Jenny Murase, MD, of the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group and the University of California San Francisco.

During a presentation on treating infections in pregnant patients, she made the following recommendations for treating pyogenic infections: 

• Impetigo: First-line treatments are topical mupirocin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Cellulitis: Recommended treatments are oral or intravenous penicillin, oral first-generation cephalosporins, and oral dicloxacillin.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): “Clindamycin is first-line, dependent on bacteria culture and sensitivities,” and because of its safety, “it’s a really good choice for a pregnant woman.” Dr. Murase said. However, be aware of potential inducible resistance and test for the erm gene, she said.
• Abscesses: Incision and drainage are recommended. “Whenever we’re managing a patient with a condition during pregnancy, we want to try to use nonmedications when possible,” Dr. Murase said. “No antibiotic is necessary unless the abscess is greater than 5 cm or if it’s greater than 2 cm with erythema around the abscess.”
• Tuberculosis: The best strategy is rifampin, but peripartum vitamin K prophylaxis for mother and fetus should be used, she said. 

General Infections

With regard to antibiotics to treat general infections — for instance, if a patient with atopic dermatitis has a secondary skin infection — Dr. Murase recommended first-line oral antibiotic therapy with penicillin, first-generation cephalosporins, or dicloxacillin. For second-line therapy, erythromycin is the preferred macrolide over azithromycin and clarithromycin, she said. 

She noted that there is an increased risk for atrial/ventricular septal defects and pyloric stenosis associated with the use of erythromycin when used during the first trimester of pregnancy. In addition, erythromycin estolate increases the risk of liver toxicity, while erythromycin base and erythromycin ethylsuccinate do not. 

Sulfonamides are a second-line line choice up until the third trimester. If given to a patient in the first trimester, she said, “make sure that they are supplementing with folic acid efficiently, at least 0.5 mg a day.” During the peripartum period they are contraindicated, as they pose a risk for hemolytic anemia, hyperbilirubinemia, and kernicterus.

The combination drug trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole is a second-line choice for complicated infections because of the associated risk for low birth weight and prematurity, Dr. Murase said.

Quinolones are also a second-line option during pregnancy she said, and ciprofloxacin and norfloxacin have been studied the most. “If you have to choose a quinolone for a complicated infection in pregnancy, those would be the quinolones of choice,” Dr. Murase said.

Considering the bad reputation of tetracyclines in pregnancy, dermatologists may be surprised to learn that they are considered a second-line therapy up to 14 weeks’ gestation, she said. After that time, however, they’re contraindicated because of bone growth inhibition, teeth discoloration, and maternal hepatitis.


 

Fungal Infections

As for fungal infections, clotrimazole is the first choice for topical treatment of tinea corporis, followed by miconazole and then ketoconazole, according to Dr. Murase. There are limited data for topical terbinafine, naftifine, and ciclopirox during pregnancy she noted, but they are likely safe.

There is also limited data about these drugs when used for topical treatment of candidiasis during pregnancy. Nystatin is safe, but less effective than other options, Dr. Murase said. Other options include clotrimazole, miconazole, and ketoconazole, which, in animals exposed to high doses, have not been associated with defects, and topical gentian violet (0.5%-1% solution), she noted.

For topical treatment of tinea versicolor during pregnancy, limited application of clotrimazole or miconazole is considered safe, and zinc pyrithione soap or topical benzoyl peroxide soap can be used for more widespread areas. 

Dr. Murase recommended caution when using selenium sulfide since poisoning has been linked to miscarriages, she said. Limited application appears to be safe, “so make sure that the patient is using it on smaller body surface areas.”

As for systemic antifungal treatments, fluconazole, ketoconazole, and itraconazole should be avoided in pregnancy because of the risks of craniosynostosis, congenital heart defects, and skeletal anomalies, Dr. Murase said. However, she referred to a study that found no increased risk of congenital malformations with fluconazole during the first trimester, and a patient could be reassured if, for example, she was treated for a yeast infection before she knew she was pregnant, she said.

Griseofulvin is not recommended during pregnancy, but a 2020 study suggests that terbinafine is safe, she said. In that study, oral or topical terbinafine did not appear to be associated with an increased risk for spontaneous abortion or major malformations. “Certainly, we can wait until after the pregnancy to treat onychomycosis. But I have had situations that even in spite of regular topical therapy, pregnant patients needed to take some kind of oral agent” because of severe itching. 

Viral Infections

For herpes simplex, acyclovir is the top choice, and famciclovir and valacyclovir (Valtrex) are likely safe, but daily prophylaxis is not recommended during pregnancy, Dr. Murase said. 

Because of a lack of data, podofilox, cantharidin, and imiquimod for treating human papillomavirus (HPV) should be avoided, she said. Podophyllin is extremely dangerous in pregnancy and has been linked to maternal and fetal deaths, and malformations, and is contraindicated in pregnancy, she added.

Instead, liquid nitrogen is the treatment of choice for HPV in pregnant patients, she said. 

Trichloracetic acid is the treatment of choice for condylomata acuminata, and squaric acid or intralesional Candida antigen injection for periungual verrucas can be used, she said, and limited applications of salicylic acid are considered safe. 

Dr. Murase highlighted a 2014 paper that she coauthored on the safety of dermatologic medications during pregnancy, noting that an updated report will be published later this year.

Dr. Murase disclosed relationships with Regeneron and UCB (speaker), Sanofi/Regeneron and Bristol-Myers Squibb (advisory board), and UCB, AbbVie, and UpToDate (consulting). 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Treatment with the investigational monoclonal antibody drug batoclimab significantly improved symptoms in patients with antibody-positive generalized myasthenia gravis, data from a new phase 3 study showed.

After 6 weeks of treatment, patients reported nearly 60% sustained improvement in daily activities and a rapid onset of action from batoclimab, a neonatal crystallizable fragment receptor (FcRn) antagonist.

The clinical effects and the extent of immunoglobulin G (IgG) reduction in this study were similar to those previously reported for efgartigimod and rozanolixizumab, two other FcRn antagonists, the investigators noted, adding that larger studies are needed to better understand the safety profile of batoclimab.

“While most generalized myasthenia gravis patients can achieve good disease control through conventional immunotherapy, there are still unmet needs with this disease,” said study investigator Chongbo Zhao, MD, National Center for Neurological Disorders, Huashan Rare Disease Centre, Department of Neurology, Huashan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Unmet Need

A rare chronic disease, myasthenia gravis is caused by autoantibodies that disrupt the neuromuscular junction, most commonly against the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (AChR). This can cause a variety of symptoms, including difficulty swallowing, chewing, and talking, as well as severe, sometimes life-threatening, muscle weakness.

The estimated global prevalence of myasthenia gravis is 15-25 per 100,000, with cases doubling in the past 20 years.

Treatment for myasthenia gravis typically includes immune-suppressing drugs. But research suggests almost half of patients with generalized myasthenia gravis don’t achieve an adequate response or are intolerant to these treatments, and some therapies are costly or not readily accessible.

“Our treatment goal has evolved from saving patients to improving their quality of life, so we still need to explore safer and more effective novel treatment methods,” Dr. Zhao said.

Batoclimab is a fully humanized monoclonal IgG antibody that binds to FcRn and accelerates clearance of harmful IgG. A phase 2 trial provided preliminary evidence to support the efficacy of this agent in Chinese patients with generalized myasthenia gravis.

The current double-blind phase 3 trial included 132 adult patients (mean age, 44 years; 67% female) of Chinese Han ethnicity with generalized myasthenia gravis at 27 centers in China. Participants had a mean Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of 8.4 at baseline, and all but one was positive for AChR or muscle-specific kinase (MuSK) antibodies.

The treatment group received weekly subcutaneous injections of batoclimab at 680 mg for 6 weeks, followed by 4 weeks of observation. The control group received a placebo with the same treatment and follow-up schedule.

All patients received standard of care in addition to the assigned treatment, but changes in dosage and/or dosing frequency were not permitted. Patients received a second cycle if they still required treatment.
 

Bests Placebo

Overall, 90% of participants completed all six doses in cycle 1. The second treatment cycle was conducted in 115 patients, with 88% completing all six doses.

Patients were evaluated at baseline and then weekly for MG-ADL, Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG), Myasthenia Gravis Composite, and the 15-item revised version of the Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life.

Sustained MG-ADL improvement — the primary outcome — was significantly higher in the batoclimab group compared with placebo (58% vs 31%, respectively; odds ratio, 3.45; P = .001).

While the rate of sustained MG-ADL improvement with batoclimab was lower than that reported for efgartigimod (68%) in a previous trial, that was primarily because of the more stringent definition of sustained MG-ADL improvement (three-point reduction vs two-point reduction from baseline), investigators said.

In the current trial, batoclimab had a rapid onset of action, with scores diverging between the treatment and placebo groups as early as the second week of therapy.

In the second treatment cycle, batoclimab once again outperformed placebo in sustained MG-ADL improvement (63% vs 36%, respectively; P = .002).

Batoclimab also bested placebo on secondary outcomes, including sustained QMG improvement (64% vs 41%; P = .008) and percent of patients achieving minimal symptom expression (25% vs 5%; P = .004).

Results of all subgroup analyses, including by age groups, sex, body weight, body mass index, and MG Foundation of America clinical classification, were consistent with those of the main analysis. The efficacy of batoclimab was also supported by all sensitivity analyses, underscoring the robustness of results.

Batoclimab led to a rapid and sustained reduction in serum AChR antibody levels, with a median reduction of 81% at week 6.
 

Well Tolerated

On discontinuation of batoclimab, serum total IgG returned to a level comparable with the baseline after 4 weeks. Reversibility of the drug’s effect is important considering the risk for infection from prolonged immune suppression, the authors noted.

The rate of peripheral edema was significantly higher in the treatment than in the placebo groups (39% vs 5%), but all cases were mild or moderate and deemed not clinically significant. The treatment group also had higher rates of upper respiratory tract infections (36% vs 22%) and of urinary tract infections (19% vs 15%).

“Although the incidence of upper respiratory tract and urinary tract infections was higher in the batoclimab group numerically, these were mild infections that did not require special treatment, so this is not a concern,” said Dr. Zhao.

Plasma albumin levels in the batoclimab group decreased significantly throughout the treatment cycle, starting at week 1 and reaching a decline of up to 31% at week 6. These levels increased rapidly toward baseline after treatment discontinuation.

High cholesterol levels were noted in the batoclimab group, plateauing by week 6. But levels returned to near baseline levels within 4 weeks after the final dose, and there were no serious related adverse reactions.

The rate of headache was slightly higher in the treatment group (6% vs 5% for placebo). “This finding may seem minor but could potentially translate into improved adherence in daily practice settings,” the authors wrote.

In previous studies, the efficacy of FcRn inhibitors in the Asian population was only examined in subgroup analyses with limited subjects. Finding an effective FcRn antagonist for China and surrounding regions is particularly important “considering the high mortality rate in hospitalized generalized myasthenia gravis patients in China,” the researchers noted.

The trial included only two treatment cycles, although results of an open-label extension trial examining longer-term efficacy of batoclimab should be available by the end of this year, said Dr. Zhao.

The trial was also not designed to investigate long-term safety, particularly infections and cardiovascular events. Only one study subject was negative for AChR or MuSK antibodies, which prevented researchers from assessing the drug’s efficacy in this subpopulation.
 

Questions Remain

Commenting on the study, Fredrik Piehl, MD, PhD, professor of neurology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden , said that recent studies of the two other FcRn antagonists were short-term and had limited long-term data. “We don’t know how valuable they may be for continued treatment,” Dr. Piehl said.

It’s also unclear how this new treatment modality compares with existing and emerging drug strategies in terms of the long-term benefit-risk balance, he added.

The rate of adverse events with batoclimab was high compared with placebo in this study and higher than in earlier studies of efgartigimod, Dr. Piehl noted.

“In this study, almost twice as many reported adverse events in the active arm compared with controls, while these differences tended to be smaller in previously reported trials,” he said.

The trial was funded by Nona Biosciences (Suzhou). Dr. Zhao reported being a full-time employee of Nona Biosciences (Suzhou), a subsidiary of Harbour BioMed Inc. He also reported receiving advisory board/consultant fees from Nona Biosciences, Roche, Sanofi, and Zailab outside the submitted work. Dr. Piehl has received research grants from Janssen, Merck KGaA, and UCB; and fees for serving on DMC in clinical trials with Chugai, Lundbeck, and Roche; and preparation of expert witness statement for Novartis.

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

Treatment with the investigational monoclonal antibody drug batoclimab significantly improved symptoms in patients with antibody-positive generalized myasthenia gravis, data from a new phase 3 study showed.

After 6 weeks of treatment, patients reported nearly 60% sustained improvement in daily activities and a rapid onset of action from batoclimab, a neonatal crystallizable fragment receptor (FcRn) antagonist.

The clinical effects and the extent of immunoglobulin G (IgG) reduction in this study were similar to those previously reported for efgartigimod and rozanolixizumab, two other FcRn antagonists, the investigators noted, adding that larger studies are needed to better understand the safety profile of batoclimab.

“While most generalized myasthenia gravis patients can achieve good disease control through conventional immunotherapy, there are still unmet needs with this disease,” said study investigator Chongbo Zhao, MD, National Center for Neurological Disorders, Huashan Rare Disease Centre, Department of Neurology, Huashan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Unmet Need

A rare chronic disease, myasthenia gravis is caused by autoantibodies that disrupt the neuromuscular junction, most commonly against the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (AChR). This can cause a variety of symptoms, including difficulty swallowing, chewing, and talking, as well as severe, sometimes life-threatening, muscle weakness.

The estimated global prevalence of myasthenia gravis is 15-25 per 100,000, with cases doubling in the past 20 years.

Treatment for myasthenia gravis typically includes immune-suppressing drugs. But research suggests almost half of patients with generalized myasthenia gravis don’t achieve an adequate response or are intolerant to these treatments, and some therapies are costly or not readily accessible.

“Our treatment goal has evolved from saving patients to improving their quality of life, so we still need to explore safer and more effective novel treatment methods,” Dr. Zhao said.

Batoclimab is a fully humanized monoclonal IgG antibody that binds to FcRn and accelerates clearance of harmful IgG. A phase 2 trial provided preliminary evidence to support the efficacy of this agent in Chinese patients with generalized myasthenia gravis.

The current double-blind phase 3 trial included 132 adult patients (mean age, 44 years; 67% female) of Chinese Han ethnicity with generalized myasthenia gravis at 27 centers in China. Participants had a mean Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of 8.4 at baseline, and all but one was positive for AChR or muscle-specific kinase (MuSK) antibodies.

The treatment group received weekly subcutaneous injections of batoclimab at 680 mg for 6 weeks, followed by 4 weeks of observation. The control group received a placebo with the same treatment and follow-up schedule.

All patients received standard of care in addition to the assigned treatment, but changes in dosage and/or dosing frequency were not permitted. Patients received a second cycle if they still required treatment.
 

Bests Placebo

Overall, 90% of participants completed all six doses in cycle 1. The second treatment cycle was conducted in 115 patients, with 88% completing all six doses.

Patients were evaluated at baseline and then weekly for MG-ADL, Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG), Myasthenia Gravis Composite, and the 15-item revised version of the Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life.

Sustained MG-ADL improvement — the primary outcome — was significantly higher in the batoclimab group compared with placebo (58% vs 31%, respectively; odds ratio, 3.45; P = .001).

While the rate of sustained MG-ADL improvement with batoclimab was lower than that reported for efgartigimod (68%) in a previous trial, that was primarily because of the more stringent definition of sustained MG-ADL improvement (three-point reduction vs two-point reduction from baseline), investigators said.

In the current trial, batoclimab had a rapid onset of action, with scores diverging between the treatment and placebo groups as early as the second week of therapy.

In the second treatment cycle, batoclimab once again outperformed placebo in sustained MG-ADL improvement (63% vs 36%, respectively; P = .002).

Batoclimab also bested placebo on secondary outcomes, including sustained QMG improvement (64% vs 41%; P = .008) and percent of patients achieving minimal symptom expression (25% vs 5%; P = .004).

Results of all subgroup analyses, including by age groups, sex, body weight, body mass index, and MG Foundation of America clinical classification, were consistent with those of the main analysis. The efficacy of batoclimab was also supported by all sensitivity analyses, underscoring the robustness of results.

Batoclimab led to a rapid and sustained reduction in serum AChR antibody levels, with a median reduction of 81% at week 6.
 

Well Tolerated

On discontinuation of batoclimab, serum total IgG returned to a level comparable with the baseline after 4 weeks. Reversibility of the drug’s effect is important considering the risk for infection from prolonged immune suppression, the authors noted.

The rate of peripheral edema was significantly higher in the treatment than in the placebo groups (39% vs 5%), but all cases were mild or moderate and deemed not clinically significant. The treatment group also had higher rates of upper respiratory tract infections (36% vs 22%) and of urinary tract infections (19% vs 15%).

“Although the incidence of upper respiratory tract and urinary tract infections was higher in the batoclimab group numerically, these were mild infections that did not require special treatment, so this is not a concern,” said Dr. Zhao.

Plasma albumin levels in the batoclimab group decreased significantly throughout the treatment cycle, starting at week 1 and reaching a decline of up to 31% at week 6. These levels increased rapidly toward baseline after treatment discontinuation.

High cholesterol levels were noted in the batoclimab group, plateauing by week 6. But levels returned to near baseline levels within 4 weeks after the final dose, and there were no serious related adverse reactions.

The rate of headache was slightly higher in the treatment group (6% vs 5% for placebo). “This finding may seem minor but could potentially translate into improved adherence in daily practice settings,” the authors wrote.

In previous studies, the efficacy of FcRn inhibitors in the Asian population was only examined in subgroup analyses with limited subjects. Finding an effective FcRn antagonist for China and surrounding regions is particularly important “considering the high mortality rate in hospitalized generalized myasthenia gravis patients in China,” the researchers noted.

The trial included only two treatment cycles, although results of an open-label extension trial examining longer-term efficacy of batoclimab should be available by the end of this year, said Dr. Zhao.

The trial was also not designed to investigate long-term safety, particularly infections and cardiovascular events. Only one study subject was negative for AChR or MuSK antibodies, which prevented researchers from assessing the drug’s efficacy in this subpopulation.
 

Questions Remain

Commenting on the study, Fredrik Piehl, MD, PhD, professor of neurology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden , said that recent studies of the two other FcRn antagonists were short-term and had limited long-term data. “We don’t know how valuable they may be for continued treatment,” Dr. Piehl said.

It’s also unclear how this new treatment modality compares with existing and emerging drug strategies in terms of the long-term benefit-risk balance, he added.

The rate of adverse events with batoclimab was high compared with placebo in this study and higher than in earlier studies of efgartigimod, Dr. Piehl noted.

“In this study, almost twice as many reported adverse events in the active arm compared with controls, while these differences tended to be smaller in previously reported trials,” he said.

The trial was funded by Nona Biosciences (Suzhou). Dr. Zhao reported being a full-time employee of Nona Biosciences (Suzhou), a subsidiary of Harbour BioMed Inc. He also reported receiving advisory board/consultant fees from Nona Biosciences, Roche, Sanofi, and Zailab outside the submitted work. Dr. Piehl has received research grants from Janssen, Merck KGaA, and UCB; and fees for serving on DMC in clinical trials with Chugai, Lundbeck, and Roche; and preparation of expert witness statement for Novartis.

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

Treatment with the investigational monoclonal antibody drug batoclimab significantly improved symptoms in patients with antibody-positive generalized myasthenia gravis, data from a new phase 3 study showed.

After 6 weeks of treatment, patients reported nearly 60% sustained improvement in daily activities and a rapid onset of action from batoclimab, a neonatal crystallizable fragment receptor (FcRn) antagonist.

The clinical effects and the extent of immunoglobulin G (IgG) reduction in this study were similar to those previously reported for efgartigimod and rozanolixizumab, two other FcRn antagonists, the investigators noted, adding that larger studies are needed to better understand the safety profile of batoclimab.

“While most generalized myasthenia gravis patients can achieve good disease control through conventional immunotherapy, there are still unmet needs with this disease,” said study investigator Chongbo Zhao, MD, National Center for Neurological Disorders, Huashan Rare Disease Centre, Department of Neurology, Huashan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Unmet Need

A rare chronic disease, myasthenia gravis is caused by autoantibodies that disrupt the neuromuscular junction, most commonly against the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (AChR). This can cause a variety of symptoms, including difficulty swallowing, chewing, and talking, as well as severe, sometimes life-threatening, muscle weakness.

The estimated global prevalence of myasthenia gravis is 15-25 per 100,000, with cases doubling in the past 20 years.

Treatment for myasthenia gravis typically includes immune-suppressing drugs. But research suggests almost half of patients with generalized myasthenia gravis don’t achieve an adequate response or are intolerant to these treatments, and some therapies are costly or not readily accessible.

“Our treatment goal has evolved from saving patients to improving their quality of life, so we still need to explore safer and more effective novel treatment methods,” Dr. Zhao said.

Batoclimab is a fully humanized monoclonal IgG antibody that binds to FcRn and accelerates clearance of harmful IgG. A phase 2 trial provided preliminary evidence to support the efficacy of this agent in Chinese patients with generalized myasthenia gravis.

The current double-blind phase 3 trial included 132 adult patients (mean age, 44 years; 67% female) of Chinese Han ethnicity with generalized myasthenia gravis at 27 centers in China. Participants had a mean Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of 8.4 at baseline, and all but one was positive for AChR or muscle-specific kinase (MuSK) antibodies.

The treatment group received weekly subcutaneous injections of batoclimab at 680 mg for 6 weeks, followed by 4 weeks of observation. The control group received a placebo with the same treatment and follow-up schedule.

All patients received standard of care in addition to the assigned treatment, but changes in dosage and/or dosing frequency were not permitted. Patients received a second cycle if they still required treatment.
 

Bests Placebo

Overall, 90% of participants completed all six doses in cycle 1. The second treatment cycle was conducted in 115 patients, with 88% completing all six doses.

Patients were evaluated at baseline and then weekly for MG-ADL, Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG), Myasthenia Gravis Composite, and the 15-item revised version of the Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life.

Sustained MG-ADL improvement — the primary outcome — was significantly higher in the batoclimab group compared with placebo (58% vs 31%, respectively; odds ratio, 3.45; P = .001).

While the rate of sustained MG-ADL improvement with batoclimab was lower than that reported for efgartigimod (68%) in a previous trial, that was primarily because of the more stringent definition of sustained MG-ADL improvement (three-point reduction vs two-point reduction from baseline), investigators said.

In the current trial, batoclimab had a rapid onset of action, with scores diverging between the treatment and placebo groups as early as the second week of therapy.

In the second treatment cycle, batoclimab once again outperformed placebo in sustained MG-ADL improvement (63% vs 36%, respectively; P = .002).

Batoclimab also bested placebo on secondary outcomes, including sustained QMG improvement (64% vs 41%; P = .008) and percent of patients achieving minimal symptom expression (25% vs 5%; P = .004).

Results of all subgroup analyses, including by age groups, sex, body weight, body mass index, and MG Foundation of America clinical classification, were consistent with those of the main analysis. The efficacy of batoclimab was also supported by all sensitivity analyses, underscoring the robustness of results.

Batoclimab led to a rapid and sustained reduction in serum AChR antibody levels, with a median reduction of 81% at week 6.
 

Well Tolerated

On discontinuation of batoclimab, serum total IgG returned to a level comparable with the baseline after 4 weeks. Reversibility of the drug’s effect is important considering the risk for infection from prolonged immune suppression, the authors noted.

The rate of peripheral edema was significantly higher in the treatment than in the placebo groups (39% vs 5%), but all cases were mild or moderate and deemed not clinically significant. The treatment group also had higher rates of upper respiratory tract infections (36% vs 22%) and of urinary tract infections (19% vs 15%).

“Although the incidence of upper respiratory tract and urinary tract infections was higher in the batoclimab group numerically, these were mild infections that did not require special treatment, so this is not a concern,” said Dr. Zhao.

Plasma albumin levels in the batoclimab group decreased significantly throughout the treatment cycle, starting at week 1 and reaching a decline of up to 31% at week 6. These levels increased rapidly toward baseline after treatment discontinuation.

High cholesterol levels were noted in the batoclimab group, plateauing by week 6. But levels returned to near baseline levels within 4 weeks after the final dose, and there were no serious related adverse reactions.

The rate of headache was slightly higher in the treatment group (6% vs 5% for placebo). “This finding may seem minor but could potentially translate into improved adherence in daily practice settings,” the authors wrote.

In previous studies, the efficacy of FcRn inhibitors in the Asian population was only examined in subgroup analyses with limited subjects. Finding an effective FcRn antagonist for China and surrounding regions is particularly important “considering the high mortality rate in hospitalized generalized myasthenia gravis patients in China,” the researchers noted.

The trial included only two treatment cycles, although results of an open-label extension trial examining longer-term efficacy of batoclimab should be available by the end of this year, said Dr. Zhao.

The trial was also not designed to investigate long-term safety, particularly infections and cardiovascular events. Only one study subject was negative for AChR or MuSK antibodies, which prevented researchers from assessing the drug’s efficacy in this subpopulation.
 

Questions Remain

Commenting on the study, Fredrik Piehl, MD, PhD, professor of neurology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden , said that recent studies of the two other FcRn antagonists were short-term and had limited long-term data. “We don’t know how valuable they may be for continued treatment,” Dr. Piehl said.

It’s also unclear how this new treatment modality compares with existing and emerging drug strategies in terms of the long-term benefit-risk balance, he added.

The rate of adverse events with batoclimab was high compared with placebo in this study and higher than in earlier studies of efgartigimod, Dr. Piehl noted.

“In this study, almost twice as many reported adverse events in the active arm compared with controls, while these differences tended to be smaller in previously reported trials,” he said.

The trial was funded by Nona Biosciences (Suzhou). Dr. Zhao reported being a full-time employee of Nona Biosciences (Suzhou), a subsidiary of Harbour BioMed Inc. He also reported receiving advisory board/consultant fees from Nona Biosciences, Roche, Sanofi, and Zailab outside the submitted work. Dr. Piehl has received research grants from Janssen, Merck KGaA, and UCB; and fees for serving on DMC in clinical trials with Chugai, Lundbeck, and Roche; and preparation of expert witness statement for Novartis.

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

TOPLINE:

Tapering glucocorticoids (GCs) does not increase the risk for flare in modified serologically active clinically quiescent (mSACQ) patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) with a low daily exposure to GC.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research has indicated that SACQ SLE is associated with an increased risk for flare after low-dose GC withdrawal.
• Researchers assessed the risk for flare and damage accrual after tapering GCs in mSACQ patients with SLE.
• They used data from the Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration (APLC) to study 1850 patients (mean age, 40 years; 91.6% women) who met the criteria for SLE, including the definition of mSACQ at least once during observation and being followed up for 2 years after the first mSACQ visit.
• mSACQ was defined as a condition with serological activity but without clinical activity managed with ≤ 7.5 mg/d of -equivalent GCs, regardless of duration.
• The primary outcome was disease flare (both severe and overall) on the basis of the SELENA-SLEDAI flare index definitions.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 742 patients experienced an overall flare, 271 experienced a severe flare, and 180 experienced damage accrual.
• Reducing the prednisolone-equivalent GC dosage by 1 mg/d did not increase the risk for an overall (P = .27) or severe (P = .11) flare in patients initially on prednisolone-equivalent GC dosages of 0-7.5 mg/d.
• Antimalarial use decreased the risk for overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .002) and severe (HR, 0.59; P < .001) flares, and immunosuppressant use decreased the risk for severe flares (HR, 0.77; P = .043) but not overall flares.
• Reducing the GC dosage by 1 mg/d reduced the risk for damage accrual by 4% in patients who started taking prednisolone at a dose > 5 but ≤ 7.5 mg/d (P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Cautious tapering of GCs is a feasible option for mSACQ-SLE with low daily exposure to GCs (≤ 7.5 mg/d of prednisolone-equivalent) and can reduce GC burden,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yasuhiro Katsumata, Division of Rheumatology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan, was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were collected retrospectively. A short follow-up duration might have prevented the demonstration of clear benefits in terms of damage accrual among patients receiving < 5 mg of GCs. Moreover, the findings may have limited generalizability as the majority of patients had Asian ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants and funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, Janssen, Merck Serono, UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, Australia, and others to APLC. Some of the authors declared receiving honoraria, consulting fees, research grants, and research support from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tapering glucocorticoids (GCs) does not increase the risk for flare in modified serologically active clinically quiescent (mSACQ) patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) with a low daily exposure to GC.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research has indicated that SACQ SLE is associated with an increased risk for flare after low-dose GC withdrawal.
• Researchers assessed the risk for flare and damage accrual after tapering GCs in mSACQ patients with SLE.
• They used data from the Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration (APLC) to study 1850 patients (mean age, 40 years; 91.6% women) who met the criteria for SLE, including the definition of mSACQ at least once during observation and being followed up for 2 years after the first mSACQ visit.
• mSACQ was defined as a condition with serological activity but without clinical activity managed with ≤ 7.5 mg/d of -equivalent GCs, regardless of duration.
• The primary outcome was disease flare (both severe and overall) on the basis of the SELENA-SLEDAI flare index definitions.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 742 patients experienced an overall flare, 271 experienced a severe flare, and 180 experienced damage accrual.
• Reducing the prednisolone-equivalent GC dosage by 1 mg/d did not increase the risk for an overall (P = .27) or severe (P = .11) flare in patients initially on prednisolone-equivalent GC dosages of 0-7.5 mg/d.
• Antimalarial use decreased the risk for overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .002) and severe (HR, 0.59; P < .001) flares, and immunosuppressant use decreased the risk for severe flares (HR, 0.77; P = .043) but not overall flares.
• Reducing the GC dosage by 1 mg/d reduced the risk for damage accrual by 4% in patients who started taking prednisolone at a dose > 5 but ≤ 7.5 mg/d (P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Cautious tapering of GCs is a feasible option for mSACQ-SLE with low daily exposure to GCs (≤ 7.5 mg/d of prednisolone-equivalent) and can reduce GC burden,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yasuhiro Katsumata, Division of Rheumatology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan, was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were collected retrospectively. A short follow-up duration might have prevented the demonstration of clear benefits in terms of damage accrual among patients receiving < 5 mg of GCs. Moreover, the findings may have limited generalizability as the majority of patients had Asian ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants and funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, Janssen, Merck Serono, UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, Australia, and others to APLC. Some of the authors declared receiving honoraria, consulting fees, research grants, and research support from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tapering glucocorticoids (GCs) does not increase the risk for flare in modified serologically active clinically quiescent (mSACQ) patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) with a low daily exposure to GC.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous research has indicated that SACQ SLE is associated with an increased risk for flare after low-dose GC withdrawal.
• Researchers assessed the risk for flare and damage accrual after tapering GCs in mSACQ patients with SLE.
• They used data from the Asia Pacific Lupus Collaboration (APLC) to study 1850 patients (mean age, 40 years; 91.6% women) who met the criteria for SLE, including the definition of mSACQ at least once during observation and being followed up for 2 years after the first mSACQ visit.
• mSACQ was defined as a condition with serological activity but without clinical activity managed with ≤ 7.5 mg/d of -equivalent GCs, regardless of duration.
• The primary outcome was disease flare (both severe and overall) on the basis of the SELENA-SLEDAI flare index definitions.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 742 patients experienced an overall flare, 271 experienced a severe flare, and 180 experienced damage accrual.
• Reducing the prednisolone-equivalent GC dosage by 1 mg/d did not increase the risk for an overall (P = .27) or severe (P = .11) flare in patients initially on prednisolone-equivalent GC dosages of 0-7.5 mg/d.
• Antimalarial use decreased the risk for overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P = .002) and severe (HR, 0.59; P < .001) flares, and immunosuppressant use decreased the risk for severe flares (HR, 0.77; P = .043) but not overall flares.
• Reducing the GC dosage by 1 mg/d reduced the risk for damage accrual by 4% in patients who started taking prednisolone at a dose > 5 but ≤ 7.5 mg/d (P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Cautious tapering of GCs is a feasible option for mSACQ-SLE with low daily exposure to GCs (≤ 7.5 mg/d of prednisolone-equivalent) and can reduce GC burden,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yasuhiro Katsumata, Division of Rheumatology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan, was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were collected retrospectively. A short follow-up duration might have prevented the demonstration of clear benefits in terms of damage accrual among patients receiving < 5 mg of GCs. Moreover, the findings may have limited generalizability as the majority of patients had Asian ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants and funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, Janssen, Merck Serono, UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, Australia, and others to APLC. Some of the authors declared receiving honoraria, consulting fees, research grants, and research support from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Changes in plasma growth hormone mediators such as growth hormone receptor (GHR) and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 1 (IGFBP-1) were associated with glycemic failure in youth-onset type 2 diabetes (T2D), an analysis of the TODAY trial showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• In youth, T2D often occurs during or after puberty, hinting at hormonal influences in the development and/or progression of the disease.
• This secondary analysis assessed the role of growth hormone mediators including insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), GHR, and IGFBP-1 in glycemic failure in a subset of 398 youths, aged 10-17 years, with a T2D duration of less than 2 years (62% girls; 21% White).
• The participants were followed up for a mean of 3.9 years.
• The primary outcomes included glycemic failure, defined as an A1c level of 8% or more for 6 months, or acute metabolic decompensation requiring insulin.
• Other assessments included baseline and 36-month measures of glycemia, insulin sensitivity, high molecular weight adiponectin, and beta cell function.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 398 participants, 182 (46%) experienced glycemic failure, while 216 (54%) retained glycemic control.
• At 36 months, youths with glycemic failure had lower IGF-1 levels (P < .001) and higher log₂ GHR (P = .03) and log₂ IGFBP-1 (P = .009) levels than those who maintained glycemic control.
• A greater increase in IGF-1 level at 36 months was associated with lower odds of glycemic failure (odds ratio [OR], 0.995; P < .001).
• Increased levels of log₂ GHR and log₂ IGFBP-1 were associated with higher odds of glycemic failure (OR, 1.75; P = .04 and OR, 1.37; P = .007, respectively). Results were adjusted for body mass index (BMI), suggesting that associations between GHR level and glycemic outcomes exist independent of BMI.
• Interhormonal correlations suggested an association between glucose metabolism and growth hormone signaling or a shared process leading to changes in both processes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study has identified GHR level as a novel biomarker of decrease in glycemic control in youths with T2D,” the study authors wrote. Future research is needed, with an emphasis on assessing alterations in growth hormone mediators which may contribute to diabetes complications in youth.

SOURCE:

The study, published online in JAMA Network Open, was led by Chang Lu, MD, Division of Endocrinology, Boston Children’s Hospital, and Joslin Diabetes Center at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include a control group (individuals without diabetes). The cohort largely included youth in late puberty or after puberty, affecting subgroup analysis. Moreover, only circulating growth hormone mediators were measured, limiting the identity of the source tissue of the hormone and the target organs.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases while conducting the study. Also, certain authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from various trusts as well as pharmaceutical, healthcare, and medical technology companies outside the submitted work.

TOPLINE:

Changes in plasma growth hormone mediators such as growth hormone receptor (GHR) and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 1 (IGFBP-1) were associated with glycemic failure in youth-onset type 2 diabetes (T2D), an analysis of the TODAY trial showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• In youth, T2D often occurs during or after puberty, hinting at hormonal influences in the development and/or progression of the disease.
• This secondary analysis assessed the role of growth hormone mediators including insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), GHR, and IGFBP-1 in glycemic failure in a subset of 398 youths, aged 10-17 years, with a T2D duration of less than 2 years (62% girls; 21% White).
• The participants were followed up for a mean of 3.9 years.
• The primary outcomes included glycemic failure, defined as an A1c level of 8% or more for 6 months, or acute metabolic decompensation requiring insulin.
• Other assessments included baseline and 36-month measures of glycemia, insulin sensitivity, high molecular weight adiponectin, and beta cell function.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 398 participants, 182 (46%) experienced glycemic failure, while 216 (54%) retained glycemic control.
• At 36 months, youths with glycemic failure had lower IGF-1 levels (P < .001) and higher log₂ GHR (P = .03) and log₂ IGFBP-1 (P = .009) levels than those who maintained glycemic control.
• A greater increase in IGF-1 level at 36 months was associated with lower odds of glycemic failure (odds ratio [OR], 0.995; P < .001).
• Increased levels of log₂ GHR and log₂ IGFBP-1 were associated with higher odds of glycemic failure (OR, 1.75; P = .04 and OR, 1.37; P = .007, respectively). Results were adjusted for body mass index (BMI), suggesting that associations between GHR level and glycemic outcomes exist independent of BMI.
• Interhormonal correlations suggested an association between glucose metabolism and growth hormone signaling or a shared process leading to changes in both processes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study has identified GHR level as a novel biomarker of decrease in glycemic control in youths with T2D,” the study authors wrote. Future research is needed, with an emphasis on assessing alterations in growth hormone mediators which may contribute to diabetes complications in youth.

SOURCE:

The study, published online in JAMA Network Open, was led by Chang Lu, MD, Division of Endocrinology, Boston Children’s Hospital, and Joslin Diabetes Center at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include a control group (individuals without diabetes). The cohort largely included youth in late puberty or after puberty, affecting subgroup analysis. Moreover, only circulating growth hormone mediators were measured, limiting the identity of the source tissue of the hormone and the target organs.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases while conducting the study. Also, certain authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from various trusts as well as pharmaceutical, healthcare, and medical technology companies outside the submitted work.

TOPLINE:

Changes in plasma growth hormone mediators such as growth hormone receptor (GHR) and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 1 (IGFBP-1) were associated with glycemic failure in youth-onset type 2 diabetes (T2D), an analysis of the TODAY trial showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• In youth, T2D often occurs during or after puberty, hinting at hormonal influences in the development and/or progression of the disease.
• This secondary analysis assessed the role of growth hormone mediators including insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), GHR, and IGFBP-1 in glycemic failure in a subset of 398 youths, aged 10-17 years, with a T2D duration of less than 2 years (62% girls; 21% White).
• The participants were followed up for a mean of 3.9 years.
• The primary outcomes included glycemic failure, defined as an A1c level of 8% or more for 6 months, or acute metabolic decompensation requiring insulin.
• Other assessments included baseline and 36-month measures of glycemia, insulin sensitivity, high molecular weight adiponectin, and beta cell function.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 398 participants, 182 (46%) experienced glycemic failure, while 216 (54%) retained glycemic control.
• At 36 months, youths with glycemic failure had lower IGF-1 levels (P < .001) and higher log₂ GHR (P = .03) and log₂ IGFBP-1 (P = .009) levels than those who maintained glycemic control.
• A greater increase in IGF-1 level at 36 months was associated with lower odds of glycemic failure (odds ratio [OR], 0.995; P < .001).
• Increased levels of log₂ GHR and log₂ IGFBP-1 were associated with higher odds of glycemic failure (OR, 1.75; P = .04 and OR, 1.37; P = .007, respectively). Results were adjusted for body mass index (BMI), suggesting that associations between GHR level and glycemic outcomes exist independent of BMI.
• Interhormonal correlations suggested an association between glucose metabolism and growth hormone signaling or a shared process leading to changes in both processes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study has identified GHR level as a novel biomarker of decrease in glycemic control in youths with T2D,” the study authors wrote. Future research is needed, with an emphasis on assessing alterations in growth hormone mediators which may contribute to diabetes complications in youth.

SOURCE:

The study, published online in JAMA Network Open, was led by Chang Lu, MD, Division of Endocrinology, Boston Children’s Hospital, and Joslin Diabetes Center at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include a control group (individuals without diabetes). The cohort largely included youth in late puberty or after puberty, affecting subgroup analysis. Moreover, only circulating growth hormone mediators were measured, limiting the identity of the source tissue of the hormone and the target organs.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases while conducting the study. Also, certain authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from various trusts as well as pharmaceutical, healthcare, and medical technology companies outside the submitted work.

TOPLINE:

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a significantly higher risk for stroke — regardless of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device use — but only in White individuals, new data suggested. The study also found that stroke risk among Black individuals with OSA was lower in those who used CPAP machines vs those who didn›t.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data on 22,192 people from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, a US population-based cohort of Black and White individuals with no history of stroke at baseline (mean age, 64 years; 38% Black individuals).
• 11% of overall participants had provider diagnosed OSA at baseline.
• Participants were followed for a mean of 12 years.
• Researchers adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, and stroke risk factors.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the follow-up period, 969 participants (4.4%) experienced a stroke.
• After adjusting for confounders, having high OSA risk and diagnosed OSA were associated with higher risks for incident stroke in White individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.47 and aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.70, respectively) but not in Black individuals.
• Among those with diagnosed OSA, CPAP use was associated with a higher risk for incident stroke in White individuals (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.80) but a lower stroke risk in Black individuals (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.90) compared with no CPAP use.Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.
• Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results were not what we were expecting to find since Black people have been shown to have a higher risk of stroke and are more likely to have sleep apnea than White people,” lead author Rebecca Robbins, MMSc, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, said in a news release. “Since it has been shown that Black people have more severe sleep apnea than White people and take longer to be screened and treated than White people, it’s possible that using a CPAP machine provides a greater benefit on reducing stroke risk for Black people.”

SOURCE:

Robbins was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Neurology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The current study assessed only self-reported OSA symptoms, risk, diagnosis, and treatment and did not include data on the hours of CPAP usage at night, number of days of treatment, adherence during the follow-up period, and OSA severity. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Robbins received consulting income from Sonesta Hotels International, Oura Ring Ltd., Savoir Beds Ltd., Castle Hot Springs, and ByNacht GmbH. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a significantly higher risk for stroke — regardless of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device use — but only in White individuals, new data suggested. The study also found that stroke risk among Black individuals with OSA was lower in those who used CPAP machines vs those who didn›t.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data on 22,192 people from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, a US population-based cohort of Black and White individuals with no history of stroke at baseline (mean age, 64 years; 38% Black individuals).
• 11% of overall participants had provider diagnosed OSA at baseline.
• Participants were followed for a mean of 12 years.
• Researchers adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, and stroke risk factors.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the follow-up period, 969 participants (4.4%) experienced a stroke.
• After adjusting for confounders, having high OSA risk and diagnosed OSA were associated with higher risks for incident stroke in White individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.47 and aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.70, respectively) but not in Black individuals.
• Among those with diagnosed OSA, CPAP use was associated with a higher risk for incident stroke in White individuals (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.80) but a lower stroke risk in Black individuals (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.90) compared with no CPAP use.Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.
• Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results were not what we were expecting to find since Black people have been shown to have a higher risk of stroke and are more likely to have sleep apnea than White people,” lead author Rebecca Robbins, MMSc, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, said in a news release. “Since it has been shown that Black people have more severe sleep apnea than White people and take longer to be screened and treated than White people, it’s possible that using a CPAP machine provides a greater benefit on reducing stroke risk for Black people.”

SOURCE:

Robbins was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Neurology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The current study assessed only self-reported OSA symptoms, risk, diagnosis, and treatment and did not include data on the hours of CPAP usage at night, number of days of treatment, adherence during the follow-up period, and OSA severity. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Robbins received consulting income from Sonesta Hotels International, Oura Ring Ltd., Savoir Beds Ltd., Castle Hot Springs, and ByNacht GmbH. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a significantly higher risk for stroke — regardless of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device use — but only in White individuals, new data suggested. The study also found that stroke risk among Black individuals with OSA was lower in those who used CPAP machines vs those who didn›t.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data on 22,192 people from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, a US population-based cohort of Black and White individuals with no history of stroke at baseline (mean age, 64 years; 38% Black individuals).
• 11% of overall participants had provider diagnosed OSA at baseline.
• Participants were followed for a mean of 12 years.
• Researchers adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, and stroke risk factors.

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the follow-up period, 969 participants (4.4%) experienced a stroke.
• After adjusting for confounders, having high OSA risk and diagnosed OSA were associated with higher risks for incident stroke in White individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.47 and aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.70, respectively) but not in Black individuals.
• Among those with diagnosed OSA, CPAP use was associated with a higher risk for incident stroke in White individuals (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.80) but a lower stroke risk in Black individuals (aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.90) compared with no CPAP use.Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.
• Snoring was not associated with incident stroke in either Black or White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results were not what we were expecting to find since Black people have been shown to have a higher risk of stroke and are more likely to have sleep apnea than White people,” lead author Rebecca Robbins, MMSc, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, said in a news release. “Since it has been shown that Black people have more severe sleep apnea than White people and take longer to be screened and treated than White people, it’s possible that using a CPAP machine provides a greater benefit on reducing stroke risk for Black people.”

SOURCE:

Robbins was the lead and corresponding author of the study. It was published online in Neurology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The current study assessed only self-reported OSA symptoms, risk, diagnosis, and treatment and did not include data on the hours of CPAP usage at night, number of days of treatment, adherence during the follow-up period, and OSA severity. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Robbins received consulting income from Sonesta Hotels International, Oura Ring Ltd., Savoir Beds Ltd., Castle Hot Springs, and ByNacht GmbH. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin, urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. We are coming to you live from the Mayo Clinic Urology Conference in Maui, Hawaii, with the world’s leading experts in men’s health, sexual health, and quality of life. I’m bringing in Dr. Allen Morey from the North Dallas area, one of the world’s leading experts in reconstructive urology. He deals with all things urinary incontinence, penile curvature, and sexual health.

Dr. Morey said something at this conference that really put my chin on the floor. He said, “The urethra is a sex organ. It is androgen dependent.” This is so important because it’s true for all genders. So, Dr. Morey, tell us more about why you made that comment and about the incontinence in men that you deal with all the time.

Allen F. Morey, MD: For many years, I’ve worked at cancer centers where, through the various treatments for prostate cancer, the men suffered from urinary incontinence and we put a lot of artificial urinary sphincters in those patients. I had one patient who asked, “Why do I keep having this erosion?” Of course, the erosion is where the cuff compresses the tissue surrounding the urethra, and the tissue gives way, leaving a hole in the urethra. I looked at him and noticed that he was pale. And I thought, Let me check his testosterone level. We started checking it on everybody who had this problem, and sure enough, the ones who had the cup erosion — who had the atrophic tissue around the urethra — most of them had low testosterone levels. Some of this was due to the cancer treatment, but in other men, it was just due to old age.

We started thinking that this is a causal relationship. And we tested it. I had a fellow who was a board-certified pathologist before becoming a urologist. He obtained some specimens from the urethra and did very sophisticated, elegant stains on that tissue. We found that it’s just erectile tissue surrounding the urethra. That’s why I call it a sex organ. I tell my patients, “When you are a teenager, this tissue is thin, like on your pinky finger. As you get older, it becomes thicker. And then as you get even older, and you may be having cancer treatment, that tissue is gone.” You can show them your little finger; it’s about that size. All the meat is off the bone. There’s nothing left protecting the urinary mucosa from the device.

That’s why it’s important to maintain the optimal health of those tissues and for them to remain dry. Because let’s face it: Urinary incontinence is a horrible quality of life. These are my happiest patients when we fix it. Before that, when they go on vacation, they have a separate suitcase filled with diapers. They can’t go anywhere. They can’t do anything. When they become incontinent after the prostatectomy, they gain weight. And when you put in the device to treat it, they lose weight and you can track it. The urinary incontinence patients really suffer. And we need to consider the medical optimization of those patients.

Dr. Rubin: It’s so important, and I love how analogous this is to our female patients. We know that incontinence is devastating to our female patients as well, and there’s a lot of hope. As we get older we start to pee every time we cough, laugh, or sneeze. Men are a little more bothered by it when it happens; they don’t expect it. Among women, it’s thought of as normal, but it’s not normal. There is so much we can do to help these patients, ranging from conservative treatment to surgical therapies.

The connection between hormones and urethral health is true on the female side as well. As you go through menopause, the urethral tissue thins out, gets dry, gets irritated, and can cause worsening incontinence, pain with sex, and genital urinary syndrome of menopause. It’s really important.

For our primary care doctors, how should we talk about stress incontinence in men? How do we diagnose it?

Dr. Morey: It’s easy to diagnose. Just do a quick history. Find out how many pads a day they are using. You have to ask the question, and then you have them stand up and look inside their underwear. You’ll see what kind of pad they are wearing. Is it just a shield or are they actually wearing full diapers? Then I have them do a standing cough test. I stand off to the side, holding a couple of towels, and have the patient cough four times. I can tell if it’s a full stream or just a couple of drops. Is it nothing but they are wearing a pad? You match up what you see with their experience, and in an instant it tells you how severe their problem is and it helps you direct them on to further treatment, because many patients have treatment fatigue. They’ve already been through the system. They have really suffered and they don’t know which way to go. They don’t know what’s available.

Dr. Rubin: On the female side, we have pelvic floor physical therapy. We have pads and devices that you can wear, and pessaries. We have surgical options, like bulking agents into the urethra as well as urethral slings, which can be quite helpful for women. So there’s a lot of hope out there for women, and from what I learned from you at this conference, there’s a lot of hope for men as well. So talk us through treatment, from conservative to surgical options.

Dr. Morey: There hasn’t been much innovation in male incontinence treatment over the past few decades, but we’re starting to see signs of new products appearing on the horizon, so I’m very optimistic that in the next 5 or 10 years, we’ll have more. But right now it comes down to slings and artificial sphincters, which are devices with little pumps and hydraulics, and they’re very good. But they’ve been around for 50 years, and they have this other potential risk factor of the erosion of the tissue.

We don’t have a pill that we can give the patient to tighten up those muscles. We can help them with overactive bladder. But maybe the hormonal influence is a way to optimize the health of the tissue so that these surgical treatments can really deliver the best outcomes. And as I always say, and having treated so many of these patients, it’s really a game of millimeters — how much coaptation you get. If you’re off by the slightest amount, that’s an unhappy patient. So it doesn’t take much to make it a lot better.

Dr. Rubin: There’s so much hope for our patients, and this can really have an effect on sexual health. You know the benefits you see in their quality of life and sexual health when you can stop leakage.

Dr. Morey: I always take care of the waterworks first. Many of the men have both urinary problems and erectile problems. Nobody feels sexy when they’re leaking urine all over their partner. So first we take care of that. And then, in the motivated younger patients, we bring them back and talk to them about potentially having a second operation.

Dr. Rubin: And so similarly, in women with urinary incontinence, it can have a major impact on sexual health — how they show up and how they talk to their partner. So, it is really important for our primary care docs to talk to patients about urinary incontinence and not just say, “Oh, well, you’re getting older. There’s nothing that you can do.” There’s actually no age at which there is nothing that we can do. And it’s really important to refer patients to those urologists who have extra training in incontinence and sexual health, because we do care about these quality-of-life measures and there is a lot we can do, ranging from conservative to more invasive treatments. But patients really should have options.

Dr. Morey: I heard during this meeting that urinary incontinence was the number-one source of treatment regret among patients who had their prostate treated for cancer. So, this is a really big deal for our patients. And it impacts wellness, quality of life, and overall well-being.

Dr. Rubin: When we are counseling patients for cancer surgeries or cancer treatments such as radiation therapy, it’s really hard for the patients who have never had urinary incontinence to imagine what that might be like. When you’re telling them they could have a stroke or a heart attack, or they could have erectile dysfunction or urinary incontinence, it all sounds similar to them. It could happen to someone else. It’s very hard to truly counsel patients on these quality-of-life issues that they’ve never encountered before.

Dr. Morey: We have found that it takes a long time for patients to get into our office for treatment, and it’s unbelievable — often 5 years in diapers before they find us.

Dr. Rubin: Hopefully videos like this will teach our docs and our patients that there is hope out there, that you don’t need to wait through years of suffering from incontinence. So, how does somebody find a reconstructive urologist or a sexual medicine urologist?

Dr. Morey: There are a couple of good websites out there, such as fixincontinence.com and edcure.org. The device manufacturers have pretty good information for patients.

Dr. Rubin: The Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) has a great find-a-provider website, which provides a list of urologists who are trained in both sexual health and urinary incontinence, because they both matter. Our patients deeply care about these issues.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker for Sprout; received research grant from Maternal Medical; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin, urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. We are coming to you live from the Mayo Clinic Urology Conference in Maui, Hawaii, with the world’s leading experts in men’s health, sexual health, and quality of life. I’m bringing in Dr. Allen Morey from the North Dallas area, one of the world’s leading experts in reconstructive urology. He deals with all things urinary incontinence, penile curvature, and sexual health.

Dr. Morey said something at this conference that really put my chin on the floor. He said, “The urethra is a sex organ. It is androgen dependent.” This is so important because it’s true for all genders. So, Dr. Morey, tell us more about why you made that comment and about the incontinence in men that you deal with all the time.

Allen F. Morey, MD: For many years, I’ve worked at cancer centers where, through the various treatments for prostate cancer, the men suffered from urinary incontinence and we put a lot of artificial urinary sphincters in those patients. I had one patient who asked, “Why do I keep having this erosion?” Of course, the erosion is where the cuff compresses the tissue surrounding the urethra, and the tissue gives way, leaving a hole in the urethra. I looked at him and noticed that he was pale. And I thought, Let me check his testosterone level. We started checking it on everybody who had this problem, and sure enough, the ones who had the cup erosion — who had the atrophic tissue around the urethra — most of them had low testosterone levels. Some of this was due to the cancer treatment, but in other men, it was just due to old age.

We started thinking that this is a causal relationship. And we tested it. I had a fellow who was a board-certified pathologist before becoming a urologist. He obtained some specimens from the urethra and did very sophisticated, elegant stains on that tissue. We found that it’s just erectile tissue surrounding the urethra. That’s why I call it a sex organ. I tell my patients, “When you are a teenager, this tissue is thin, like on your pinky finger. As you get older, it becomes thicker. And then as you get even older, and you may be having cancer treatment, that tissue is gone.” You can show them your little finger; it’s about that size. All the meat is off the bone. There’s nothing left protecting the urinary mucosa from the device.

That’s why it’s important to maintain the optimal health of those tissues and for them to remain dry. Because let’s face it: Urinary incontinence is a horrible quality of life. These are my happiest patients when we fix it. Before that, when they go on vacation, they have a separate suitcase filled with diapers. They can’t go anywhere. They can’t do anything. When they become incontinent after the prostatectomy, they gain weight. And when you put in the device to treat it, they lose weight and you can track it. The urinary incontinence patients really suffer. And we need to consider the medical optimization of those patients.

Dr. Rubin: It’s so important, and I love how analogous this is to our female patients. We know that incontinence is devastating to our female patients as well, and there’s a lot of hope. As we get older we start to pee every time we cough, laugh, or sneeze. Men are a little more bothered by it when it happens; they don’t expect it. Among women, it’s thought of as normal, but it’s not normal. There is so much we can do to help these patients, ranging from conservative treatment to surgical therapies.

The connection between hormones and urethral health is true on the female side as well. As you go through menopause, the urethral tissue thins out, gets dry, gets irritated, and can cause worsening incontinence, pain with sex, and genital urinary syndrome of menopause. It’s really important.

For our primary care doctors, how should we talk about stress incontinence in men? How do we diagnose it?

Dr. Morey: It’s easy to diagnose. Just do a quick history. Find out how many pads a day they are using. You have to ask the question, and then you have them stand up and look inside their underwear. You’ll see what kind of pad they are wearing. Is it just a shield or are they actually wearing full diapers? Then I have them do a standing cough test. I stand off to the side, holding a couple of towels, and have the patient cough four times. I can tell if it’s a full stream or just a couple of drops. Is it nothing but they are wearing a pad? You match up what you see with their experience, and in an instant it tells you how severe their problem is and it helps you direct them on to further treatment, because many patients have treatment fatigue. They’ve already been through the system. They have really suffered and they don’t know which way to go. They don’t know what’s available.

Dr. Rubin: On the female side, we have pelvic floor physical therapy. We have pads and devices that you can wear, and pessaries. We have surgical options, like bulking agents into the urethra as well as urethral slings, which can be quite helpful for women. So there’s a lot of hope out there for women, and from what I learned from you at this conference, there’s a lot of hope for men as well. So talk us through treatment, from conservative to surgical options.

Dr. Morey: There hasn’t been much innovation in male incontinence treatment over the past few decades, but we’re starting to see signs of new products appearing on the horizon, so I’m very optimistic that in the next 5 or 10 years, we’ll have more. But right now it comes down to slings and artificial sphincters, which are devices with little pumps and hydraulics, and they’re very good. But they’ve been around for 50 years, and they have this other potential risk factor of the erosion of the tissue.

We don’t have a pill that we can give the patient to tighten up those muscles. We can help them with overactive bladder. But maybe the hormonal influence is a way to optimize the health of the tissue so that these surgical treatments can really deliver the best outcomes. And as I always say, and having treated so many of these patients, it’s really a game of millimeters — how much coaptation you get. If you’re off by the slightest amount, that’s an unhappy patient. So it doesn’t take much to make it a lot better.

Dr. Rubin: There’s so much hope for our patients, and this can really have an effect on sexual health. You know the benefits you see in their quality of life and sexual health when you can stop leakage.

Dr. Morey: I always take care of the waterworks first. Many of the men have both urinary problems and erectile problems. Nobody feels sexy when they’re leaking urine all over their partner. So first we take care of that. And then, in the motivated younger patients, we bring them back and talk to them about potentially having a second operation.

Dr. Rubin: And so similarly, in women with urinary incontinence, it can have a major impact on sexual health — how they show up and how they talk to their partner. So, it is really important for our primary care docs to talk to patients about urinary incontinence and not just say, “Oh, well, you’re getting older. There’s nothing that you can do.” There’s actually no age at which there is nothing that we can do. And it’s really important to refer patients to those urologists who have extra training in incontinence and sexual health, because we do care about these quality-of-life measures and there is a lot we can do, ranging from conservative to more invasive treatments. But patients really should have options.

Dr. Morey: I heard during this meeting that urinary incontinence was the number-one source of treatment regret among patients who had their prostate treated for cancer. So, this is a really big deal for our patients. And it impacts wellness, quality of life, and overall well-being.

Dr. Rubin: When we are counseling patients for cancer surgeries or cancer treatments such as radiation therapy, it’s really hard for the patients who have never had urinary incontinence to imagine what that might be like. When you’re telling them they could have a stroke or a heart attack, or they could have erectile dysfunction or urinary incontinence, it all sounds similar to them. It could happen to someone else. It’s very hard to truly counsel patients on these quality-of-life issues that they’ve never encountered before.

Dr. Morey: We have found that it takes a long time for patients to get into our office for treatment, and it’s unbelievable — often 5 years in diapers before they find us.

Dr. Rubin: Hopefully videos like this will teach our docs and our patients that there is hope out there, that you don’t need to wait through years of suffering from incontinence. So, how does somebody find a reconstructive urologist or a sexual medicine urologist?

Dr. Morey: There are a couple of good websites out there, such as fixincontinence.com and edcure.org. The device manufacturers have pretty good information for patients.

Dr. Rubin: The Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) has a great find-a-provider website, which provides a list of urologists who are trained in both sexual health and urinary incontinence, because they both matter. Our patients deeply care about these issues.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker for Sprout; received research grant from Maternal Medical; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin, urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. We are coming to you live from the Mayo Clinic Urology Conference in Maui, Hawaii, with the world’s leading experts in men’s health, sexual health, and quality of life. I’m bringing in Dr. Allen Morey from the North Dallas area, one of the world’s leading experts in reconstructive urology. He deals with all things urinary incontinence, penile curvature, and sexual health.

Dr. Morey said something at this conference that really put my chin on the floor. He said, “The urethra is a sex organ. It is androgen dependent.” This is so important because it’s true for all genders. So, Dr. Morey, tell us more about why you made that comment and about the incontinence in men that you deal with all the time.

Allen F. Morey, MD: For many years, I’ve worked at cancer centers where, through the various treatments for prostate cancer, the men suffered from urinary incontinence and we put a lot of artificial urinary sphincters in those patients. I had one patient who asked, “Why do I keep having this erosion?” Of course, the erosion is where the cuff compresses the tissue surrounding the urethra, and the tissue gives way, leaving a hole in the urethra. I looked at him and noticed that he was pale. And I thought, Let me check his testosterone level. We started checking it on everybody who had this problem, and sure enough, the ones who had the cup erosion — who had the atrophic tissue around the urethra — most of them had low testosterone levels. Some of this was due to the cancer treatment, but in other men, it was just due to old age.

We started thinking that this is a causal relationship. And we tested it. I had a fellow who was a board-certified pathologist before becoming a urologist. He obtained some specimens from the urethra and did very sophisticated, elegant stains on that tissue. We found that it’s just erectile tissue surrounding the urethra. That’s why I call it a sex organ. I tell my patients, “When you are a teenager, this tissue is thin, like on your pinky finger. As you get older, it becomes thicker. And then as you get even older, and you may be having cancer treatment, that tissue is gone.” You can show them your little finger; it’s about that size. All the meat is off the bone. There’s nothing left protecting the urinary mucosa from the device.

That’s why it’s important to maintain the optimal health of those tissues and for them to remain dry. Because let’s face it: Urinary incontinence is a horrible quality of life. These are my happiest patients when we fix it. Before that, when they go on vacation, they have a separate suitcase filled with diapers. They can’t go anywhere. They can’t do anything. When they become incontinent after the prostatectomy, they gain weight. And when you put in the device to treat it, they lose weight and you can track it. The urinary incontinence patients really suffer. And we need to consider the medical optimization of those patients.

Dr. Rubin: It’s so important, and I love how analogous this is to our female patients. We know that incontinence is devastating to our female patients as well, and there’s a lot of hope. As we get older we start to pee every time we cough, laugh, or sneeze. Men are a little more bothered by it when it happens; they don’t expect it. Among women, it’s thought of as normal, but it’s not normal. There is so much we can do to help these patients, ranging from conservative treatment to surgical therapies.

The connection between hormones and urethral health is true on the female side as well. As you go through menopause, the urethral tissue thins out, gets dry, gets irritated, and can cause worsening incontinence, pain with sex, and genital urinary syndrome of menopause. It’s really important.

For our primary care doctors, how should we talk about stress incontinence in men? How do we diagnose it?

Dr. Morey: It’s easy to diagnose. Just do a quick history. Find out how many pads a day they are using. You have to ask the question, and then you have them stand up and look inside their underwear. You’ll see what kind of pad they are wearing. Is it just a shield or are they actually wearing full diapers? Then I have them do a standing cough test. I stand off to the side, holding a couple of towels, and have the patient cough four times. I can tell if it’s a full stream or just a couple of drops. Is it nothing but they are wearing a pad? You match up what you see with their experience, and in an instant it tells you how severe their problem is and it helps you direct them on to further treatment, because many patients have treatment fatigue. They’ve already been through the system. They have really suffered and they don’t know which way to go. They don’t know what’s available.

Dr. Rubin: On the female side, we have pelvic floor physical therapy. We have pads and devices that you can wear, and pessaries. We have surgical options, like bulking agents into the urethra as well as urethral slings, which can be quite helpful for women. So there’s a lot of hope out there for women, and from what I learned from you at this conference, there’s a lot of hope for men as well. So talk us through treatment, from conservative to surgical options.

Dr. Morey: There hasn’t been much innovation in male incontinence treatment over the past few decades, but we’re starting to see signs of new products appearing on the horizon, so I’m very optimistic that in the next 5 or 10 years, we’ll have more. But right now it comes down to slings and artificial sphincters, which are devices with little pumps and hydraulics, and they’re very good. But they’ve been around for 50 years, and they have this other potential risk factor of the erosion of the tissue.

We don’t have a pill that we can give the patient to tighten up those muscles. We can help them with overactive bladder. But maybe the hormonal influence is a way to optimize the health of the tissue so that these surgical treatments can really deliver the best outcomes. And as I always say, and having treated so many of these patients, it’s really a game of millimeters — how much coaptation you get. If you’re off by the slightest amount, that’s an unhappy patient. So it doesn’t take much to make it a lot better.

Dr. Rubin: There’s so much hope for our patients, and this can really have an effect on sexual health. You know the benefits you see in their quality of life and sexual health when you can stop leakage.

Dr. Morey: I always take care of the waterworks first. Many of the men have both urinary problems and erectile problems. Nobody feels sexy when they’re leaking urine all over their partner. So first we take care of that. And then, in the motivated younger patients, we bring them back and talk to them about potentially having a second operation.

Dr. Rubin: And so similarly, in women with urinary incontinence, it can have a major impact on sexual health — how they show up and how they talk to their partner. So, it is really important for our primary care docs to talk to patients about urinary incontinence and not just say, “Oh, well, you’re getting older. There’s nothing that you can do.” There’s actually no age at which there is nothing that we can do. And it’s really important to refer patients to those urologists who have extra training in incontinence and sexual health, because we do care about these quality-of-life measures and there is a lot we can do, ranging from conservative to more invasive treatments. But patients really should have options.

Dr. Morey: I heard during this meeting that urinary incontinence was the number-one source of treatment regret among patients who had their prostate treated for cancer. So, this is a really big deal for our patients. And it impacts wellness, quality of life, and overall well-being.

Dr. Rubin: When we are counseling patients for cancer surgeries or cancer treatments such as radiation therapy, it’s really hard for the patients who have never had urinary incontinence to imagine what that might be like. When you’re telling them they could have a stroke or a heart attack, or they could have erectile dysfunction or urinary incontinence, it all sounds similar to them. It could happen to someone else. It’s very hard to truly counsel patients on these quality-of-life issues that they’ve never encountered before.

Dr. Morey: We have found that it takes a long time for patients to get into our office for treatment, and it’s unbelievable — often 5 years in diapers before they find us.

Dr. Rubin: Hopefully videos like this will teach our docs and our patients that there is hope out there, that you don’t need to wait through years of suffering from incontinence. So, how does somebody find a reconstructive urologist or a sexual medicine urologist?

Dr. Morey: There are a couple of good websites out there, such as fixincontinence.com and edcure.org. The device manufacturers have pretty good information for patients.

Dr. Rubin: The Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) has a great find-a-provider website, which provides a list of urologists who are trained in both sexual health and urinary incontinence, because they both matter. Our patients deeply care about these issues.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker for Sprout; received research grant from Maternal Medical; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, Endo.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.