Health officials are warning that an increase in the drug-resistant form of the bacteria Shigella is a “serious public health threat.”

The CDC issued the warning Feb. 24 about the rise in the problematic infections. Most of them have been seen in men who have sex with men, but a small number have also occurred in women and in young children.

The bacteria can be spread in a variety of ways, including changing the diaper of an infected baby, touching your mouth when the bacteria are on your hands, eating or drinking contaminated food or water, or through sexual contact. It’s easily transmitted because just a tiny amount of the bacteria is enough to make someone sick.

Shigella infection causes diarrhea that can be bloody. Other symptoms are a fever, belly cramping, and the feeling that you have to poop but your bowels are already empty. Most people recover on their own with rest and fluids, and severe cases can need antibiotic treatment. But strains of the bacteria that are resistant to treatment are on the rise.

Between 2015 and 2022, cases of antibiotic-resistant Shigella infection rose from 0% to 5% of all Shigella cases in the United States. One analysis showed that 82% of cases were in men, 13% in women, and 5% in children. A small sample of affected people provided information about their sexual activity, and 88% of them reported male-to-male sexual contact.

People at increased risk of infections are young children, people who are homeless, international travelers, people who have weakened immune systems, people living with HIV, and men who have sex with men.

The CDC asked health care workers to be on the lookout for these infections and report them.

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

Health officials are warning that an increase in the drug-resistant form of the bacteria Shigella is a “serious public health threat.”

The CDC issued the warning Feb. 24 about the rise in the problematic infections. Most of them have been seen in men who have sex with men, but a small number have also occurred in women and in young children.

The bacteria can be spread in a variety of ways, including changing the diaper of an infected baby, touching your mouth when the bacteria are on your hands, eating or drinking contaminated food or water, or through sexual contact. It’s easily transmitted because just a tiny amount of the bacteria is enough to make someone sick.

Shigella infection causes diarrhea that can be bloody. Other symptoms are a fever, belly cramping, and the feeling that you have to poop but your bowels are already empty. Most people recover on their own with rest and fluids, and severe cases can need antibiotic treatment. But strains of the bacteria that are resistant to treatment are on the rise.

Between 2015 and 2022, cases of antibiotic-resistant Shigella infection rose from 0% to 5% of all Shigella cases in the United States. One analysis showed that 82% of cases were in men, 13% in women, and 5% in children. A small sample of affected people provided information about their sexual activity, and 88% of them reported male-to-male sexual contact.

People at increased risk of infections are young children, people who are homeless, international travelers, people who have weakened immune systems, people living with HIV, and men who have sex with men.

The CDC asked health care workers to be on the lookout for these infections and report them.

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

Health officials are warning that an increase in the drug-resistant form of the bacteria Shigella is a “serious public health threat.”

The CDC issued the warning Feb. 24 about the rise in the problematic infections. Most of them have been seen in men who have sex with men, but a small number have also occurred in women and in young children.

The bacteria can be spread in a variety of ways, including changing the diaper of an infected baby, touching your mouth when the bacteria are on your hands, eating or drinking contaminated food or water, or through sexual contact. It’s easily transmitted because just a tiny amount of the bacteria is enough to make someone sick.

Shigella infection causes diarrhea that can be bloody. Other symptoms are a fever, belly cramping, and the feeling that you have to poop but your bowels are already empty. Most people recover on their own with rest and fluids, and severe cases can need antibiotic treatment. But strains of the bacteria that are resistant to treatment are on the rise.

Between 2015 and 2022, cases of antibiotic-resistant Shigella infection rose from 0% to 5% of all Shigella cases in the United States. One analysis showed that 82% of cases were in men, 13% in women, and 5% in children. A small sample of affected people provided information about their sexual activity, and 88% of them reported male-to-male sexual contact.

People at increased risk of infections are young children, people who are homeless, international travelers, people who have weakened immune systems, people living with HIV, and men who have sex with men.

The CDC asked health care workers to be on the lookout for these infections and report them.

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

Considered fringe just a few years ago, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has entered mainstream conversation about treating food allergies – particularly in younger children.

The buzz surrounding OIT – which involves ingesting daily doses of the culprit food to raise the threshold that would trigger a reaction – grew with the approval, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of Palforzia, of the peanut OIT pill in January 2020. Yet many allergists remained wary about the treatment, a monthslong regimen that can itself trigger allergic reactions.

Now, accumulating research points to “a possible window of opportunity early in life, less than 3 years of age, for more successful disease remission,” Justin Schwartz, MD, PhD, an allergist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, told a crowd at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology.

His presentation about OIT in toddlers kicked off a 3-hour clinical practice course, one of several dozen conference offerings highlighting this emerging approach.

Several AAAAI posters add to prior studies (for example, DEVIL and IMPACT) suggesting that OIT proceeds more smoothly and faster during a child’s earliest years – a season fraught with accidental exposures and reactions.

One poster described a retrospective study of 73 children younger than 4 years who underwent OIT at the Cleveland Clinic Food Allergy Center. Sixty-four were treated for peanut allergies, and seven patients received OIT for multiple foods, including tree nuts, milk, wheat, and sesame.

Of the 80 total OIT courses, 76 (95%) reached maintenance – meaning the child tolerated a small amount (for example, 1-2 peanuts) without reacting – in a median of 104 days (~3.4 months).

That is “quite impressive,” said allergist Hugh Windom, MD, whose clinic in Sarasota, Fla., has offered OIT since 2012.

Older children typically have 80%-90% success and take longer (6-8 months) to reach maintenance because of busier schedules and reactions that slow them down, he said. In his clinic’s larger retrospective analysis of preschool-aged OIT patients, presented at the 2022 AAAAI meeting, 89% of patients with peanut allergies and 72% of children with multiple food allergies achieved maintenance.

In the Cleveland Clinic study, children with favorable lab test results after receiving the maintenance dose for 6 months were offered an oral food challenge. Of 24 patients who completed the challenge, 75% “passed with a normal serving size of the treated food (for example, two tablespoons of peanut butter),” Sarah Johnson, MD, lead author and Cleveland Clinic allergy/immunology fellow, said in an interview.

Plus, OIT seemed safer for toddlers. Although 41% of the children had reactions during clinic updosing and 48% had reactions at home, only ~3% of toddler OIT courses required epinephrine. By comparison, ~11% of treatments required epinephrine in a large OIT study of older children.

When a child reacts, “you might keep them on the dose or go a little slower,” said Johnson, who worked with allergist Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, on the study. These setbacks occurred less frequently in toddlers, allowing their OIT to “go a lot faster” than in older children. And so far, Dr. Johnson said, none of the toddlers have shown signs of eosinophilic esophagitis, a rare complication that can develop during OIT.

A smaller analysis of real-world outcomes in an academic clinical setting also found that OIT was well tolerated at very young ages. Since 2020, this ongoing study at UVA Children’s Hospital in Charlottesville has enrolled 22 peanut-allergic children (aged 6 months to 3 years) for OIT. Three patients have dropped out, four are in the buildup phrase, and 15 have reached maintenance dosing. None have reported having to use epinephrine.

Three patients have completed 1 year of maintenance therapy, and another patient accidentally consumed ~3,000 mg of peanut protein (equivalent to ~10 peanuts) after 5 months of maintenance. All four “now incorporate peanut into their diets ad lib,” according to lead author and allergist Jonathan Hemler, MD, who directs the UVA pediatric food allergy program.

These findings are “really reassuring – because even if you may not offer OIT, you’re still going to get questions about it,” said Ama Alexis, MD, an allergist/immunologist in private practice in New York and a clinical assistant professor at NYU Grossmann School of Medicine, commenting on the Cleveland Clinic study.

“It’s great that we’re hearing and seeing so much about OIT,” she added. While training as an allergy/immunology fellow 15 years ago, many saw the treatment as dangerous – “an absolute no-no,” she said.

The AAAAI still considers OIT “investigational,” yet this year’s annual meeting featured 22 posters – plus a course, workshop, seminar, and oral abstract session – on the approach.

The “thought process has shifted,” Dr. Alexis said. “It’s good to see all these numbers, these results. I think once you’re comfortable, you should embrace new therapies.”

Dr. Schwartz has consulted for Shire/Takeda and has received research funding from Knopp Biosciences. Dr. Alexis consults for AbbVie, serves on advisory boards for Jansen and Eli Lilli, and is a member of Pfizer’s advisory board and speaker’s bureau. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Windom, and Dr. Hemler report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Considered fringe just a few years ago, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has entered mainstream conversation about treating food allergies – particularly in younger children.

The buzz surrounding OIT – which involves ingesting daily doses of the culprit food to raise the threshold that would trigger a reaction – grew with the approval, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of Palforzia, of the peanut OIT pill in January 2020. Yet many allergists remained wary about the treatment, a monthslong regimen that can itself trigger allergic reactions.

Now, accumulating research points to “a possible window of opportunity early in life, less than 3 years of age, for more successful disease remission,” Justin Schwartz, MD, PhD, an allergist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, told a crowd at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology.

His presentation about OIT in toddlers kicked off a 3-hour clinical practice course, one of several dozen conference offerings highlighting this emerging approach.

Several AAAAI posters add to prior studies (for example, DEVIL and IMPACT) suggesting that OIT proceeds more smoothly and faster during a child’s earliest years – a season fraught with accidental exposures and reactions.

One poster described a retrospective study of 73 children younger than 4 years who underwent OIT at the Cleveland Clinic Food Allergy Center. Sixty-four were treated for peanut allergies, and seven patients received OIT for multiple foods, including tree nuts, milk, wheat, and sesame.

Of the 80 total OIT courses, 76 (95%) reached maintenance – meaning the child tolerated a small amount (for example, 1-2 peanuts) without reacting – in a median of 104 days (~3.4 months).

That is “quite impressive,” said allergist Hugh Windom, MD, whose clinic in Sarasota, Fla., has offered OIT since 2012.

Older children typically have 80%-90% success and take longer (6-8 months) to reach maintenance because of busier schedules and reactions that slow them down, he said. In his clinic’s larger retrospective analysis of preschool-aged OIT patients, presented at the 2022 AAAAI meeting, 89% of patients with peanut allergies and 72% of children with multiple food allergies achieved maintenance.

In the Cleveland Clinic study, children with favorable lab test results after receiving the maintenance dose for 6 months were offered an oral food challenge. Of 24 patients who completed the challenge, 75% “passed with a normal serving size of the treated food (for example, two tablespoons of peanut butter),” Sarah Johnson, MD, lead author and Cleveland Clinic allergy/immunology fellow, said in an interview.

Plus, OIT seemed safer for toddlers. Although 41% of the children had reactions during clinic updosing and 48% had reactions at home, only ~3% of toddler OIT courses required epinephrine. By comparison, ~11% of treatments required epinephrine in a large OIT study of older children.

When a child reacts, “you might keep them on the dose or go a little slower,” said Johnson, who worked with allergist Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, on the study. These setbacks occurred less frequently in toddlers, allowing their OIT to “go a lot faster” than in older children. And so far, Dr. Johnson said, none of the toddlers have shown signs of eosinophilic esophagitis, a rare complication that can develop during OIT.

A smaller analysis of real-world outcomes in an academic clinical setting also found that OIT was well tolerated at very young ages. Since 2020, this ongoing study at UVA Children’s Hospital in Charlottesville has enrolled 22 peanut-allergic children (aged 6 months to 3 years) for OIT. Three patients have dropped out, four are in the buildup phrase, and 15 have reached maintenance dosing. None have reported having to use epinephrine.

Three patients have completed 1 year of maintenance therapy, and another patient accidentally consumed ~3,000 mg of peanut protein (equivalent to ~10 peanuts) after 5 months of maintenance. All four “now incorporate peanut into their diets ad lib,” according to lead author and allergist Jonathan Hemler, MD, who directs the UVA pediatric food allergy program.

These findings are “really reassuring – because even if you may not offer OIT, you’re still going to get questions about it,” said Ama Alexis, MD, an allergist/immunologist in private practice in New York and a clinical assistant professor at NYU Grossmann School of Medicine, commenting on the Cleveland Clinic study.

“It’s great that we’re hearing and seeing so much about OIT,” she added. While training as an allergy/immunology fellow 15 years ago, many saw the treatment as dangerous – “an absolute no-no,” she said.

The AAAAI still considers OIT “investigational,” yet this year’s annual meeting featured 22 posters – plus a course, workshop, seminar, and oral abstract session – on the approach.

The “thought process has shifted,” Dr. Alexis said. “It’s good to see all these numbers, these results. I think once you’re comfortable, you should embrace new therapies.”

Dr. Schwartz has consulted for Shire/Takeda and has received research funding from Knopp Biosciences. Dr. Alexis consults for AbbVie, serves on advisory boards for Jansen and Eli Lilli, and is a member of Pfizer’s advisory board and speaker’s bureau. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Windom, and Dr. Hemler report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Considered fringe just a few years ago, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has entered mainstream conversation about treating food allergies – particularly in younger children.

The buzz surrounding OIT – which involves ingesting daily doses of the culprit food to raise the threshold that would trigger a reaction – grew with the approval, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of Palforzia, of the peanut OIT pill in January 2020. Yet many allergists remained wary about the treatment, a monthslong regimen that can itself trigger allergic reactions.

Now, accumulating research points to “a possible window of opportunity early in life, less than 3 years of age, for more successful disease remission,” Justin Schwartz, MD, PhD, an allergist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, told a crowd at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology.

His presentation about OIT in toddlers kicked off a 3-hour clinical practice course, one of several dozen conference offerings highlighting this emerging approach.

Several AAAAI posters add to prior studies (for example, DEVIL and IMPACT) suggesting that OIT proceeds more smoothly and faster during a child’s earliest years – a season fraught with accidental exposures and reactions.

One poster described a retrospective study of 73 children younger than 4 years who underwent OIT at the Cleveland Clinic Food Allergy Center. Sixty-four were treated for peanut allergies, and seven patients received OIT for multiple foods, including tree nuts, milk, wheat, and sesame.

Of the 80 total OIT courses, 76 (95%) reached maintenance – meaning the child tolerated a small amount (for example, 1-2 peanuts) without reacting – in a median of 104 days (~3.4 months).

That is “quite impressive,” said allergist Hugh Windom, MD, whose clinic in Sarasota, Fla., has offered OIT since 2012.

Older children typically have 80%-90% success and take longer (6-8 months) to reach maintenance because of busier schedules and reactions that slow them down, he said. In his clinic’s larger retrospective analysis of preschool-aged OIT patients, presented at the 2022 AAAAI meeting, 89% of patients with peanut allergies and 72% of children with multiple food allergies achieved maintenance.

In the Cleveland Clinic study, children with favorable lab test results after receiving the maintenance dose for 6 months were offered an oral food challenge. Of 24 patients who completed the challenge, 75% “passed with a normal serving size of the treated food (for example, two tablespoons of peanut butter),” Sarah Johnson, MD, lead author and Cleveland Clinic allergy/immunology fellow, said in an interview.

Plus, OIT seemed safer for toddlers. Although 41% of the children had reactions during clinic updosing and 48% had reactions at home, only ~3% of toddler OIT courses required epinephrine. By comparison, ~11% of treatments required epinephrine in a large OIT study of older children.

When a child reacts, “you might keep them on the dose or go a little slower,” said Johnson, who worked with allergist Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, on the study. These setbacks occurred less frequently in toddlers, allowing their OIT to “go a lot faster” than in older children. And so far, Dr. Johnson said, none of the toddlers have shown signs of eosinophilic esophagitis, a rare complication that can develop during OIT.

A smaller analysis of real-world outcomes in an academic clinical setting also found that OIT was well tolerated at very young ages. Since 2020, this ongoing study at UVA Children’s Hospital in Charlottesville has enrolled 22 peanut-allergic children (aged 6 months to 3 years) for OIT. Three patients have dropped out, four are in the buildup phrase, and 15 have reached maintenance dosing. None have reported having to use epinephrine.

Three patients have completed 1 year of maintenance therapy, and another patient accidentally consumed ~3,000 mg of peanut protein (equivalent to ~10 peanuts) after 5 months of maintenance. All four “now incorporate peanut into their diets ad lib,” according to lead author and allergist Jonathan Hemler, MD, who directs the UVA pediatric food allergy program.

These findings are “really reassuring – because even if you may not offer OIT, you’re still going to get questions about it,” said Ama Alexis, MD, an allergist/immunologist in private practice in New York and a clinical assistant professor at NYU Grossmann School of Medicine, commenting on the Cleveland Clinic study.

“It’s great that we’re hearing and seeing so much about OIT,” she added. While training as an allergy/immunology fellow 15 years ago, many saw the treatment as dangerous – “an absolute no-no,” she said.

The AAAAI still considers OIT “investigational,” yet this year’s annual meeting featured 22 posters – plus a course, workshop, seminar, and oral abstract session – on the approach.

The “thought process has shifted,” Dr. Alexis said. “It’s good to see all these numbers, these results. I think once you’re comfortable, you should embrace new therapies.”

Dr. Schwartz has consulted for Shire/Takeda and has received research funding from Knopp Biosciences. Dr. Alexis consults for AbbVie, serves on advisory boards for Jansen and Eli Lilli, and is a member of Pfizer’s advisory board and speaker’s bureau. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Windom, and Dr. Hemler report no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – For patients with prostate cancer who have unfavorable features and a detectable PSA following a radical prostatectomy, the standard of care is treatment with 6 months of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist with salvage radiation therapy (SRT), as established by the GETUG-AFU 16 trial.

A new trial, dubbed FORMULA-509, explored whether outcomes could be improved by intensifying the drug treatment by adding 6 months of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as well as apalutamide on top of the GnRH agonist alongside the salvage radiotherapy.

This approach did not provide a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) or metastasis-free survival (MFS) in the overall study population.

However, the combination did significantly improve PFS and MFS in a subset of men with PSA levels greater than 0.5 ng/mL.

“Although this primary analysis did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance, it does strongly suggest that the addition of abiraterone acetate/prednisone/apalutamide to salvage radiotherapy plus 6 months of ADT [androgen deprivation therapy] may improve progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival,” said lead author Paul L. Nguyen, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and professor of radiation oncology at Harvard Medical School.

“This may be particularly evident in the subgroup of patients with PSA greater that 0.5 ng/mL where a preplanned subgroup analysis by stratification factors observed a statistically significant benefit for both progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival,” he said. “Six months of intensified ADT with next generation anti-androgens may provide an attractive alternative to lengthening ADT for patients with rising PSA and unfavorable features after radical prostatectomy.”

The study results were presented at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
 

Benefit in subset

The FORMULA-509 trial included 305 patients with PSA ≥ 0.1 ng/mL who had undergone a radical prostatectomy, and who had one or more unfavorable risk features (Gleason 8-10 disease, PSA > 0.5 ng/mL, pT3/T4, pN1 or radiographic N1, PSA doubling time < 10 months, negative margins, persistent PSA, gross local/regional disease).

“This was a pretty high-risk population,” Dr. Nguyen emphasized, as 35% had Gleason score of 9, about a third (31%) a PSA >0.5, and 29% were pathologic node positive.

All patients received salvage radiotherapy plus 6 months of GnRH agonist (bicalutamide 50 mg), and half were randomly assigned to also receive abiraterone acetate/prednisone 1,000 mg/5 mg + apalutamide 240 mg daily.

At a median follow-up of 34 months, the 3-year PFS rate was 74.9% in the AAP-apalutamide arm vs. 68.5% for the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; P = .06), and the 3-year MFS rate was 90.6% vs. 87.2%, respectively (HR, 0.57; P = .05).

In the subset of patients with a PSA greater than 0.5 ng/mL, the 3-year PFS and MFS rates were significantly higher with in the AAP-apalutamide group: the 3-year PFS rate was 67.2% vs. 46.8% (HR, 0.50; P = .03), and the 3-year MFS rate was 84.3% vs. 66.1% (HR, 0.32; P = .02).

Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of the agents being studied, Dr. Nguyen noted. The most common toxicities for AAP-apalutamide vs. controls were hypertension (21.8% vs. 13.3%), maculopapular rash (11.5% vs. 0.6%), diarrhea (8.5% vs. 4.8%), and fatigue (7.9% vs. 6.1%).

Dr. Nguyen noted that even though “we’re not supposed to compare clinical trials,” the results of this study appeared to compare favorably with those of another trial, RADICALS-HD, which was presented at the 2022 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress. That study showed that in patients undergoing postoperative radiation therapy, 24 months of ADT was superior to 6 months of ADT in improving both time to salvage ADT and MFS.

However, Dr. Nguyen emphasized that it would have to be formally tested, to see if “FORMULA-509 is performing in the ballpark of what 24 months of ADT would do.

“And I think that compared to 6 months of ADT, we can say it is certainly performing in the ballpark,” he said. “So, for patients with higher risk features, intensifying 6 months of ADT, I think, may be an appealing alternative to lengthening the ADT duration to 24 months.”

He added that this concept would be formally tested in the upcoming PROSTATE IQ study.
 

Strong evidence, standardization needed

In a discussion of the paper, Tyler Seibert, MD, PhD, of the University of California San Diego, said that “escalation by 24 months has the strongest evidence today, specifically from the RADICALS-HD trial, with more than 1,500 men with 10 years of  follow-up and a clear statistically significant result.

“Intensification for 6 months is a very compelling concept, as most patients are not getting 2 years of androgen deprivation therapy at this point post prostatectomy,” he continued. “While we await the long term follow-up of this study and the pending PROSTATE IQ trial, and if only 6 months of therapy is acceptable or feasible, the FORMULA-509 [trial] provides convincing evidence that select patients would benefit from intensification with AAP and apalutamide.”

Another expert weighed in on the data. Approached by this news organization for an independent comment, Jeff M. Michalski, MD, MBA, professor of radiation oncology at Washington University, St Louis, and president of the American Society of Radiation Oncology, noted a few issues in the study.

He said that standards had changed since this study was first approved and had begun accrual several years ago. “In context of today’s era, the current standard is to do a PET scan if patients have a chemical failure after surgery,” he said. “The PSA levels of patients who were treated [in this trial] were very high, and many patients do not want to wait until they reach that level.”

Dr. Michalski also pointed out the number of patients getting radiation was less than the number who had node-positive disease. “This shows that patients had received suboptimal therapy late in the disease,” he said.

Overall, most patients in the study did not receive lymph node radiation, even though they had high-risk features. “A recent study of almost 1,800 patients that was published in The Lancet found that there is a benefit to pelvic lymph node radiation,” he said. “Because it wasn’t mandated, most of the patients did not receive pelvic lymph node radiation, which we now understand offers some benefit.”

The reasons for not giving pelvic radiation to these men is unclear. “Treatment was left at the discretion of the physician and this could create bias,” Dr. Michalski said. “It could drive one arm more than another.”

The study also wasn’t controlled for pelvic radiation. “Most of the nodal positive patients received it, but the other patients were undertreated,” he noted.

Dr. Michalski added that he hopes that in the forthcoming PROSTATE IQ study, lymph node radiation and imaging are standardized.

The trial was supported by Janssen Oncology. Dr. Nguyen disclosed relationships with, and/or support from, Volatilyx, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, Janssen Oncology, Myovant Sciences, Astellas Pharma, and Janssen. Dr. Seibert disclosed relationships with, and/or support from, CorTechs Labs, Varian Medical Systems, and GE Healthcare.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – For patients with prostate cancer who have unfavorable features and a detectable PSA following a radical prostatectomy, the standard of care is treatment with 6 months of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist with salvage radiation therapy (SRT), as established by the GETUG-AFU 16 trial.

A new trial, dubbed FORMULA-509, explored whether outcomes could be improved by intensifying the drug treatment by adding 6 months of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as well as apalutamide on top of the GnRH agonist alongside the salvage radiotherapy.

This approach did not provide a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) or metastasis-free survival (MFS) in the overall study population.

However, the combination did significantly improve PFS and MFS in a subset of men with PSA levels greater than 0.5 ng/mL.

“Although this primary analysis did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance, it does strongly suggest that the addition of abiraterone acetate/prednisone/apalutamide to salvage radiotherapy plus 6 months of ADT [androgen deprivation therapy] may improve progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival,” said lead author Paul L. Nguyen, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and professor of radiation oncology at Harvard Medical School.

“This may be particularly evident in the subgroup of patients with PSA greater that 0.5 ng/mL where a preplanned subgroup analysis by stratification factors observed a statistically significant benefit for both progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival,” he said. “Six months of intensified ADT with next generation anti-androgens may provide an attractive alternative to lengthening ADT for patients with rising PSA and unfavorable features after radical prostatectomy.”

The study results were presented at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
 

Benefit in subset

The FORMULA-509 trial included 305 patients with PSA ≥ 0.1 ng/mL who had undergone a radical prostatectomy, and who had one or more unfavorable risk features (Gleason 8-10 disease, PSA > 0.5 ng/mL, pT3/T4, pN1 or radiographic N1, PSA doubling time < 10 months, negative margins, persistent PSA, gross local/regional disease).

“This was a pretty high-risk population,” Dr. Nguyen emphasized, as 35% had Gleason score of 9, about a third (31%) a PSA >0.5, and 29% were pathologic node positive.

All patients received salvage radiotherapy plus 6 months of GnRH agonist (bicalutamide 50 mg), and half were randomly assigned to also receive abiraterone acetate/prednisone 1,000 mg/5 mg + apalutamide 240 mg daily.

At a median follow-up of 34 months, the 3-year PFS rate was 74.9% in the AAP-apalutamide arm vs. 68.5% for the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; P = .06), and the 3-year MFS rate was 90.6% vs. 87.2%, respectively (HR, 0.57; P = .05).

In the subset of patients with a PSA greater than 0.5 ng/mL, the 3-year PFS and MFS rates were significantly higher with in the AAP-apalutamide group: the 3-year PFS rate was 67.2% vs. 46.8% (HR, 0.50; P = .03), and the 3-year MFS rate was 84.3% vs. 66.1% (HR, 0.32; P = .02).

Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of the agents being studied, Dr. Nguyen noted. The most common toxicities for AAP-apalutamide vs. controls were hypertension (21.8% vs. 13.3%), maculopapular rash (11.5% vs. 0.6%), diarrhea (8.5% vs. 4.8%), and fatigue (7.9% vs. 6.1%).

Dr. Nguyen noted that even though “we’re not supposed to compare clinical trials,” the results of this study appeared to compare favorably with those of another trial, RADICALS-HD, which was presented at the 2022 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress. That study showed that in patients undergoing postoperative radiation therapy, 24 months of ADT was superior to 6 months of ADT in improving both time to salvage ADT and MFS.

However, Dr. Nguyen emphasized that it would have to be formally tested, to see if “FORMULA-509 is performing in the ballpark of what 24 months of ADT would do.

“And I think that compared to 6 months of ADT, we can say it is certainly performing in the ballpark,” he said. “So, for patients with higher risk features, intensifying 6 months of ADT, I think, may be an appealing alternative to lengthening the ADT duration to 24 months.”

He added that this concept would be formally tested in the upcoming PROSTATE IQ study.
 

Strong evidence, standardization needed

In a discussion of the paper, Tyler Seibert, MD, PhD, of the University of California San Diego, said that “escalation by 24 months has the strongest evidence today, specifically from the RADICALS-HD trial, with more than 1,500 men with 10 years of  follow-up and a clear statistically significant result.

“Intensification for 6 months is a very compelling concept, as most patients are not getting 2 years of androgen deprivation therapy at this point post prostatectomy,” he continued. “While we await the long term follow-up of this study and the pending PROSTATE IQ trial, and if only 6 months of therapy is acceptable or feasible, the FORMULA-509 [trial] provides convincing evidence that select patients would benefit from intensification with AAP and apalutamide.”

Another expert weighed in on the data. Approached by this news organization for an independent comment, Jeff M. Michalski, MD, MBA, professor of radiation oncology at Washington University, St Louis, and president of the American Society of Radiation Oncology, noted a few issues in the study.

He said that standards had changed since this study was first approved and had begun accrual several years ago. “In context of today’s era, the current standard is to do a PET scan if patients have a chemical failure after surgery,” he said. “The PSA levels of patients who were treated [in this trial] were very high, and many patients do not want to wait until they reach that level.”

Dr. Michalski also pointed out the number of patients getting radiation was less than the number who had node-positive disease. “This shows that patients had received suboptimal therapy late in the disease,” he said.

Overall, most patients in the study did not receive lymph node radiation, even though they had high-risk features. “A recent study of almost 1,800 patients that was published in The Lancet found that there is a benefit to pelvic lymph node radiation,” he said. “Because it wasn’t mandated, most of the patients did not receive pelvic lymph node radiation, which we now understand offers some benefit.”

The reasons for not giving pelvic radiation to these men is unclear. “Treatment was left at the discretion of the physician and this could create bias,” Dr. Michalski said. “It could drive one arm more than another.”

The study also wasn’t controlled for pelvic radiation. “Most of the nodal positive patients received it, but the other patients were undertreated,” he noted.

Dr. Michalski added that he hopes that in the forthcoming PROSTATE IQ study, lymph node radiation and imaging are standardized.

The trial was supported by Janssen Oncology. Dr. Nguyen disclosed relationships with, and/or support from, Volatilyx, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, Janssen Oncology, Myovant Sciences, Astellas Pharma, and Janssen. Dr. Seibert disclosed relationships with, and/or support from, CorTechs Labs, Varian Medical Systems, and GE Healthcare.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – For patients with prostate cancer who have unfavorable features and a detectable PSA following a radical prostatectomy, the standard of care is treatment with 6 months of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist with salvage radiation therapy (SRT), as established by the GETUG-AFU 16 trial.

A new trial, dubbed FORMULA-509, explored whether outcomes could be improved by intensifying the drug treatment by adding 6 months of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as well as apalutamide on top of the GnRH agonist alongside the salvage radiotherapy.

This approach did not provide a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) or metastasis-free survival (MFS) in the overall study population.

However, the combination did significantly improve PFS and MFS in a subset of men with PSA levels greater than 0.5 ng/mL.

“Although this primary analysis did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance, it does strongly suggest that the addition of abiraterone acetate/prednisone/apalutamide to salvage radiotherapy plus 6 months of ADT [androgen deprivation therapy] may improve progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival,” said lead author Paul L. Nguyen, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and professor of radiation oncology at Harvard Medical School.

“This may be particularly evident in the subgroup of patients with PSA greater that 0.5 ng/mL where a preplanned subgroup analysis by stratification factors observed a statistically significant benefit for both progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival,” he said. “Six months of intensified ADT with next generation anti-androgens may provide an attractive alternative to lengthening ADT for patients with rising PSA and unfavorable features after radical prostatectomy.”

The study results were presented at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.
 

Benefit in subset

The FORMULA-509 trial included 305 patients with PSA ≥ 0.1 ng/mL who had undergone a radical prostatectomy, and who had one or more unfavorable risk features (Gleason 8-10 disease, PSA > 0.5 ng/mL, pT3/T4, pN1 or radiographic N1, PSA doubling time < 10 months, negative margins, persistent PSA, gross local/regional disease).

“This was a pretty high-risk population,” Dr. Nguyen emphasized, as 35% had Gleason score of 9, about a third (31%) a PSA >0.5, and 29% were pathologic node positive.

All patients received salvage radiotherapy plus 6 months of GnRH agonist (bicalutamide 50 mg), and half were randomly assigned to also receive abiraterone acetate/prednisone 1,000 mg/5 mg + apalutamide 240 mg daily.

At a median follow-up of 34 months, the 3-year PFS rate was 74.9% in the AAP-apalutamide arm vs. 68.5% for the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; P = .06), and the 3-year MFS rate was 90.6% vs. 87.2%, respectively (HR, 0.57; P = .05).

In the subset of patients with a PSA greater than 0.5 ng/mL, the 3-year PFS and MFS rates were significantly higher with in the AAP-apalutamide group: the 3-year PFS rate was 67.2% vs. 46.8% (HR, 0.50; P = .03), and the 3-year MFS rate was 84.3% vs. 66.1% (HR, 0.32; P = .02).

Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of the agents being studied, Dr. Nguyen noted. The most common toxicities for AAP-apalutamide vs. controls were hypertension (21.8% vs. 13.3%), maculopapular rash (11.5% vs. 0.6%), diarrhea (8.5% vs. 4.8%), and fatigue (7.9% vs. 6.1%).

Dr. Nguyen noted that even though “we’re not supposed to compare clinical trials,” the results of this study appeared to compare favorably with those of another trial, RADICALS-HD, which was presented at the 2022 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress. That study showed that in patients undergoing postoperative radiation therapy, 24 months of ADT was superior to 6 months of ADT in improving both time to salvage ADT and MFS.

However, Dr. Nguyen emphasized that it would have to be formally tested, to see if “FORMULA-509 is performing in the ballpark of what 24 months of ADT would do.

“And I think that compared to 6 months of ADT, we can say it is certainly performing in the ballpark,” he said. “So, for patients with higher risk features, intensifying 6 months of ADT, I think, may be an appealing alternative to lengthening the ADT duration to 24 months.”

He added that this concept would be formally tested in the upcoming PROSTATE IQ study.
 

Strong evidence, standardization needed

In a discussion of the paper, Tyler Seibert, MD, PhD, of the University of California San Diego, said that “escalation by 24 months has the strongest evidence today, specifically from the RADICALS-HD trial, with more than 1,500 men with 10 years of  follow-up and a clear statistically significant result.

“Intensification for 6 months is a very compelling concept, as most patients are not getting 2 years of androgen deprivation therapy at this point post prostatectomy,” he continued. “While we await the long term follow-up of this study and the pending PROSTATE IQ trial, and if only 6 months of therapy is acceptable or feasible, the FORMULA-509 [trial] provides convincing evidence that select patients would benefit from intensification with AAP and apalutamide.”

Another expert weighed in on the data. Approached by this news organization for an independent comment, Jeff M. Michalski, MD, MBA, professor of radiation oncology at Washington University, St Louis, and president of the American Society of Radiation Oncology, noted a few issues in the study.

He said that standards had changed since this study was first approved and had begun accrual several years ago. “In context of today’s era, the current standard is to do a PET scan if patients have a chemical failure after surgery,” he said. “The PSA levels of patients who were treated [in this trial] were very high, and many patients do not want to wait until they reach that level.”

Dr. Michalski also pointed out the number of patients getting radiation was less than the number who had node-positive disease. “This shows that patients had received suboptimal therapy late in the disease,” he said.

Overall, most patients in the study did not receive lymph node radiation, even though they had high-risk features. “A recent study of almost 1,800 patients that was published in The Lancet found that there is a benefit to pelvic lymph node radiation,” he said. “Because it wasn’t mandated, most of the patients did not receive pelvic lymph node radiation, which we now understand offers some benefit.”

The reasons for not giving pelvic radiation to these men is unclear. “Treatment was left at the discretion of the physician and this could create bias,” Dr. Michalski said. “It could drive one arm more than another.”

The study also wasn’t controlled for pelvic radiation. “Most of the nodal positive patients received it, but the other patients were undertreated,” he noted.

Dr. Michalski added that he hopes that in the forthcoming PROSTATE IQ study, lymph node radiation and imaging are standardized.

The trial was supported by Janssen Oncology. Dr. Nguyen disclosed relationships with, and/or support from, Volatilyx, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, Janssen Oncology, Myovant Sciences, Astellas Pharma, and Janssen. Dr. Seibert disclosed relationships with, and/or support from, CorTechs Labs, Varian Medical Systems, and GE Healthcare.

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

HONOLULU – Nearly every day, Candrice R. Heath, MD, spends time during office visits dispelling myths about hair care practices in patients with skin of color. One myth is the idea that not washing hair helps it to grow.

“This is false,” Dr. Heath, director of pediatric dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! With little manipulation, length may be retained, since tightly coiled hair has a higher likelihood of breakage, she said. “But washing the scalp and hair is recommended for tightly coiled hair weekly or every other week. Exclusively co-washing – a technique where hair conditioner is used instead of shampooing – is also not advised due to scalp build-up.”

JGI/Jamie Grill/Getty Images

Other myths she addressed include the following:

“I have a weak spot (or stress spot) on the top of my scalp.” These terms may be used to describe hair on a spot that goes through cycles of breaking off and re-growing. This is false. “If someone were to say that, and we see short hairs on the top of a patient’s scalp, with or without tenderness, pruritus, or pain, we want to recognize that as possibly an early sign of central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia [CCCA],” she said. “We want to pick up cases of CCCA forme fruste [central hair breakage] early.”

Medicated shampoos are helpful for all patients with seborrheic dermatitis. This notion is more complicated. “In theory, medicated shampoos like ketoconazole should be helpful, but if the shampoos are too drying for the hair and they cause further hair breakage, that’s going to be a problem as well,” explained Dr. Heath, who was the senior author of an article on how to address common conditions affecting pediatric and adolescent patients with skin of color. For patients with tightly coiled hair, she recommends applying antifungal shampoos to the scalp only, waiting 5-10 minutes, rinsing, and shampooing the scalp and hair with a moisturizing shampoo and rinsing. They can then condition with a moisturizing conditioner and style their hair as desired.

HONOLULU – Nearly every day, Candrice R. Heath, MD, spends time during office visits dispelling myths about hair care practices in patients with skin of color. One myth is the idea that not washing hair helps it to grow.

“This is false,” Dr. Heath, director of pediatric dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! With little manipulation, length may be retained, since tightly coiled hair has a higher likelihood of breakage, she said. “But washing the scalp and hair is recommended for tightly coiled hair weekly or every other week. Exclusively co-washing – a technique where hair conditioner is used instead of shampooing – is also not advised due to scalp build-up.”

JGI/Jamie Grill/Getty Images

Other myths she addressed include the following:

“I have a weak spot (or stress spot) on the top of my scalp.” These terms may be used to describe hair on a spot that goes through cycles of breaking off and re-growing. This is false. “If someone were to say that, and we see short hairs on the top of a patient’s scalp, with or without tenderness, pruritus, or pain, we want to recognize that as possibly an early sign of central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia [CCCA],” she said. “We want to pick up cases of CCCA forme fruste [central hair breakage] early.”

Medicated shampoos are helpful for all patients with seborrheic dermatitis. This notion is more complicated. “In theory, medicated shampoos like ketoconazole should be helpful, but if the shampoos are too drying for the hair and they cause further hair breakage, that’s going to be a problem as well,” explained Dr. Heath, who was the senior author of an article on how to address common conditions affecting pediatric and adolescent patients with skin of color. For patients with tightly coiled hair, she recommends applying antifungal shampoos to the scalp only, waiting 5-10 minutes, rinsing, and shampooing the scalp and hair with a moisturizing shampoo and rinsing. They can then condition with a moisturizing conditioner and style their hair as desired.

HONOLULU – Nearly every day, Candrice R. Heath, MD, spends time during office visits dispelling myths about hair care practices in patients with skin of color. One myth is the idea that not washing hair helps it to grow.

“This is false,” Dr. Heath, director of pediatric dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! With little manipulation, length may be retained, since tightly coiled hair has a higher likelihood of breakage, she said. “But washing the scalp and hair is recommended for tightly coiled hair weekly or every other week. Exclusively co-washing – a technique where hair conditioner is used instead of shampooing – is also not advised due to scalp build-up.”

JGI/Jamie Grill/Getty Images

Other myths she addressed include the following:

“I have a weak spot (or stress spot) on the top of my scalp.” These terms may be used to describe hair on a spot that goes through cycles of breaking off and re-growing. This is false. “If someone were to say that, and we see short hairs on the top of a patient’s scalp, with or without tenderness, pruritus, or pain, we want to recognize that as possibly an early sign of central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia [CCCA],” she said. “We want to pick up cases of CCCA forme fruste [central hair breakage] early.”

Medicated shampoos are helpful for all patients with seborrheic dermatitis. This notion is more complicated. “In theory, medicated shampoos like ketoconazole should be helpful, but if the shampoos are too drying for the hair and they cause further hair breakage, that’s going to be a problem as well,” explained Dr. Heath, who was the senior author of an article on how to address common conditions affecting pediatric and adolescent patients with skin of color. For patients with tightly coiled hair, she recommends applying antifungal shampoos to the scalp only, waiting 5-10 minutes, rinsing, and shampooing the scalp and hair with a moisturizing shampoo and rinsing. They can then condition with a moisturizing conditioner and style their hair as desired.

When it comes to a woman’s risk for a breast cancer recurrence, hormone status appears to matter.

New research shows that patients with ER-negative disease have a higher risk of a second breast cancer within a 5-year window post diagnosis, compared with patients with ER-positive disease.

“Our findings suggest that primary breast cancer ER status could be used to identify women at highest risk of second breast cancer events during the early post-treatment period and should be a consideration for guidelines and decision-making regarding surveillance imaging regimens for breast cancer survivors,” the study authors, led by Kathryn P. Lowry, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, concluded.

The study was published online in Cancer.

Breast cancer survivors are at risk for a second breast cancer, making ongoing surveillance essential. Surveillance could be informed by better understanding an individual’s recurrence risk, but whether differences exist for women with ER‐positive vs. ER‐negative cancers remains unclear.

Dr. Lowry and colleagues analyzed women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawing from six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. The team collected information on patients’ ER status as well as second breast cancer events detectable by surveillance imaging. Second breast cancer rates were assessed 1-5 years and 6-10 years after diagnosis. The final study cohort included 23,139 women with ER-positive disease and 4,605 with ER-negative disease.

The researchers found that, at the 5-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was 7.1% for ER‐negative disease and 3.6% for ER‐positive disease. At the 10-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was still higher for women with ER-negative disease – 11.8% vs. 7.5% among those with ER-positive disease. 

Patients with ER-negative disease also had higher rates of second breast cancers within the first 5 years of follow-ups – 16.0 per 1,000 person‐years vs. 7.8 per 1,000 person‐years for those with ER‐positive breast cancer – though after 5 years, the rates by ER status were similar among the two groups (12.1 per 1,000 vs. 9.3 per 1,000 person‐years, respectively).

Overall, the findings indicate that the “ER status of the primary invasive cancer was an important prognostic factor for both the magnitude and the timing of second breast cancer events,” the authors concluded.

The team noted several limitations to their study, including that information on the presence of pathogenic variants, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, were not available. Given that these variants tend to be more common among women with ER-negative breast cancers, this could represent a confounder.

Marisa C. Weiss, MD, chief medical officer and founder of Breastcancer.org, who was not involved in the research, highlighted two important details to keep in mind.

“We do know that triple negative breast cancers are associated with a higher risk of having an inherited genetic abnormality like BRCA1, which predicts a higher risk of second malignancies,” said Dr. Weiss, a breast oncologist at Lankenau Medical Center in Wynnewood, Pa. “Also, it should be noted that patients with HR-positive breast cancer have a higher incidence of local recurrence spread out over 10-plus years.”

What might these results mean for practice and following patients over the long term?

According to the researchers, “further study is needed to evaluate whether women with ER‐negative primary cancers may potentially benefit from more intensive surveillance in the early postdiagnosis period.”

Dr. Weiss noted as well that “each person’s situation is unique,” and it is “very important to develop a customized survivorship care plan with close surveillance,” which includes genetic testing.

Dr. Lowry reported grants from the American Cancer Society and personal fees from the Radiological Society of North America outside the submitted work. Several coauthors also reported disclosures. Dr. Weiss reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

When it comes to a woman’s risk for a breast cancer recurrence, hormone status appears to matter.

New research shows that patients with ER-negative disease have a higher risk of a second breast cancer within a 5-year window post diagnosis, compared with patients with ER-positive disease.

“Our findings suggest that primary breast cancer ER status could be used to identify women at highest risk of second breast cancer events during the early post-treatment period and should be a consideration for guidelines and decision-making regarding surveillance imaging regimens for breast cancer survivors,” the study authors, led by Kathryn P. Lowry, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, concluded.

The study was published online in Cancer.

Breast cancer survivors are at risk for a second breast cancer, making ongoing surveillance essential. Surveillance could be informed by better understanding an individual’s recurrence risk, but whether differences exist for women with ER‐positive vs. ER‐negative cancers remains unclear.

Dr. Lowry and colleagues analyzed women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawing from six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. The team collected information on patients’ ER status as well as second breast cancer events detectable by surveillance imaging. Second breast cancer rates were assessed 1-5 years and 6-10 years after diagnosis. The final study cohort included 23,139 women with ER-positive disease and 4,605 with ER-negative disease.

The researchers found that, at the 5-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was 7.1% for ER‐negative disease and 3.6% for ER‐positive disease. At the 10-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was still higher for women with ER-negative disease – 11.8% vs. 7.5% among those with ER-positive disease. 

Patients with ER-negative disease also had higher rates of second breast cancers within the first 5 years of follow-ups – 16.0 per 1,000 person‐years vs. 7.8 per 1,000 person‐years for those with ER‐positive breast cancer – though after 5 years, the rates by ER status were similar among the two groups (12.1 per 1,000 vs. 9.3 per 1,000 person‐years, respectively).

Overall, the findings indicate that the “ER status of the primary invasive cancer was an important prognostic factor for both the magnitude and the timing of second breast cancer events,” the authors concluded.

The team noted several limitations to their study, including that information on the presence of pathogenic variants, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, were not available. Given that these variants tend to be more common among women with ER-negative breast cancers, this could represent a confounder.

Marisa C. Weiss, MD, chief medical officer and founder of Breastcancer.org, who was not involved in the research, highlighted two important details to keep in mind.

“We do know that triple negative breast cancers are associated with a higher risk of having an inherited genetic abnormality like BRCA1, which predicts a higher risk of second malignancies,” said Dr. Weiss, a breast oncologist at Lankenau Medical Center in Wynnewood, Pa. “Also, it should be noted that patients with HR-positive breast cancer have a higher incidence of local recurrence spread out over 10-plus years.”

What might these results mean for practice and following patients over the long term?

According to the researchers, “further study is needed to evaluate whether women with ER‐negative primary cancers may potentially benefit from more intensive surveillance in the early postdiagnosis period.”

Dr. Weiss noted as well that “each person’s situation is unique,” and it is “very important to develop a customized survivorship care plan with close surveillance,” which includes genetic testing.

Dr. Lowry reported grants from the American Cancer Society and personal fees from the Radiological Society of North America outside the submitted work. Several coauthors also reported disclosures. Dr. Weiss reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

When it comes to a woman’s risk for a breast cancer recurrence, hormone status appears to matter.

New research shows that patients with ER-negative disease have a higher risk of a second breast cancer within a 5-year window post diagnosis, compared with patients with ER-positive disease.

“Our findings suggest that primary breast cancer ER status could be used to identify women at highest risk of second breast cancer events during the early post-treatment period and should be a consideration for guidelines and decision-making regarding surveillance imaging regimens for breast cancer survivors,” the study authors, led by Kathryn P. Lowry, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, concluded.

The study was published online in Cancer.

Breast cancer survivors are at risk for a second breast cancer, making ongoing surveillance essential. Surveillance could be informed by better understanding an individual’s recurrence risk, but whether differences exist for women with ER‐positive vs. ER‐negative cancers remains unclear.

Dr. Lowry and colleagues analyzed women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawing from six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. The team collected information on patients’ ER status as well as second breast cancer events detectable by surveillance imaging. Second breast cancer rates were assessed 1-5 years and 6-10 years after diagnosis. The final study cohort included 23,139 women with ER-positive disease and 4,605 with ER-negative disease.

The researchers found that, at the 5-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was 7.1% for ER‐negative disease and 3.6% for ER‐positive disease. At the 10-year mark, the cumulative breast cancer incidence was still higher for women with ER-negative disease – 11.8% vs. 7.5% among those with ER-positive disease. 

Patients with ER-negative disease also had higher rates of second breast cancers within the first 5 years of follow-ups – 16.0 per 1,000 person‐years vs. 7.8 per 1,000 person‐years for those with ER‐positive breast cancer – though after 5 years, the rates by ER status were similar among the two groups (12.1 per 1,000 vs. 9.3 per 1,000 person‐years, respectively).

Overall, the findings indicate that the “ER status of the primary invasive cancer was an important prognostic factor for both the magnitude and the timing of second breast cancer events,” the authors concluded.

The team noted several limitations to their study, including that information on the presence of pathogenic variants, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, were not available. Given that these variants tend to be more common among women with ER-negative breast cancers, this could represent a confounder.

Marisa C. Weiss, MD, chief medical officer and founder of Breastcancer.org, who was not involved in the research, highlighted two important details to keep in mind.

“We do know that triple negative breast cancers are associated with a higher risk of having an inherited genetic abnormality like BRCA1, which predicts a higher risk of second malignancies,” said Dr. Weiss, a breast oncologist at Lankenau Medical Center in Wynnewood, Pa. “Also, it should be noted that patients with HR-positive breast cancer have a higher incidence of local recurrence spread out over 10-plus years.”

What might these results mean for practice and following patients over the long term?

According to the researchers, “further study is needed to evaluate whether women with ER‐negative primary cancers may potentially benefit from more intensive surveillance in the early postdiagnosis period.”

Dr. Weiss noted as well that “each person’s situation is unique,” and it is “very important to develop a customized survivorship care plan with close surveillance,” which includes genetic testing.

Dr. Lowry reported grants from the American Cancer Society and personal fees from the Radiological Society of North America outside the submitted work. Several coauthors also reported disclosures. Dr. Weiss reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Another study caught my attention this month for having presented a lot of information with no clinically important conclusions. In "Mode of Delivery and Offspring Atopic Dermatitis in a Swedish Nationwide Study," Mubanga and colleagues studied 1.4 million children! With that many participants, they were almost certain to find associations that were statistically significant and clinically irrelevant. They reported that children born by instrumental vaginal delivery, emergency caesarean section, and elective caesarean section were at a higher risk for AD compared with those born by uncomplicated vaginal delivery. They failed to report the absolute magnitude of the associations, which were undoubtedly so small as to be clinically meaningless. Even if the observed association were not due to some hidden bias, the association is not anything that would change treatment in any way.

On the other hand, the small, open label registry analysis, "Experiences From Daily Practice of Upadacitinib Treatment on Atopic Dermatitis With a Focus on Hand Eczema: Results From the BioDay Registry," published by Kamphuis and colleagues, is of much greater value, reporting the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib on hand eczema. Not surprisingly, there were large improvements in the investigators' assessments of the dermatitis and in patients' quality of life. This small study is informative about efficacy; it is too small, though, to evaluate how frequently rare severe adverse events occur.

The use of probiotics to safely improve skin disease is such an appealing concept, yet it sounds a lot like hocus-pocus to me. Feíto-Rodríguez and colleagues report in the journal Clinical and Experimental Dermatology that a probiotic mixture of Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium longum, and Lactobacillus casei improved atopic dermatitis more than did placebo. The findings are not compelling. Differences were small. Rates of being clear or almost clear weren't reported. We can get atopic dermatitis to clear up in a few days with topical triamcinolone (if we can get patients to use it); so far, the effects of probiotics on the presumed gut-immune system-skin axis seem very much underwhelming.

Another study caught my attention this month for having presented a lot of information with no clinically important conclusions. In "Mode of Delivery and Offspring Atopic Dermatitis in a Swedish Nationwide Study," Mubanga and colleagues studied 1.4 million children! With that many participants, they were almost certain to find associations that were statistically significant and clinically irrelevant. They reported that children born by instrumental vaginal delivery, emergency caesarean section, and elective caesarean section were at a higher risk for AD compared with those born by uncomplicated vaginal delivery. They failed to report the absolute magnitude of the associations, which were undoubtedly so small as to be clinically meaningless. Even if the observed association were not due to some hidden bias, the association is not anything that would change treatment in any way.

On the other hand, the small, open label registry analysis, "Experiences From Daily Practice of Upadacitinib Treatment on Atopic Dermatitis With a Focus on Hand Eczema: Results From the BioDay Registry," published by Kamphuis and colleagues, is of much greater value, reporting the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib on hand eczema. Not surprisingly, there were large improvements in the investigators' assessments of the dermatitis and in patients' quality of life. This small study is informative about efficacy; it is too small, though, to evaluate how frequently rare severe adverse events occur.

The use of probiotics to safely improve skin disease is such an appealing concept, yet it sounds a lot like hocus-pocus to me. Feíto-Rodríguez and colleagues report in the journal Clinical and Experimental Dermatology that a probiotic mixture of Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium longum, and Lactobacillus casei improved atopic dermatitis more than did placebo. The findings are not compelling. Differences were small. Rates of being clear or almost clear weren't reported. We can get atopic dermatitis to clear up in a few days with topical triamcinolone (if we can get patients to use it); so far, the effects of probiotics on the presumed gut-immune system-skin axis seem very much underwhelming.

Another study caught my attention this month for having presented a lot of information with no clinically important conclusions. In "Mode of Delivery and Offspring Atopic Dermatitis in a Swedish Nationwide Study," Mubanga and colleagues studied 1.4 million children! With that many participants, they were almost certain to find associations that were statistically significant and clinically irrelevant. They reported that children born by instrumental vaginal delivery, emergency caesarean section, and elective caesarean section were at a higher risk for AD compared with those born by uncomplicated vaginal delivery. They failed to report the absolute magnitude of the associations, which were undoubtedly so small as to be clinically meaningless. Even if the observed association were not due to some hidden bias, the association is not anything that would change treatment in any way.

On the other hand, the small, open label registry analysis, "Experiences From Daily Practice of Upadacitinib Treatment on Atopic Dermatitis With a Focus on Hand Eczema: Results From the BioDay Registry," published by Kamphuis and colleagues, is of much greater value, reporting the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib on hand eczema. Not surprisingly, there were large improvements in the investigators' assessments of the dermatitis and in patients' quality of life. This small study is informative about efficacy; it is too small, though, to evaluate how frequently rare severe adverse events occur.

The use of probiotics to safely improve skin disease is such an appealing concept, yet it sounds a lot like hocus-pocus to me. Feíto-Rodríguez and colleagues report in the journal Clinical and Experimental Dermatology that a probiotic mixture of Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium longum, and Lactobacillus casei improved atopic dermatitis more than did placebo. The findings are not compelling. Differences were small. Rates of being clear or almost clear weren't reported. We can get atopic dermatitis to clear up in a few days with topical triamcinolone (if we can get patients to use it); so far, the effects of probiotics on the presumed gut-immune system-skin axis seem very much underwhelming.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. On tonight’s episode, we are going to be talking about back pain. This is based on an interview, Back Pain Update with Dr. Austin Baraki. He gave us some great pearls about how to manage back pain, which we see so much of in primary care. I’ll use one of my famous teaching techniques: If the patient has any kind of back pain, they should just not move. Right?

Paul N. Williams, MD: That’s right, Matt – we should recommend bedrest until they get better for anyone who has any back pain? No. For back pain, early activity and exercise are great. Patients are often concerned that physical therapy will make their pain worse, so they don’t exercise. This misunderstanding is not surprising. They believe that if they are experiencing pain, it’s facilitating more damage, which is not necessarily the case. It will get better, and a little bit of anticipatory guidance goes a long way in terms of managing patient expectations related to early mobilization, early exercise, and physical therapy.

Dr. Watto: Absolutely. One of the goals of treatment is symptom relief to the extent that we’re able to achieve. We’re not expecting the pain to go to zero. That just doesn’t happen, especially if someone’s on a medication long term. Another goal is return to function. We want them sleeping. We want them to be able to tolerate movement.

We have medications – NSAIDs and muscle relaxants, which are actually tranquilizers. But most therapy for back pain doesn’t involve medications. It involves active movement, so we have to find movement that the patient enjoys doing. Passive treatments, things being done to patients, just don’t work as well.
 

Dr. Williams: We should be clear – we’re talking primarily about chronic back pain here. For acute back pain, we actually have some decent medications, but acute back pain tends to improve no matter what you do. We don’t have much to offer pharmacologically for chronic low back pain. The best modalities usually involve physical activity of some kind.

Dr. Watto: Let’s discuss the evaluation of back pain. Something that always comes up: Should we order imaging, and is there a right time to get it? Dr. Baraki was very clear about when to do imaging. Two big buckets of patients might need imaging.

First, a patient who has a serious underlying condition and you’re using imaging to try to diagnose it; or in a chronic setting, a patient who needs surgery, and imaging is part of the presurgical evaluation. We talked about red flags.

The red flags are major trauma, where we have reason to believe there might be something going on – if we strongly suspect infection, or the patient is injecting drugs. If the patient has a history of cancer, we would be worried that they might have a recurrence. Those are some of the main red flags. With a patient who has osteoporosis or is on chronic steroids, you might even be able to get by with plain films instead of an MRI to look for fracture.

The other thing I wanted to ask you about is, when should we get imaging? Are there any pitfalls we need to worry about?
 

Dr. Williams: I always like podcasts I’m not on because I enjoy listening to them much more. Dr. Baraki talked about the very specific language that is used in radiology reports, such as spondylitis, spondylolysis, and multilevel degenerative disease. They sound bad, but if they are just reframed as age-related degenerative changes, that sounds so much more benign. When discussing with patients, we should avoid medical jargon and say that we saw some changes that we would expect for someone of your age. That sounds so much better than saying we saw multilevel degenerative disease, which sounds like an alarming pathology if you’re not a physician. Without being inaccurate, we should frame the discussion such that we aren’t providing a very specific diagnosis, because that is rarely the case with chronic low back pain. Typically, many things are going on and you may never identify a single unifying diagnosis, which doesn’t tend to help anyway.

Dr. Watto: There’s evidence showing that if the radiology report uses clinical terminology that both clinician and patient think of as less serious, they are less likely to proceed to more invasive treatments. Calling an episode of back pain a “lumbar strain” helps the patient understand that this is a pretty common thing. Almost everyone is going to have an episode of back pain at some point in their life, and almost all of them will get better. Most of the time there’s no serious underlying condition.

This was a great discussion with Dr. Baraki. Click on Back Pain Update with Dr Austin Baraki to hear the full discussion. Until next time, I’ve been Dr. Matthew Frank Watto.
 

Dr. Williams: And I’m Dr. Paul Nelson Williams.

Dr. Watto is Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. On tonight’s episode, we are going to be talking about back pain. This is based on an interview, Back Pain Update with Dr. Austin Baraki. He gave us some great pearls about how to manage back pain, which we see so much of in primary care. I’ll use one of my famous teaching techniques: If the patient has any kind of back pain, they should just not move. Right?

Paul N. Williams, MD: That’s right, Matt – we should recommend bedrest until they get better for anyone who has any back pain? No. For back pain, early activity and exercise are great. Patients are often concerned that physical therapy will make their pain worse, so they don’t exercise. This misunderstanding is not surprising. They believe that if they are experiencing pain, it’s facilitating more damage, which is not necessarily the case. It will get better, and a little bit of anticipatory guidance goes a long way in terms of managing patient expectations related to early mobilization, early exercise, and physical therapy.

Dr. Watto: Absolutely. One of the goals of treatment is symptom relief to the extent that we’re able to achieve. We’re not expecting the pain to go to zero. That just doesn’t happen, especially if someone’s on a medication long term. Another goal is return to function. We want them sleeping. We want them to be able to tolerate movement.

We have medications – NSAIDs and muscle relaxants, which are actually tranquilizers. But most therapy for back pain doesn’t involve medications. It involves active movement, so we have to find movement that the patient enjoys doing. Passive treatments, things being done to patients, just don’t work as well.
 

Dr. Williams: We should be clear – we’re talking primarily about chronic back pain here. For acute back pain, we actually have some decent medications, but acute back pain tends to improve no matter what you do. We don’t have much to offer pharmacologically for chronic low back pain. The best modalities usually involve physical activity of some kind.

Dr. Watto: Let’s discuss the evaluation of back pain. Something that always comes up: Should we order imaging, and is there a right time to get it? Dr. Baraki was very clear about when to do imaging. Two big buckets of patients might need imaging.

First, a patient who has a serious underlying condition and you’re using imaging to try to diagnose it; or in a chronic setting, a patient who needs surgery, and imaging is part of the presurgical evaluation. We talked about red flags.

The red flags are major trauma, where we have reason to believe there might be something going on – if we strongly suspect infection, or the patient is injecting drugs. If the patient has a history of cancer, we would be worried that they might have a recurrence. Those are some of the main red flags. With a patient who has osteoporosis or is on chronic steroids, you might even be able to get by with plain films instead of an MRI to look for fracture.

The other thing I wanted to ask you about is, when should we get imaging? Are there any pitfalls we need to worry about?
 

Dr. Williams: I always like podcasts I’m not on because I enjoy listening to them much more. Dr. Baraki talked about the very specific language that is used in radiology reports, such as spondylitis, spondylolysis, and multilevel degenerative disease. They sound bad, but if they are just reframed as age-related degenerative changes, that sounds so much more benign. When discussing with patients, we should avoid medical jargon and say that we saw some changes that we would expect for someone of your age. That sounds so much better than saying we saw multilevel degenerative disease, which sounds like an alarming pathology if you’re not a physician. Without being inaccurate, we should frame the discussion such that we aren’t providing a very specific diagnosis, because that is rarely the case with chronic low back pain. Typically, many things are going on and you may never identify a single unifying diagnosis, which doesn’t tend to help anyway.

Dr. Watto: There’s evidence showing that if the radiology report uses clinical terminology that both clinician and patient think of as less serious, they are less likely to proceed to more invasive treatments. Calling an episode of back pain a “lumbar strain” helps the patient understand that this is a pretty common thing. Almost everyone is going to have an episode of back pain at some point in their life, and almost all of them will get better. Most of the time there’s no serious underlying condition.

This was a great discussion with Dr. Baraki. Click on Back Pain Update with Dr Austin Baraki to hear the full discussion. Until next time, I’ve been Dr. Matthew Frank Watto.
 

Dr. Williams: And I’m Dr. Paul Nelson Williams.

Dr. Watto is Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. On tonight’s episode, we are going to be talking about back pain. This is based on an interview, Back Pain Update with Dr. Austin Baraki. He gave us some great pearls about how to manage back pain, which we see so much of in primary care. I’ll use one of my famous teaching techniques: If the patient has any kind of back pain, they should just not move. Right?

Paul N. Williams, MD: That’s right, Matt – we should recommend bedrest until they get better for anyone who has any back pain? No. For back pain, early activity and exercise are great. Patients are often concerned that physical therapy will make their pain worse, so they don’t exercise. This misunderstanding is not surprising. They believe that if they are experiencing pain, it’s facilitating more damage, which is not necessarily the case. It will get better, and a little bit of anticipatory guidance goes a long way in terms of managing patient expectations related to early mobilization, early exercise, and physical therapy.

Dr. Watto: Absolutely. One of the goals of treatment is symptom relief to the extent that we’re able to achieve. We’re not expecting the pain to go to zero. That just doesn’t happen, especially if someone’s on a medication long term. Another goal is return to function. We want them sleeping. We want them to be able to tolerate movement.

We have medications – NSAIDs and muscle relaxants, which are actually tranquilizers. But most therapy for back pain doesn’t involve medications. It involves active movement, so we have to find movement that the patient enjoys doing. Passive treatments, things being done to patients, just don’t work as well.
 

Dr. Williams: We should be clear – we’re talking primarily about chronic back pain here. For acute back pain, we actually have some decent medications, but acute back pain tends to improve no matter what you do. We don’t have much to offer pharmacologically for chronic low back pain. The best modalities usually involve physical activity of some kind.

Dr. Watto: Let’s discuss the evaluation of back pain. Something that always comes up: Should we order imaging, and is there a right time to get it? Dr. Baraki was very clear about when to do imaging. Two big buckets of patients might need imaging.

First, a patient who has a serious underlying condition and you’re using imaging to try to diagnose it; or in a chronic setting, a patient who needs surgery, and imaging is part of the presurgical evaluation. We talked about red flags.

The red flags are major trauma, where we have reason to believe there might be something going on – if we strongly suspect infection, or the patient is injecting drugs. If the patient has a history of cancer, we would be worried that they might have a recurrence. Those are some of the main red flags. With a patient who has osteoporosis or is on chronic steroids, you might even be able to get by with plain films instead of an MRI to look for fracture.

The other thing I wanted to ask you about is, when should we get imaging? Are there any pitfalls we need to worry about?
 

Dr. Williams: I always like podcasts I’m not on because I enjoy listening to them much more. Dr. Baraki talked about the very specific language that is used in radiology reports, such as spondylitis, spondylolysis, and multilevel degenerative disease. They sound bad, but if they are just reframed as age-related degenerative changes, that sounds so much more benign. When discussing with patients, we should avoid medical jargon and say that we saw some changes that we would expect for someone of your age. That sounds so much better than saying we saw multilevel degenerative disease, which sounds like an alarming pathology if you’re not a physician. Without being inaccurate, we should frame the discussion such that we aren’t providing a very specific diagnosis, because that is rarely the case with chronic low back pain. Typically, many things are going on and you may never identify a single unifying diagnosis, which doesn’t tend to help anyway.

Dr. Watto: There’s evidence showing that if the radiology report uses clinical terminology that both clinician and patient think of as less serious, they are less likely to proceed to more invasive treatments. Calling an episode of back pain a “lumbar strain” helps the patient understand that this is a pretty common thing. Almost everyone is going to have an episode of back pain at some point in their life, and almost all of them will get better. Most of the time there’s no serious underlying condition.

This was a great discussion with Dr. Baraki. Click on Back Pain Update with Dr Austin Baraki to hear the full discussion. Until next time, I’ve been Dr. Matthew Frank Watto.
 

Dr. Williams: And I’m Dr. Paul Nelson Williams.

Dr. Watto is Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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

With regard to advanced targeted therapies, there is concern about the side effects of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, especially in patients with comorbidities. To address safety concerns with upadacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, Burmester and colleagues conducted an integrated safety analysis of 12 phase 3 trials that included 6991 patients (PsA n = 907; rheumatoid arthritis [RA] n = 3209; ankylosing spondylitis n = 182; and atopic dermatitis n = 2693) who received upadacitinib (15 or 30 mg once daily). Some trials included active comparators; therefore, safety among 1008 patients (RA n = 579; PsA n = 429) who received 40-mg adalimumab every other week and 314 patients with RA who received methotrexate were compared with those treated with upadacitinib. Overall, patients with PsA receiving 15-mg upadacitinib once daily had acceptable rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE; 244.8/100 patient-years [PY]), serious TEAE (11.1/100 PY), TEAE leading to discontinuation (5.4/100 PY), and death (0.8/100 PY). Patients with PsA treated with upadacitinib had higher rates of herpes zoster, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and elevations in creatine phosphokinase when compared with patients treated with adalimumab. Although these results are reassuring to clinicians treating PsA, continued surveillance regarding the risks for venous thrombosis, cardiovascular events, and cancer are required.

In a post hoc analysis of 10 clinical trials that included patients with PsA (n = 783) and psoriasis (n = 3663) who received tofacitinib, Kristensen and colleagues reported that the risk for major adverse cardiac events was higher among patients with PsA and a high 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk vs patients with a low ASCVD risk. The incidence of cancer was highest in patients with PsA and an intermediate 10-year ASCVD risk. Although these studies are reassuring, the assessment and risk stratification of adverse events with JAK inhibitors and therapies in PsA will require longer-term comparative clinical trials as well as an evaluation of observational data from disease registries.

Comorbidities also have an impact on treatment persistence in PsA. Tillett and colleagues conducted a retrospective study including 9057 patients with plaque psoriasis alone or with concomitant PsA who received either ustekinumab or conventional systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. They demonstrated that among patients receiving ustekinumab, those with concomitant PsA had a higher comorbidity burden, including diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, and a shorter time to ustekinumab discontinuation when compared with those with psoriasis alone. Secondary failure of advanced therapies is increasingly noted in the management of psoriatic disease. Female sex, depression, previous exposure to biologics, and the presence of comorbidities are important risk factors. Comprehensive management of psoriatic disease should include appropriate management of comorbidities for better long-term treatment persistence and outcomes.

With regard to advanced targeted therapies, there is concern about the side effects of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, especially in patients with comorbidities. To address safety concerns with upadacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, Burmester and colleagues conducted an integrated safety analysis of 12 phase 3 trials that included 6991 patients (PsA n = 907; rheumatoid arthritis [RA] n = 3209; ankylosing spondylitis n = 182; and atopic dermatitis n = 2693) who received upadacitinib (15 or 30 mg once daily). Some trials included active comparators; therefore, safety among 1008 patients (RA n = 579; PsA n = 429) who received 40-mg adalimumab every other week and 314 patients with RA who received methotrexate were compared with those treated with upadacitinib. Overall, patients with PsA receiving 15-mg upadacitinib once daily had acceptable rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE; 244.8/100 patient-years [PY]), serious TEAE (11.1/100 PY), TEAE leading to discontinuation (5.4/100 PY), and death (0.8/100 PY). Patients with PsA treated with upadacitinib had higher rates of herpes zoster, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and elevations in creatine phosphokinase when compared with patients treated with adalimumab. Although these results are reassuring to clinicians treating PsA, continued surveillance regarding the risks for venous thrombosis, cardiovascular events, and cancer are required.

In a post hoc analysis of 10 clinical trials that included patients with PsA (n = 783) and psoriasis (n = 3663) who received tofacitinib, Kristensen and colleagues reported that the risk for major adverse cardiac events was higher among patients with PsA and a high 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk vs patients with a low ASCVD risk. The incidence of cancer was highest in patients with PsA and an intermediate 10-year ASCVD risk. Although these studies are reassuring, the assessment and risk stratification of adverse events with JAK inhibitors and therapies in PsA will require longer-term comparative clinical trials as well as an evaluation of observational data from disease registries.

Comorbidities also have an impact on treatment persistence in PsA. Tillett and colleagues conducted a retrospective study including 9057 patients with plaque psoriasis alone or with concomitant PsA who received either ustekinumab or conventional systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. They demonstrated that among patients receiving ustekinumab, those with concomitant PsA had a higher comorbidity burden, including diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, and a shorter time to ustekinumab discontinuation when compared with those with psoriasis alone. Secondary failure of advanced therapies is increasingly noted in the management of psoriatic disease. Female sex, depression, previous exposure to biologics, and the presence of comorbidities are important risk factors. Comprehensive management of psoriatic disease should include appropriate management of comorbidities for better long-term treatment persistence and outcomes.

With regard to advanced targeted therapies, there is concern about the side effects of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, especially in patients with comorbidities. To address safety concerns with upadacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, Burmester and colleagues conducted an integrated safety analysis of 12 phase 3 trials that included 6991 patients (PsA n = 907; rheumatoid arthritis [RA] n = 3209; ankylosing spondylitis n = 182; and atopic dermatitis n = 2693) who received upadacitinib (15 or 30 mg once daily). Some trials included active comparators; therefore, safety among 1008 patients (RA n = 579; PsA n = 429) who received 40-mg adalimumab every other week and 314 patients with RA who received methotrexate were compared with those treated with upadacitinib. Overall, patients with PsA receiving 15-mg upadacitinib once daily had acceptable rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE; 244.8/100 patient-years [PY]), serious TEAE (11.1/100 PY), TEAE leading to discontinuation (5.4/100 PY), and death (0.8/100 PY). Patients with PsA treated with upadacitinib had higher rates of herpes zoster, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and elevations in creatine phosphokinase when compared with patients treated with adalimumab. Although these results are reassuring to clinicians treating PsA, continued surveillance regarding the risks for venous thrombosis, cardiovascular events, and cancer are required.

In a post hoc analysis of 10 clinical trials that included patients with PsA (n = 783) and psoriasis (n = 3663) who received tofacitinib, Kristensen and colleagues reported that the risk for major adverse cardiac events was higher among patients with PsA and a high 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk vs patients with a low ASCVD risk. The incidence of cancer was highest in patients with PsA and an intermediate 10-year ASCVD risk. Although these studies are reassuring, the assessment and risk stratification of adverse events with JAK inhibitors and therapies in PsA will require longer-term comparative clinical trials as well as an evaluation of observational data from disease registries.

Comorbidities also have an impact on treatment persistence in PsA. Tillett and colleagues conducted a retrospective study including 9057 patients with plaque psoriasis alone or with concomitant PsA who received either ustekinumab or conventional systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. They demonstrated that among patients receiving ustekinumab, those with concomitant PsA had a higher comorbidity burden, including diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, and a shorter time to ustekinumab discontinuation when compared with those with psoriasis alone. Secondary failure of advanced therapies is increasingly noted in the management of psoriatic disease. Female sex, depression, previous exposure to biologics, and the presence of comorbidities are important risk factors. Comprehensive management of psoriatic disease should include appropriate management of comorbidities for better long-term treatment persistence and outcomes.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford. I’d like to talk to you today about something specific and generic around guidelines.

Annals of Oncology, my old journal, has just published an outstanding set of guidelines delivered by the ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology) guidelines group. It’s around the management of toxicities from immunotherapy, and it’s the ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up, delivered by Dr. Haanen and, of course, a number of colleagues on behalf of the wider committee.

Have a look at it. I’m not going to talk about the details of it. It’s very well written. It’s very clear and evidence based, of course. There are many helpful hints and a very clear blueprint as to how we should better manage the myriad of potential side effects from immunotherapy.

It tells us a little about the basis of the science, some of the mechanistic work that’s going on in allowing us to understand why some people react in such different ways, almost as if the immune systems are primed to overreact. It gives a very helpful, stepwise look at how we best diagnose, manage, and, in the longer term, follow up patients who have problems with these very important drugs.

All of us recognize the extraordinary impact they’ve made across a wide range of different tumor types, and therefore, as practicing oncologists and health care professionals in the field, all of us need to understand better the details as to how we better care for our patients on these drugs.

Have a look at it. It’s well written and useful, and I think it’s a document that I’ll turn to when I’m looking for a refresher or advice in the future.

The generic focus is about guidelines. Many years ago, I was one of the architects of the British National Cancer Plan, and for me, there were four simple principles at that stage in our development of how we would improve the delivery of cancer control in the United Kingdom. It was around site specialization, particularly of our surgical colleagues who embraced this with vigor. God bless them.

It was using guidelines to help level up the quality of treatment that we were giving, of course underpinned by research, and using – one would hope – modern IT and telecommunications to improve the networking that we use to deliver multidisciplinary cancer care, one of the key elements. Guidelines were embedded in that.

A couple of years ago, we did a survey of cancer physicians around the world. Almost 30 different countries were represented, and we asked which guidelines were most used. It was a very interesting set of responses. The three dominant guidelines – this will surprise no one – are the NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) guidelines, the ESMO guidelines, and the ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) guidelines.

Rather than selecting one and one being completely dominant, what seemed to be the case is that our colleagues around the world dipped in and used all three. They may prefer NCCN for some particular tumor type or some particular aspect of how they’re structured, but at the same time, we would dip into the ESMO guidelines for specific bits of help, as well as the ASCO guidelines.

I find this fascinating. I assume that in different regions, depending on how they were affiliated in terms of additional training or links to Europe or links to the United States, that one or other of these guideline groups would predominate, but no. In each country, in each region, given the large data bank that we have of guidelines now, it’s a sort of pick-and-mix situation.

I was initially surprised but then took comfort from it. There’s nothing I hate more than the wasted energy of reduplication and saying, well come on, if there is one guideline set that does truly command the attention of the world, then the other should stop. It’s wasted energy, which is something that none of us can afford.

The fact that each of these trusted, evidence-based, beautifully presented guidelines is used in different ways was important. A message to the guideline groups from me is: “Thank you for your professionalism, for the hard work of hundreds of cancer specialists from all different specialties, and for their contribution to developing these guidelines.”

It’s worth it, it’s working, people are using them, and they’re making a difference. It’s all about leveling up the quality of cancer care that we deliver.

Specifically, have a look at the ESMO immune guidelines. They are great. I hope you find them helpful. Generically, thanks to all of you who are contributing and working so hard to make these data available to improve the quality of cancer care around the world.

Thanks for listening, as always. I’m interested in any comments that you might have, but for the time being, Medscapers, ahoy.

David J. Kerr, CBE, MD, DSc, is a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford. He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, and Merck Serono.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford. I’d like to talk to you today about something specific and generic around guidelines.

Annals of Oncology, my old journal, has just published an outstanding set of guidelines delivered by the ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology) guidelines group. It’s around the management of toxicities from immunotherapy, and it’s the ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up, delivered by Dr. Haanen and, of course, a number of colleagues on behalf of the wider committee.

Have a look at it. I’m not going to talk about the details of it. It’s very well written. It’s very clear and evidence based, of course. There are many helpful hints and a very clear blueprint as to how we should better manage the myriad of potential side effects from immunotherapy.

It tells us a little about the basis of the science, some of the mechanistic work that’s going on in allowing us to understand why some people react in such different ways, almost as if the immune systems are primed to overreact. It gives a very helpful, stepwise look at how we best diagnose, manage, and, in the longer term, follow up patients who have problems with these very important drugs.

All of us recognize the extraordinary impact they’ve made across a wide range of different tumor types, and therefore, as practicing oncologists and health care professionals in the field, all of us need to understand better the details as to how we better care for our patients on these drugs.

Have a look at it. It’s well written and useful, and I think it’s a document that I’ll turn to when I’m looking for a refresher or advice in the future.

The generic focus is about guidelines. Many years ago, I was one of the architects of the British National Cancer Plan, and for me, there were four simple principles at that stage in our development of how we would improve the delivery of cancer control in the United Kingdom. It was around site specialization, particularly of our surgical colleagues who embraced this with vigor. God bless them.

It was using guidelines to help level up the quality of treatment that we were giving, of course underpinned by research, and using – one would hope – modern IT and telecommunications to improve the networking that we use to deliver multidisciplinary cancer care, one of the key elements. Guidelines were embedded in that.

A couple of years ago, we did a survey of cancer physicians around the world. Almost 30 different countries were represented, and we asked which guidelines were most used. It was a very interesting set of responses. The three dominant guidelines – this will surprise no one – are the NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) guidelines, the ESMO guidelines, and the ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) guidelines.

Rather than selecting one and one being completely dominant, what seemed to be the case is that our colleagues around the world dipped in and used all three. They may prefer NCCN for some particular tumor type or some particular aspect of how they’re structured, but at the same time, we would dip into the ESMO guidelines for specific bits of help, as well as the ASCO guidelines.

I find this fascinating. I assume that in different regions, depending on how they were affiliated in terms of additional training or links to Europe or links to the United States, that one or other of these guideline groups would predominate, but no. In each country, in each region, given the large data bank that we have of guidelines now, it’s a sort of pick-and-mix situation.

I was initially surprised but then took comfort from it. There’s nothing I hate more than the wasted energy of reduplication and saying, well come on, if there is one guideline set that does truly command the attention of the world, then the other should stop. It’s wasted energy, which is something that none of us can afford.

The fact that each of these trusted, evidence-based, beautifully presented guidelines is used in different ways was important. A message to the guideline groups from me is: “Thank you for your professionalism, for the hard work of hundreds of cancer specialists from all different specialties, and for their contribution to developing these guidelines.”

It’s worth it, it’s working, people are using them, and they’re making a difference. It’s all about leveling up the quality of cancer care that we deliver.

Specifically, have a look at the ESMO immune guidelines. They are great. I hope you find them helpful. Generically, thanks to all of you who are contributing and working so hard to make these data available to improve the quality of cancer care around the world.

Thanks for listening, as always. I’m interested in any comments that you might have, but for the time being, Medscapers, ahoy.

David J. Kerr, CBE, MD, DSc, is a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford. He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, and Merck Serono.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford. I’d like to talk to you today about something specific and generic around guidelines.

Annals of Oncology, my old journal, has just published an outstanding set of guidelines delivered by the ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology) guidelines group. It’s around the management of toxicities from immunotherapy, and it’s the ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up, delivered by Dr. Haanen and, of course, a number of colleagues on behalf of the wider committee.

Have a look at it. I’m not going to talk about the details of it. It’s very well written. It’s very clear and evidence based, of course. There are many helpful hints and a very clear blueprint as to how we should better manage the myriad of potential side effects from immunotherapy.

It tells us a little about the basis of the science, some of the mechanistic work that’s going on in allowing us to understand why some people react in such different ways, almost as if the immune systems are primed to overreact. It gives a very helpful, stepwise look at how we best diagnose, manage, and, in the longer term, follow up patients who have problems with these very important drugs.

All of us recognize the extraordinary impact they’ve made across a wide range of different tumor types, and therefore, as practicing oncologists and health care professionals in the field, all of us need to understand better the details as to how we better care for our patients on these drugs.

Have a look at it. It’s well written and useful, and I think it’s a document that I’ll turn to when I’m looking for a refresher or advice in the future.

The generic focus is about guidelines. Many years ago, I was one of the architects of the British National Cancer Plan, and for me, there were four simple principles at that stage in our development of how we would improve the delivery of cancer control in the United Kingdom. It was around site specialization, particularly of our surgical colleagues who embraced this with vigor. God bless them.

It was using guidelines to help level up the quality of treatment that we were giving, of course underpinned by research, and using – one would hope – modern IT and telecommunications to improve the networking that we use to deliver multidisciplinary cancer care, one of the key elements. Guidelines were embedded in that.

A couple of years ago, we did a survey of cancer physicians around the world. Almost 30 different countries were represented, and we asked which guidelines were most used. It was a very interesting set of responses. The three dominant guidelines – this will surprise no one – are the NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) guidelines, the ESMO guidelines, and the ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) guidelines.

Rather than selecting one and one being completely dominant, what seemed to be the case is that our colleagues around the world dipped in and used all three. They may prefer NCCN for some particular tumor type or some particular aspect of how they’re structured, but at the same time, we would dip into the ESMO guidelines for specific bits of help, as well as the ASCO guidelines.

I find this fascinating. I assume that in different regions, depending on how they were affiliated in terms of additional training or links to Europe or links to the United States, that one or other of these guideline groups would predominate, but no. In each country, in each region, given the large data bank that we have of guidelines now, it’s a sort of pick-and-mix situation.

I was initially surprised but then took comfort from it. There’s nothing I hate more than the wasted energy of reduplication and saying, well come on, if there is one guideline set that does truly command the attention of the world, then the other should stop. It’s wasted energy, which is something that none of us can afford.

The fact that each of these trusted, evidence-based, beautifully presented guidelines is used in different ways was important. A message to the guideline groups from me is: “Thank you for your professionalism, for the hard work of hundreds of cancer specialists from all different specialties, and for their contribution to developing these guidelines.”

It’s worth it, it’s working, people are using them, and they’re making a difference. It’s all about leveling up the quality of cancer care that we deliver.

Specifically, have a look at the ESMO immune guidelines. They are great. I hope you find them helpful. Generically, thanks to all of you who are contributing and working so hard to make these data available to improve the quality of cancer care around the world.

Thanks for listening, as always. I’m interested in any comments that you might have, but for the time being, Medscapers, ahoy.

David J. Kerr, CBE, MD, DSc, is a professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford. He reported conflicts of interest with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, and Merck Serono.

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

No significant differences emerged in gut microbial diversity in preterm infants who exclusively received human milk products, compared with those receiving bovine milk formula or fortifiers, a randomized controlled trial found. Nor were any differences noted in the secondary endpoint of clinical outcomes in the U.K. study, published online in JAMA Network Open.

Newcastle University

The finding was unanticipated, according to lead author Nicholas D. Embleton, MBBS, MD, a professor of neonatal medicine at Newcastle University in England. “Over the last 10 years we’ve focused particularly on the role of the microbiome to better understand causal mechanisms of necrotizing enterocolitis, or NEC,” he said in an interview. “We anticipated that an exclusive human milk diet would have measurable impacts on microbiome diversity as a potential mechanism [in] disease modulation as part of the mechanism by which exclusive human milk diets benefit preterm infants.”

Shortfalls in a mother’s own milk supply often necessitate the use of bovine formula or pasteurized human milk from donor milk banks or commercial suppliers.

The effect of an exclusive human milk diet versus one containing bovine products on vulnerable preterm infants is unclear, but some studies have shown lower rates of key neonatal morbidities, possibly mediated by the gut microbiome. In two randomized controlled trials, for example, one showed a lower rate of NEC with donated human milk while the other showed no difference.

Neither, however, was powered to detect a clinically important difference in surgical NEC.
 

Milk and the microbiome

The current study’s primary endpoint was the effect of an exclusive human milk diet on gut bacterial richness and diversity, as well as the proportions of specific microbial taxa in preterm infants from enrollment to 34 weeks’ postmenstrual age.

Conducted at four neonatal intensive care units in the United Kingdom from 2017 to 2020, the study recruited 126 infants born at less than 30 weeks’ gestation and fed exclusively with their own mother’s milk before 72 hours of age. With a median gestational age of 27 weeks and a median birth weight of just over 900 grams, the babies were randomized 1:1 either to their own mother’s milk plus a pasteurized ready-to-feed human milk product or to their mother’s milk plus a standard preterm formula (controls). Stool samples were collected to analyze intestinal microbiota.

In terms of clinical outcomes, four infants died in the standard-care control group and eight in the intervention group at a median postnatal age of 25 days and 15 days, respectively, but none died primarily of NEC. Formula and ready-to-feed human milk both represented less than 1% of all fluid intake, respectively.

Although there were no effects on overall measures of gut bacterial diversity, there were some insignificant effects on specific bacterial taxa previously associated with human milk feeding. “These findings suggest that the clinical impact of human milk-derived products is not modulated via microbiomic mechanisms,” the authors wrote.

Human milk could benefit, however, via components such as specific oligosaccharides, which act largely by modulating the growth of friendly Bifidobacteria and other species, Dr. Embleton said. “However, it’s possible these oligosaccharides might also directly interact via the gut epithelium as a signaling molecule. And, of course, there are many other components that might also act directly on the gut without changing the microbiome.”

*Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Brenda L. Poindexter, MD, MS, chief of the division of neonatology at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Emory University, called it “incredibly important,” especially in the context of the claims of superiority made by the manufacturers of human-milk-based fortifiers. “These findings convincingly debunk the notion that the use of bovine-derived fortifiers increases risk of morbidities such as NEC through the mechanism of alterations in the microbiome, Dr. Poindexter said.

 “They refute that claim as there was no difference in NEC between the groups and, interestingly, no impact on the microbiome. One of the hypothesized mechanisms for those who purport that bovine fortifiers are ‘bad’ is that they alter the microbiome, which increases risk of NEC,” she said. “The only limitation is that the study was not powered to detect a difference in NEC, but it is incredibly important nonetheless.”

The current findings differ somewhat from those of a similar trial from 2022 showing lower microbial diversity and higher relative abundances of Enterobacteriaceae and lower abundances of Clostridium sensu stricto in preterm infants receiving an exclusive human milk diet. “These results highlight how nutrient fortifiers impact the microbiota of very-low-birth-weight infants during a critical developmental window,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Embleton conceded that his group’s study set the bar deliberately high to avoid finding too many differences purely due to chance, and it therefore might have missed bacterial changes present in low proportions. “Also, the technique we used, 16s rRNA, doesn’t explore the microbiome at the strain level, so there may have been changes we didn’t detect.”

He added that the study populations also had a relatively high usage of mother’s own milk and findings may differ in other populations and settings where the use of mother’s own milk is much lower. Furthermore, the differences reported by individual hospitals in the babies’ gut microbiomes were more significant than most feeding interventions.

So can mothers needing to use nonhuman supplements be reassured by the results? “It is difficult to know how parents may interpret our findings. We need more studies powered to detect differences in functional outcomes before we can draw conclusions and share those findings in a way parents can understand,” Dr. Embleton said. “At present, there is perhaps a too simplistic message that cow milk formula is ‘harmful.’ ”

Most babies exposed to cow’s milk fortifier or formula do not develop NEC, and many with NEC have only ever received their own mother’s milk or donor milk, he added. “It could be that with advances in pasteurization or other similar techniques the quality and therefore the functional benefits of human milk can be better preserved.”

More research is needed on the mechanisms of preterm feeding interventions, including donor human milk, fortifiers, and probiotics, Dr. Embleton said. “The gut microbiome in preterm infants is complex and very different from that in term infants.”

The study was sponsored by Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and funded by Prolacta Biosciences, which provided human milk formula and fortifier. Dr. Embleton reported financial ties to Danone Early Life Nutrition, Nestlé Nutrition Institute Lecture, Astarte Lecture, and NeoKare outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported similar ties to multiple private companies and various research funding bodies. Dr. Poindexter has no conflicts of interest.

*This story was updated on March 3, 2023.

No significant differences emerged in gut microbial diversity in preterm infants who exclusively received human milk products, compared with those receiving bovine milk formula or fortifiers, a randomized controlled trial found. Nor were any differences noted in the secondary endpoint of clinical outcomes in the U.K. study, published online in JAMA Network Open.

Newcastle University

The finding was unanticipated, according to lead author Nicholas D. Embleton, MBBS, MD, a professor of neonatal medicine at Newcastle University in England. “Over the last 10 years we’ve focused particularly on the role of the microbiome to better understand causal mechanisms of necrotizing enterocolitis, or NEC,” he said in an interview. “We anticipated that an exclusive human milk diet would have measurable impacts on microbiome diversity as a potential mechanism [in] disease modulation as part of the mechanism by which exclusive human milk diets benefit preterm infants.”

Shortfalls in a mother’s own milk supply often necessitate the use of bovine formula or pasteurized human milk from donor milk banks or commercial suppliers.

The effect of an exclusive human milk diet versus one containing bovine products on vulnerable preterm infants is unclear, but some studies have shown lower rates of key neonatal morbidities, possibly mediated by the gut microbiome. In two randomized controlled trials, for example, one showed a lower rate of NEC with donated human milk while the other showed no difference.

Neither, however, was powered to detect a clinically important difference in surgical NEC.
 

Milk and the microbiome

The current study’s primary endpoint was the effect of an exclusive human milk diet on gut bacterial richness and diversity, as well as the proportions of specific microbial taxa in preterm infants from enrollment to 34 weeks’ postmenstrual age.

Conducted at four neonatal intensive care units in the United Kingdom from 2017 to 2020, the study recruited 126 infants born at less than 30 weeks’ gestation and fed exclusively with their own mother’s milk before 72 hours of age. With a median gestational age of 27 weeks and a median birth weight of just over 900 grams, the babies were randomized 1:1 either to their own mother’s milk plus a pasteurized ready-to-feed human milk product or to their mother’s milk plus a standard preterm formula (controls). Stool samples were collected to analyze intestinal microbiota.

In terms of clinical outcomes, four infants died in the standard-care control group and eight in the intervention group at a median postnatal age of 25 days and 15 days, respectively, but none died primarily of NEC. Formula and ready-to-feed human milk both represented less than 1% of all fluid intake, respectively.

Although there were no effects on overall measures of gut bacterial diversity, there were some insignificant effects on specific bacterial taxa previously associated with human milk feeding. “These findings suggest that the clinical impact of human milk-derived products is not modulated via microbiomic mechanisms,” the authors wrote.

Human milk could benefit, however, via components such as specific oligosaccharides, which act largely by modulating the growth of friendly Bifidobacteria and other species, Dr. Embleton said. “However, it’s possible these oligosaccharides might also directly interact via the gut epithelium as a signaling molecule. And, of course, there are many other components that might also act directly on the gut without changing the microbiome.”

*Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Brenda L. Poindexter, MD, MS, chief of the division of neonatology at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Emory University, called it “incredibly important,” especially in the context of the claims of superiority made by the manufacturers of human-milk-based fortifiers. “These findings convincingly debunk the notion that the use of bovine-derived fortifiers increases risk of morbidities such as NEC through the mechanism of alterations in the microbiome, Dr. Poindexter said.

 “They refute that claim as there was no difference in NEC between the groups and, interestingly, no impact on the microbiome. One of the hypothesized mechanisms for those who purport that bovine fortifiers are ‘bad’ is that they alter the microbiome, which increases risk of NEC,” she said. “The only limitation is that the study was not powered to detect a difference in NEC, but it is incredibly important nonetheless.”

The current findings differ somewhat from those of a similar trial from 2022 showing lower microbial diversity and higher relative abundances of Enterobacteriaceae and lower abundances of Clostridium sensu stricto in preterm infants receiving an exclusive human milk diet. “These results highlight how nutrient fortifiers impact the microbiota of very-low-birth-weight infants during a critical developmental window,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Embleton conceded that his group’s study set the bar deliberately high to avoid finding too many differences purely due to chance, and it therefore might have missed bacterial changes present in low proportions. “Also, the technique we used, 16s rRNA, doesn’t explore the microbiome at the strain level, so there may have been changes we didn’t detect.”

He added that the study populations also had a relatively high usage of mother’s own milk and findings may differ in other populations and settings where the use of mother’s own milk is much lower. Furthermore, the differences reported by individual hospitals in the babies’ gut microbiomes were more significant than most feeding interventions.

So can mothers needing to use nonhuman supplements be reassured by the results? “It is difficult to know how parents may interpret our findings. We need more studies powered to detect differences in functional outcomes before we can draw conclusions and share those findings in a way parents can understand,” Dr. Embleton said. “At present, there is perhaps a too simplistic message that cow milk formula is ‘harmful.’ ”

Most babies exposed to cow’s milk fortifier or formula do not develop NEC, and many with NEC have only ever received their own mother’s milk or donor milk, he added. “It could be that with advances in pasteurization or other similar techniques the quality and therefore the functional benefits of human milk can be better preserved.”

More research is needed on the mechanisms of preterm feeding interventions, including donor human milk, fortifiers, and probiotics, Dr. Embleton said. “The gut microbiome in preterm infants is complex and very different from that in term infants.”

The study was sponsored by Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and funded by Prolacta Biosciences, which provided human milk formula and fortifier. Dr. Embleton reported financial ties to Danone Early Life Nutrition, Nestlé Nutrition Institute Lecture, Astarte Lecture, and NeoKare outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported similar ties to multiple private companies and various research funding bodies. Dr. Poindexter has no conflicts of interest.

*This story was updated on March 3, 2023.

No significant differences emerged in gut microbial diversity in preterm infants who exclusively received human milk products, compared with those receiving bovine milk formula or fortifiers, a randomized controlled trial found. Nor were any differences noted in the secondary endpoint of clinical outcomes in the U.K. study, published online in JAMA Network Open.

Newcastle University

The finding was unanticipated, according to lead author Nicholas D. Embleton, MBBS, MD, a professor of neonatal medicine at Newcastle University in England. “Over the last 10 years we’ve focused particularly on the role of the microbiome to better understand causal mechanisms of necrotizing enterocolitis, or NEC,” he said in an interview. “We anticipated that an exclusive human milk diet would have measurable impacts on microbiome diversity as a potential mechanism [in] disease modulation as part of the mechanism by which exclusive human milk diets benefit preterm infants.”

Shortfalls in a mother’s own milk supply often necessitate the use of bovine formula or pasteurized human milk from donor milk banks or commercial suppliers.

The effect of an exclusive human milk diet versus one containing bovine products on vulnerable preterm infants is unclear, but some studies have shown lower rates of key neonatal morbidities, possibly mediated by the gut microbiome. In two randomized controlled trials, for example, one showed a lower rate of NEC with donated human milk while the other showed no difference.

Neither, however, was powered to detect a clinically important difference in surgical NEC.
 

Milk and the microbiome

The current study’s primary endpoint was the effect of an exclusive human milk diet on gut bacterial richness and diversity, as well as the proportions of specific microbial taxa in preterm infants from enrollment to 34 weeks’ postmenstrual age.

Conducted at four neonatal intensive care units in the United Kingdom from 2017 to 2020, the study recruited 126 infants born at less than 30 weeks’ gestation and fed exclusively with their own mother’s milk before 72 hours of age. With a median gestational age of 27 weeks and a median birth weight of just over 900 grams, the babies were randomized 1:1 either to their own mother’s milk plus a pasteurized ready-to-feed human milk product or to their mother’s milk plus a standard preterm formula (controls). Stool samples were collected to analyze intestinal microbiota.

In terms of clinical outcomes, four infants died in the standard-care control group and eight in the intervention group at a median postnatal age of 25 days and 15 days, respectively, but none died primarily of NEC. Formula and ready-to-feed human milk both represented less than 1% of all fluid intake, respectively.

Although there were no effects on overall measures of gut bacterial diversity, there were some insignificant effects on specific bacterial taxa previously associated with human milk feeding. “These findings suggest that the clinical impact of human milk-derived products is not modulated via microbiomic mechanisms,” the authors wrote.

Human milk could benefit, however, via components such as specific oligosaccharides, which act largely by modulating the growth of friendly Bifidobacteria and other species, Dr. Embleton said. “However, it’s possible these oligosaccharides might also directly interact via the gut epithelium as a signaling molecule. And, of course, there are many other components that might also act directly on the gut without changing the microbiome.”

*Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Brenda L. Poindexter, MD, MS, chief of the division of neonatology at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Emory University, called it “incredibly important,” especially in the context of the claims of superiority made by the manufacturers of human-milk-based fortifiers. “These findings convincingly debunk the notion that the use of bovine-derived fortifiers increases risk of morbidities such as NEC through the mechanism of alterations in the microbiome, Dr. Poindexter said.

 “They refute that claim as there was no difference in NEC between the groups and, interestingly, no impact on the microbiome. One of the hypothesized mechanisms for those who purport that bovine fortifiers are ‘bad’ is that they alter the microbiome, which increases risk of NEC,” she said. “The only limitation is that the study was not powered to detect a difference in NEC, but it is incredibly important nonetheless.”

The current findings differ somewhat from those of a similar trial from 2022 showing lower microbial diversity and higher relative abundances of Enterobacteriaceae and lower abundances of Clostridium sensu stricto in preterm infants receiving an exclusive human milk diet. “These results highlight how nutrient fortifiers impact the microbiota of very-low-birth-weight infants during a critical developmental window,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Embleton conceded that his group’s study set the bar deliberately high to avoid finding too many differences purely due to chance, and it therefore might have missed bacterial changes present in low proportions. “Also, the technique we used, 16s rRNA, doesn’t explore the microbiome at the strain level, so there may have been changes we didn’t detect.”

He added that the study populations also had a relatively high usage of mother’s own milk and findings may differ in other populations and settings where the use of mother’s own milk is much lower. Furthermore, the differences reported by individual hospitals in the babies’ gut microbiomes were more significant than most feeding interventions.

So can mothers needing to use nonhuman supplements be reassured by the results? “It is difficult to know how parents may interpret our findings. We need more studies powered to detect differences in functional outcomes before we can draw conclusions and share those findings in a way parents can understand,” Dr. Embleton said. “At present, there is perhaps a too simplistic message that cow milk formula is ‘harmful.’ ”

Most babies exposed to cow’s milk fortifier or formula do not develop NEC, and many with NEC have only ever received their own mother’s milk or donor milk, he added. “It could be that with advances in pasteurization or other similar techniques the quality and therefore the functional benefits of human milk can be better preserved.”

More research is needed on the mechanisms of preterm feeding interventions, including donor human milk, fortifiers, and probiotics, Dr. Embleton said. “The gut microbiome in preterm infants is complex and very different from that in term infants.”

The study was sponsored by Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and funded by Prolacta Biosciences, which provided human milk formula and fortifier. Dr. Embleton reported financial ties to Danone Early Life Nutrition, Nestlé Nutrition Institute Lecture, Astarte Lecture, and NeoKare outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported similar ties to multiple private companies and various research funding bodies. Dr. Poindexter has no conflicts of interest.

*This story was updated on March 3, 2023.