Search

Background: TNF inhibitors (TNFi) effectively treat rheumatoid arthritis but may increase patient risk of some malignancies, particularly lymphomas or skin cancers. Methods: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data to conduct a case-control study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (2007-2015). Cases were individuals with a first cancer diagnosed in SEER registries (ages 66-99, 22 cancer sites, N = 10,263). Skin cancer cases [nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC, N = 501), basal cell carcinoma (BCC, N = 161), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC, N = 150)] and cancer-free controls (N = 30,475) were selected from Medicare beneficiaries residing in SEER areas. Cases and controls had prior Medicare claims-based evidence for rheumatoid arthritis, and TNFi exposure was ascertained from part B and part D claims. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR). Results: TNFi exposure was present in 16.2% of controls and 12.8% to 33.7% of cancer cases, varying by site. TNFi use was associated with increased risk of NMSC overall (aOR 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.63), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) overall (1.28, 1.06-1.56) and, specifically, follicular lymphoma (2.63, 1.63-4.24). TNFi exposure was not associated with other SEER cancer sites, BCC or SCC specifically, or other common NHL subtypes. Conclusions: Among older adults with rheumatoid arthritis, TNFi exposure was associated with elevated risk of NMSC and NHL, driven specifically by follicular lymphoma. Exposure was not associated with increased risk for other cancer sites. Impact: Our results support a role for TNF in lymphomagenesis. Given the association with NMSC, patients initiating TNFi therapy may benefit from skin cancer screening and sun protection measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Immunological cross-reactivity between common cold coronaviruses (CCC) and SARS-CoV-2 might account for the reduced incidence of COVID-19 in children. Evidence to support speculation includes in vitro evidence for humoral and cellular cross-reactivity with SARS-CoV-2 in specimens obtained before the pandemic started.Method: We used retrospective health insurance enrollment records, claims, and laboratory results to assemble a cohort of 869,236 insured individuals who had a PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. We estimated the effects of having clinical encounters for various diagnostic categories in the year preceding the study period on the risk of a positive test result.Findings: After adjusting for age, gender and care seeking behavior, we identified that individuals with diagnoses for common cold symptoms, including acute sinusitis, bronchitis, or pharyngitis in the preceding year had a lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (OR=0.76, 95%CI=0.75, 0.77). No reduction in the odds of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 was seen in individuals under 18 years. The reduction in odds in adults remained stable for four years but was strongest in those with recent common cold symptoms.Interpretation: While this study cannot attribute this association to cross-immunity resulting from a prior CCC infection, it is one potential explanation. Regardless of the cause, the reduction in the odds of being infected by SARS-CoV-2 among those with a recent diagnosis of common cold symptoms may have a role in shifting future COVD-19 infection patterns from endemic to episodic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We conducted a study to assess whether testosterone therapy (TT) alters prostate cancer risk using a large U.S. commercial insurance research database. Methods: From the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD), we selected men ages 30 years or greater who were new users of TT during 2007 to 2015. We selected two comparison groups: (i) unexposed (matched 10:1) and (ii) new users of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i). Incident prostate cancer was defined as diagnosis of prostate cancer within 4 weeks following prostate biopsy. Propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weights were used in Poisson regression models to estimate adjusted incidence rates, incidence rate ratios (IRR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analyses included stratification by prostate cancer screening, hypogonadism, and follow-up time. Results: The adjusted prostate cancer IRR was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.86) when comparing TT with the unexposed group and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.91) in comparison with the PDE5i group. Inverse associations between TT and prostate cancer were observed in a majority of subgroup analyses, although in both comparisons estimates generally attenuated with increasing time following initial exposure. Among TT users, duration of exposure was not associated with prostate cancer. Conclusions: Men who received TT did not have a higher rate of prostate cancer compared with the unexposed or PDE5i comparison groups. The inverse association between TT and prostate cancer could be the result of residual confounding, contraindication bias, or undefined biological effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prostate cancer is a commonly studied outcome in administrative claims studies, but there is a dearth of validated case identifying algorithms. The long-term development of the disease increases the difficulty in separating prevalent from incident prostate cancer. The purpose of this validation study was to assess the accuracy of a claims algorithm to identify incident prostate cancer among men in commercial and Medicare Advantage US health plans.Methods: We identified prostate cancer in claims as a prostate cancer diagnosis within 28 days after a prostate biopsy and compared case ascertainment in the claims with the gold standard results from the Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry (GCCR).Results: We identified 74,008 men from a large health plan claims database for possible linkage with GCCR. Among the 382 prostate cancer cases identified in claims, 312 were also identified in the GCCR (positive predictive value [PPV] = 82%). Of the registry cases, 91% (95% confidence interval = 88, 94) were correctly identified in claims. Claims and registry diagnosis dates of prostate cancer matched exactly in 254/312 (81%) cases. Nearly half of the false-positive cases also had claims for prostate cancer treatment. Thirteen (43%) false-negative cases were classified as noncases by virtue of having a biopsy and diagnosis >28 days apart as required by the algorithm. Compared to matches, false-negative cases were older men with less aggressive prostate cancer.Conclusions: Our algorithm demonstrated a PPV of 82% with 92% sensitivity in ascertaining incident PC. Administrative health plan claims can be a valuable and accurate source to identify incident prostate cancer cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence suggests that natural antibodies developed after HPV16 infection may protect some women but not men against subsequent HPV16 reacquisition. Less is known whether antibodies developed following HPV16 infection are protective among men who have sex with men (MSM). Methods: Four hundred seventy-five MSM from the Human Papillomavirus Infection in Men (HIM) study were tested for serum antibodies to HPV16 L1 using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, and for anal and genital HPV16 DNA using PCR consensus primer system (PGMY 09/11). Adjusted Cox regression was used to evaluate whether baseline HPV16 seropositivity impacts subsequent genital or anal HPV16 DNA. Results: The risk of subsequent genital HPV16 [aHR = 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.66-1.68] and anal HPV16 infections among MSM (aHR = 2.34, 95% CI = 0.92-5.98) was similar or nonsignificantly higher in HPV16-seropositive than HPV16-seronegative MSM. The risk of genital HPV16 was also similar between HPV16-seronegative and HPV16-seropositive MSM in the highest tertile of HPV16 antibody levels and when restricting to those with new sex partners during follow-up (P > 0.20). Among the 118 MSM who were HPV16 seropositive, 90% remained HPV16 seropositive up to 4 years later. When tested together, MSM with the highest antibody titers (top tertile) had similar levels to females (mean = 130.3 vs. 134.5 EU/mL, P = 0.84). Conclusions: Despite years of HPV16 seropositivity persistence and antibody titers comparable with females, this study suggested no evidence of HPV16 natural antibodies protecting against subsequent genital or anal HPV16 infection in MSM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study on the risk factors for oral human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in HIV-positive and at-risk HIV-negative adults. Risk factors include sexual behavior, tobacco use and HIV-related immunosuppression. HIV-positive individuals are said to be more likely to have a prevalent oral HPV infection diagnosis. The study showed that HIV-positive and at-risk HIV-negative women and men who have sex with men (MSM) are prone to oral HPV infection.