Dermatology News

A healthy dose of skepticism is reasonable when evaluating new technologies to potentially use in your practice, but being overly critical can backfire, according to E. Victor Ross, MD.

During a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, he noted that dermatologists may be evaluating new technologies in roles as an investigator or provider, or as a provider who buys the equipment outright, without any direct compensation from industry. “If you’re doing investigative work, you’re already in a conflicted situation because you’re trying to serve two masters,” said Dr. Ross, who directs the Scripps Clinic Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology Center in San Diego. “You’re trying to advance science and to make sure your reputation is intact and maybe even enhanced, but you’re also kind of at the whim of industry, because they have a goal. Sometimes the goals are similar. Your goal is to advance the technology and advance patient care, but they have a goal of selling equipment. Those goals should be compatible, and they should be in the same pathway; they should be parallel.”

Being too critical as an investigator/researcher of new technologies can hinder further interactions with industry. “Sometimes your criticism can be premature, and small changes in the technology and/or waiting for results can validate the technology,” he said. “Maybe it’s a skin-tightening technology, or maybe there’s something you don’t like about it; you have a prototype and you say: ‘This is not so great,’ but these are studies that take a long time to evaluate, like hair removal. Generally, if you’re a big critic, after a while, nobody wants to hear it. So, you can’t be overly critical. I think you can be skeptical, but not overly critical.”

On the other hand, Dr. Ross continued, if you cheerlead for the device industry, your reputation may be sold to the highest bidder. “You may compromise your ability to be trusted in future work or presentations. I’ve regretted some things I said many years ago, not because I was being dishonest but because I really wasn’t as skeptical as I should have been about the types of results I was getting. You do tend to get on a bandwagon; you want everything to be positive,” he said, adding: “The other thing that can happen is, if things don’t work out with other buyers, they’re going to say, ‘I can’t get the same results.’ If somebody can’t replicate what you’re doing, it’s going to put your reputation on the line to some degree. So, you have to be very careful.”

Before agreeing to evaluate a new technology as an investigator or in your own practice, Dr. Ross recommended asking yourself if the intervention makes sense on a gross or microanatomic level. “There should be a physical basis for how it works, and ideally there should be some histology that backs it up,” he said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “Where is the data to support the outcomes? If it is your own data, how skeptical have you been in its acquisition and assessment?”

When evaluating a new technology, Dr. Ross recommended starting with test spots and low settings. “It behooves you not to be too aggressive because there are some untoward things you may not see right away.” He advised evaluating short- and long-term outcomes and being wary of devices that heat very deeply and rely on long-term outcomes, such as hair removal, acne improvement, scar improvement, and skin tightening – all of which require long intervals for assessment. As one of his “Ross Rules” states: “The deeper the heating and the less focused the heating, the less we can expect results.” Another Ross Rule calls for being skeptical about technologies without an immediate finding that can be “seen” on routine histology. “To me, the deeper the procedure, particularly if it’s not fractional, the confidence of my outcome is diminished,” he said. “The exception is any intervention that relies on selective photothermolysis.”

Using new technologies in practice

Dr. Ross also offered tips on how to properly incorporate newly approved technologies into your practice safely, including the use of visual endpoints. “That’s tough for technologies like laser liposuction or fractional technologies, where we rely more on ‘guidelines’ than endpoints,” he said. In addition, he recommended gradually increasing settings and using test areas to stall and/or hone techniques. “It’s exciting, but you’re like a test pilot. You want to be careful that you are doing things that are not likely to risk the patient. Try some off-the-face applications first. When you’re using a new technology, push a little harder with each patient so you can find a safe zone for that technology. You don’t have to get it all in one treatment session. Be conservative. Anticipate that you may be underassessing the immediate response.”

Above all, be careful. “Use your judgment more than laser company-prescribed settings,” he said. “Most companies have the go-by settings on the low side for patient protection, but sometimes efficacy suffers. Use cautiously on friends and family. If you treat a spouse or a friend and things don’t go perfectly, that’s always a recipe for a problem.”

Dr. Ross reported having received financial grants and research grants from Candela, Cutera, Lumenis, and Lutronic; consulting fees from Palomar; and honoraria from Cynosure, Cutera, and Lumenis. He has also received research funding from Venous Concepts, Pulsed Biosciences, and Cynosure.

[email protected]

A healthy dose of skepticism is reasonable when evaluating new technologies to potentially use in your practice, but being overly critical can backfire, according to E. Victor Ross, MD.

During a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, he noted that dermatologists may be evaluating new technologies in roles as an investigator or provider, or as a provider who buys the equipment outright, without any direct compensation from industry. “If you’re doing investigative work, you’re already in a conflicted situation because you’re trying to serve two masters,” said Dr. Ross, who directs the Scripps Clinic Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology Center in San Diego. “You’re trying to advance science and to make sure your reputation is intact and maybe even enhanced, but you’re also kind of at the whim of industry, because they have a goal. Sometimes the goals are similar. Your goal is to advance the technology and advance patient care, but they have a goal of selling equipment. Those goals should be compatible, and they should be in the same pathway; they should be parallel.”

Being too critical as an investigator/researcher of new technologies can hinder further interactions with industry. “Sometimes your criticism can be premature, and small changes in the technology and/or waiting for results can validate the technology,” he said. “Maybe it’s a skin-tightening technology, or maybe there’s something you don’t like about it; you have a prototype and you say: ‘This is not so great,’ but these are studies that take a long time to evaluate, like hair removal. Generally, if you’re a big critic, after a while, nobody wants to hear it. So, you can’t be overly critical. I think you can be skeptical, but not overly critical.”

On the other hand, Dr. Ross continued, if you cheerlead for the device industry, your reputation may be sold to the highest bidder. “You may compromise your ability to be trusted in future work or presentations. I’ve regretted some things I said many years ago, not because I was being dishonest but because I really wasn’t as skeptical as I should have been about the types of results I was getting. You do tend to get on a bandwagon; you want everything to be positive,” he said, adding: “The other thing that can happen is, if things don’t work out with other buyers, they’re going to say, ‘I can’t get the same results.’ If somebody can’t replicate what you’re doing, it’s going to put your reputation on the line to some degree. So, you have to be very careful.”

Before agreeing to evaluate a new technology as an investigator or in your own practice, Dr. Ross recommended asking yourself if the intervention makes sense on a gross or microanatomic level. “There should be a physical basis for how it works, and ideally there should be some histology that backs it up,” he said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “Where is the data to support the outcomes? If it is your own data, how skeptical have you been in its acquisition and assessment?”

When evaluating a new technology, Dr. Ross recommended starting with test spots and low settings. “It behooves you not to be too aggressive because there are some untoward things you may not see right away.” He advised evaluating short- and long-term outcomes and being wary of devices that heat very deeply and rely on long-term outcomes, such as hair removal, acne improvement, scar improvement, and skin tightening – all of which require long intervals for assessment. As one of his “Ross Rules” states: “The deeper the heating and the less focused the heating, the less we can expect results.” Another Ross Rule calls for being skeptical about technologies without an immediate finding that can be “seen” on routine histology. “To me, the deeper the procedure, particularly if it’s not fractional, the confidence of my outcome is diminished,” he said. “The exception is any intervention that relies on selective photothermolysis.”

Using new technologies in practice

Dr. Ross also offered tips on how to properly incorporate newly approved technologies into your practice safely, including the use of visual endpoints. “That’s tough for technologies like laser liposuction or fractional technologies, where we rely more on ‘guidelines’ than endpoints,” he said. In addition, he recommended gradually increasing settings and using test areas to stall and/or hone techniques. “It’s exciting, but you’re like a test pilot. You want to be careful that you are doing things that are not likely to risk the patient. Try some off-the-face applications first. When you’re using a new technology, push a little harder with each patient so you can find a safe zone for that technology. You don’t have to get it all in one treatment session. Be conservative. Anticipate that you may be underassessing the immediate response.”

Above all, be careful. “Use your judgment more than laser company-prescribed settings,” he said. “Most companies have the go-by settings on the low side for patient protection, but sometimes efficacy suffers. Use cautiously on friends and family. If you treat a spouse or a friend and things don’t go perfectly, that’s always a recipe for a problem.”

Dr. Ross reported having received financial grants and research grants from Candela, Cutera, Lumenis, and Lutronic; consulting fees from Palomar; and honoraria from Cynosure, Cutera, and Lumenis. He has also received research funding from Venous Concepts, Pulsed Biosciences, and Cynosure.

[email protected]

A healthy dose of skepticism is reasonable when evaluating new technologies to potentially use in your practice, but being overly critical can backfire, according to E. Victor Ross, MD.

During a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, he noted that dermatologists may be evaluating new technologies in roles as an investigator or provider, or as a provider who buys the equipment outright, without any direct compensation from industry. “If you’re doing investigative work, you’re already in a conflicted situation because you’re trying to serve two masters,” said Dr. Ross, who directs the Scripps Clinic Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology Center in San Diego. “You’re trying to advance science and to make sure your reputation is intact and maybe even enhanced, but you’re also kind of at the whim of industry, because they have a goal. Sometimes the goals are similar. Your goal is to advance the technology and advance patient care, but they have a goal of selling equipment. Those goals should be compatible, and they should be in the same pathway; they should be parallel.”

Being too critical as an investigator/researcher of new technologies can hinder further interactions with industry. “Sometimes your criticism can be premature, and small changes in the technology and/or waiting for results can validate the technology,” he said. “Maybe it’s a skin-tightening technology, or maybe there’s something you don’t like about it; you have a prototype and you say: ‘This is not so great,’ but these are studies that take a long time to evaluate, like hair removal. Generally, if you’re a big critic, after a while, nobody wants to hear it. So, you can’t be overly critical. I think you can be skeptical, but not overly critical.”

On the other hand, Dr. Ross continued, if you cheerlead for the device industry, your reputation may be sold to the highest bidder. “You may compromise your ability to be trusted in future work or presentations. I’ve regretted some things I said many years ago, not because I was being dishonest but because I really wasn’t as skeptical as I should have been about the types of results I was getting. You do tend to get on a bandwagon; you want everything to be positive,” he said, adding: “The other thing that can happen is, if things don’t work out with other buyers, they’re going to say, ‘I can’t get the same results.’ If somebody can’t replicate what you’re doing, it’s going to put your reputation on the line to some degree. So, you have to be very careful.”

Before agreeing to evaluate a new technology as an investigator or in your own practice, Dr. Ross recommended asking yourself if the intervention makes sense on a gross or microanatomic level. “There should be a physical basis for how it works, and ideally there should be some histology that backs it up,” he said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. “Where is the data to support the outcomes? If it is your own data, how skeptical have you been in its acquisition and assessment?”

When evaluating a new technology, Dr. Ross recommended starting with test spots and low settings. “It behooves you not to be too aggressive because there are some untoward things you may not see right away.” He advised evaluating short- and long-term outcomes and being wary of devices that heat very deeply and rely on long-term outcomes, such as hair removal, acne improvement, scar improvement, and skin tightening – all of which require long intervals for assessment. As one of his “Ross Rules” states: “The deeper the heating and the less focused the heating, the less we can expect results.” Another Ross Rule calls for being skeptical about technologies without an immediate finding that can be “seen” on routine histology. “To me, the deeper the procedure, particularly if it’s not fractional, the confidence of my outcome is diminished,” he said. “The exception is any intervention that relies on selective photothermolysis.”

Using new technologies in practice

Dr. Ross also offered tips on how to properly incorporate newly approved technologies into your practice safely, including the use of visual endpoints. “That’s tough for technologies like laser liposuction or fractional technologies, where we rely more on ‘guidelines’ than endpoints,” he said. In addition, he recommended gradually increasing settings and using test areas to stall and/or hone techniques. “It’s exciting, but you’re like a test pilot. You want to be careful that you are doing things that are not likely to risk the patient. Try some off-the-face applications first. When you’re using a new technology, push a little harder with each patient so you can find a safe zone for that technology. You don’t have to get it all in one treatment session. Be conservative. Anticipate that you may be underassessing the immediate response.”

Above all, be careful. “Use your judgment more than laser company-prescribed settings,” he said. “Most companies have the go-by settings on the low side for patient protection, but sometimes efficacy suffers. Use cautiously on friends and family. If you treat a spouse or a friend and things don’t go perfectly, that’s always a recipe for a problem.”

Dr. Ross reported having received financial grants and research grants from Candela, Cutera, Lumenis, and Lutronic; consulting fees from Palomar; and honoraria from Cynosure, Cutera, and Lumenis. He has also received research funding from Venous Concepts, Pulsed Biosciences, and Cynosure.

[email protected]

Many laser and light-based technologies fall short when it comes to treating people of color, according to Haley L. Marks, PhD.

For one thing, melanin’s extinction overlaps with common laser lines, which affects the safety and efficacy of laser treatments in dermatology, but also in imaging and wearable devices that use LEDs in the visible range. “Pheomelanin and eumelanin are chemically very similar and both have this property of having very high extinction coefficients in the visible range, meaning that melanins both absorb and scatter light which we commonly use for laser treatments and for wearable medical devices,” Dr. Marks, a research scientist in dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “Melanins also shadow a number of other biological signals that we look for in the skin, such as those from hemoglobin.”

A number of different scales can be used to estimate the amount of eumelanin, or darkly pigmented melanin, in the skin, but the most famous is Fitzpatrick skin typing, the classification system that ranges from I to VI originally intended to quantify the skin’s response to UV light. “It’s so famous that it’s used in the emoji modifier of the Unicode Consortium lookup table,” said Dr. Marks, who spoke on behalf of the Wellman Anti-Racism Effort (WARE), a grassroots working group within the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. (The mission of the group is to eradicate racism in STEM, medicine, and academia starting with its own research and Center.)

Dr. Marks referred to a Northwestern University study published in 2013, which found that both patients and dermatologists failed to accurately determine Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) when compared with reflectance spectrophotometry used to measure melanin index objectively. “There is a need to classify skin type with reliable questions with responses suitable for all skin types,” the authors concluded.

Plenty more can go wrong when clinicians ignore or misunderstand the role of melanin as a background contrast agent, Dr. Marks continued. She cited the common misconception that melanomas do not occur in darker pigmented skin, a topic discussed in an article published online in January 2020 in Cancer Cytopathology.

“While they do occur at a lower rate, this misconception leads to an alarmingly low survival rate for black melanoma patients,” Dr. Marks said. “Acral lentiginous melanoma is one example of this. It is not related to sun exposure, yet it occurs in 30% to 70% of melanomas in black patients. This also exposes a mortality rate of 1 in 3 for Black melanoma patients, compared with 1 in 11 for White patients. In fact, Black patients face a lower survival for most cancers, often attributed to social and economic disparities rather than biological differences.”

Another significant contributing factor may be the lack of data and awareness of clinical research related to patients with skin of color. The Skin of Color Society’s “Find a Doctor” database is attempting to address this by improving patients’ access to board-certified dermatologists who specialize in skin of color. “Some of the discrepancies in dermatology education, screening, and treatment for Black, indigenous, and people of color is likely attributed to the fact that only 4.5% of images in general medical textbooks show darker skin, as they are only 5% of clinical trial participants despite making up 17% of the U.S. population,” Dr. Marks said at the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. Mind The Gap, a handbook of clinical signs and symptoms in black and brown skin, was published in 2020 by students and staff at St. George’s University of London. It can be downloaded for free.

Some 40 years after Kodak was criticized for not acknowledging inherent biases in their film stocks based on its “Kodak Shirley” color correction card, Dr. Marks said that camera makers are still ignoring racial bias in their technologies. “This is likely a ‘garbage in, garbage out’ phenomenon,” she said. “Due to the lack of diverse images, these biases get ingrained into machine learning models themselves, either because patients were not served in the first place, resulting in missing data, or because of mislabeling due to a lack of knowledge in properly classifying these images. So, while machine learning has the potential to step in where dermatologists fall short, we must be very diligent about recognizing any bias we are ingraining into these algorithms,” she said.

“That said, no technology is ‘born racist,’ of course; it is up to us to prevent history from repeating itself and prevent these biases from being ingrained in our work,” she added. “We can start by holding ourselves and others accountable when designing studies that have exclusion criteria, by challenging our sponsors on the exclusion of Fitzpatrick V and VI if you feel it is not scientifically sound, and by ensuring inclusive algorithm development. If these things are not possible, please use a disclaimer to make these limitations clear.”

According to Dr. Marks and WARE, clinicians can increase diversity in clinical trials by widening eligibility criteria, tapping into community-based medical centers, connecting with patient advocacy groups, using point-of-care and telemedicine technologies, supporting diversity-focused public policy on a larger scale, and making diversity an internal mandate, “within your institution, and within yourselves.”

Some community efforts stemming from Wellman inventions so far include the Texas-based Removery INK-nitiative program, which removes racist and hateful tattoos for free via laser tattoo removal technology that was invented at Wellman. Dr. Marks and her WARE colleagues also work with the Dream Beam Foundation, which is a global initiative bringing laser-based technologies to children in Vietnam, Armenia, Israel, Brazil, and Lebanon.

Dr. Marks reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Many laser and light-based technologies fall short when it comes to treating people of color, according to Haley L. Marks, PhD.

For one thing, melanin’s extinction overlaps with common laser lines, which affects the safety and efficacy of laser treatments in dermatology, but also in imaging and wearable devices that use LEDs in the visible range. “Pheomelanin and eumelanin are chemically very similar and both have this property of having very high extinction coefficients in the visible range, meaning that melanins both absorb and scatter light which we commonly use for laser treatments and for wearable medical devices,” Dr. Marks, a research scientist in dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “Melanins also shadow a number of other biological signals that we look for in the skin, such as those from hemoglobin.”

A number of different scales can be used to estimate the amount of eumelanin, or darkly pigmented melanin, in the skin, but the most famous is Fitzpatrick skin typing, the classification system that ranges from I to VI originally intended to quantify the skin’s response to UV light. “It’s so famous that it’s used in the emoji modifier of the Unicode Consortium lookup table,” said Dr. Marks, who spoke on behalf of the Wellman Anti-Racism Effort (WARE), a grassroots working group within the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. (The mission of the group is to eradicate racism in STEM, medicine, and academia starting with its own research and Center.)

Dr. Marks referred to a Northwestern University study published in 2013, which found that both patients and dermatologists failed to accurately determine Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) when compared with reflectance spectrophotometry used to measure melanin index objectively. “There is a need to classify skin type with reliable questions with responses suitable for all skin types,” the authors concluded.

Plenty more can go wrong when clinicians ignore or misunderstand the role of melanin as a background contrast agent, Dr. Marks continued. She cited the common misconception that melanomas do not occur in darker pigmented skin, a topic discussed in an article published online in January 2020 in Cancer Cytopathology.

“While they do occur at a lower rate, this misconception leads to an alarmingly low survival rate for black melanoma patients,” Dr. Marks said. “Acral lentiginous melanoma is one example of this. It is not related to sun exposure, yet it occurs in 30% to 70% of melanomas in black patients. This also exposes a mortality rate of 1 in 3 for Black melanoma patients, compared with 1 in 11 for White patients. In fact, Black patients face a lower survival for most cancers, often attributed to social and economic disparities rather than biological differences.”

Another significant contributing factor may be the lack of data and awareness of clinical research related to patients with skin of color. The Skin of Color Society’s “Find a Doctor” database is attempting to address this by improving patients’ access to board-certified dermatologists who specialize in skin of color. “Some of the discrepancies in dermatology education, screening, and treatment for Black, indigenous, and people of color is likely attributed to the fact that only 4.5% of images in general medical textbooks show darker skin, as they are only 5% of clinical trial participants despite making up 17% of the U.S. population,” Dr. Marks said at the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. Mind The Gap, a handbook of clinical signs and symptoms in black and brown skin, was published in 2020 by students and staff at St. George’s University of London. It can be downloaded for free.

Some 40 years after Kodak was criticized for not acknowledging inherent biases in their film stocks based on its “Kodak Shirley” color correction card, Dr. Marks said that camera makers are still ignoring racial bias in their technologies. “This is likely a ‘garbage in, garbage out’ phenomenon,” she said. “Due to the lack of diverse images, these biases get ingrained into machine learning models themselves, either because patients were not served in the first place, resulting in missing data, or because of mislabeling due to a lack of knowledge in properly classifying these images. So, while machine learning has the potential to step in where dermatologists fall short, we must be very diligent about recognizing any bias we are ingraining into these algorithms,” she said.

“That said, no technology is ‘born racist,’ of course; it is up to us to prevent history from repeating itself and prevent these biases from being ingrained in our work,” she added. “We can start by holding ourselves and others accountable when designing studies that have exclusion criteria, by challenging our sponsors on the exclusion of Fitzpatrick V and VI if you feel it is not scientifically sound, and by ensuring inclusive algorithm development. If these things are not possible, please use a disclaimer to make these limitations clear.”

According to Dr. Marks and WARE, clinicians can increase diversity in clinical trials by widening eligibility criteria, tapping into community-based medical centers, connecting with patient advocacy groups, using point-of-care and telemedicine technologies, supporting diversity-focused public policy on a larger scale, and making diversity an internal mandate, “within your institution, and within yourselves.”

Some community efforts stemming from Wellman inventions so far include the Texas-based Removery INK-nitiative program, which removes racist and hateful tattoos for free via laser tattoo removal technology that was invented at Wellman. Dr. Marks and her WARE colleagues also work with the Dream Beam Foundation, which is a global initiative bringing laser-based technologies to children in Vietnam, Armenia, Israel, Brazil, and Lebanon.

Dr. Marks reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Many laser and light-based technologies fall short when it comes to treating people of color, according to Haley L. Marks, PhD.

For one thing, melanin’s extinction overlaps with common laser lines, which affects the safety and efficacy of laser treatments in dermatology, but also in imaging and wearable devices that use LEDs in the visible range. “Pheomelanin and eumelanin are chemically very similar and both have this property of having very high extinction coefficients in the visible range, meaning that melanins both absorb and scatter light which we commonly use for laser treatments and for wearable medical devices,” Dr. Marks, a research scientist in dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “Melanins also shadow a number of other biological signals that we look for in the skin, such as those from hemoglobin.”

A number of different scales can be used to estimate the amount of eumelanin, or darkly pigmented melanin, in the skin, but the most famous is Fitzpatrick skin typing, the classification system that ranges from I to VI originally intended to quantify the skin’s response to UV light. “It’s so famous that it’s used in the emoji modifier of the Unicode Consortium lookup table,” said Dr. Marks, who spoke on behalf of the Wellman Anti-Racism Effort (WARE), a grassroots working group within the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. (The mission of the group is to eradicate racism in STEM, medicine, and academia starting with its own research and Center.)

Dr. Marks referred to a Northwestern University study published in 2013, which found that both patients and dermatologists failed to accurately determine Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) when compared with reflectance spectrophotometry used to measure melanin index objectively. “There is a need to classify skin type with reliable questions with responses suitable for all skin types,” the authors concluded.

Plenty more can go wrong when clinicians ignore or misunderstand the role of melanin as a background contrast agent, Dr. Marks continued. She cited the common misconception that melanomas do not occur in darker pigmented skin, a topic discussed in an article published online in January 2020 in Cancer Cytopathology.

“While they do occur at a lower rate, this misconception leads to an alarmingly low survival rate for black melanoma patients,” Dr. Marks said. “Acral lentiginous melanoma is one example of this. It is not related to sun exposure, yet it occurs in 30% to 70% of melanomas in black patients. This also exposes a mortality rate of 1 in 3 for Black melanoma patients, compared with 1 in 11 for White patients. In fact, Black patients face a lower survival for most cancers, often attributed to social and economic disparities rather than biological differences.”

Another significant contributing factor may be the lack of data and awareness of clinical research related to patients with skin of color. The Skin of Color Society’s “Find a Doctor” database is attempting to address this by improving patients’ access to board-certified dermatologists who specialize in skin of color. “Some of the discrepancies in dermatology education, screening, and treatment for Black, indigenous, and people of color is likely attributed to the fact that only 4.5% of images in general medical textbooks show darker skin, as they are only 5% of clinical trial participants despite making up 17% of the U.S. population,” Dr. Marks said at the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. Mind The Gap, a handbook of clinical signs and symptoms in black and brown skin, was published in 2020 by students and staff at St. George’s University of London. It can be downloaded for free.

Some 40 years after Kodak was criticized for not acknowledging inherent biases in their film stocks based on its “Kodak Shirley” color correction card, Dr. Marks said that camera makers are still ignoring racial bias in their technologies. “This is likely a ‘garbage in, garbage out’ phenomenon,” she said. “Due to the lack of diverse images, these biases get ingrained into machine learning models themselves, either because patients were not served in the first place, resulting in missing data, or because of mislabeling due to a lack of knowledge in properly classifying these images. So, while machine learning has the potential to step in where dermatologists fall short, we must be very diligent about recognizing any bias we are ingraining into these algorithms,” she said.

“That said, no technology is ‘born racist,’ of course; it is up to us to prevent history from repeating itself and prevent these biases from being ingrained in our work,” she added. “We can start by holding ourselves and others accountable when designing studies that have exclusion criteria, by challenging our sponsors on the exclusion of Fitzpatrick V and VI if you feel it is not scientifically sound, and by ensuring inclusive algorithm development. If these things are not possible, please use a disclaimer to make these limitations clear.”

According to Dr. Marks and WARE, clinicians can increase diversity in clinical trials by widening eligibility criteria, tapping into community-based medical centers, connecting with patient advocacy groups, using point-of-care and telemedicine technologies, supporting diversity-focused public policy on a larger scale, and making diversity an internal mandate, “within your institution, and within yourselves.”

Some community efforts stemming from Wellman inventions so far include the Texas-based Removery INK-nitiative program, which removes racist and hateful tattoos for free via laser tattoo removal technology that was invented at Wellman. Dr. Marks and her WARE colleagues also work with the Dream Beam Foundation, which is a global initiative bringing laser-based technologies to children in Vietnam, Armenia, Israel, Brazil, and Lebanon.

Dr. Marks reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in development was 94.1% effective in the final analysis of its 30,000-participant phase 3 study. Bolstered by the new findings, the company plans to file for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today, according to a company release.

A total of 11 people in the mRNA-1273 vaccinated group later tested positive for COVID-19, compared with 185 participants given two placebo injections, resulting in a point estimate of 94.1% efficacy. This finding aligns with the 94.5% efficacy in interim trial results announced on November 16, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Furthermore, Moderna announced that the vaccine prevented serious cases of infection. All 30 severe infections occurred among those people randomly assigned to placebo.

The FDA plans to review the Moderna vaccine safety and efficacy data at the next Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting scheduled for December 17. If and when approved, healthcare providers can use the new 91301 CPT code specific to mRNA-1273 vaccination.

“This positive primary analysis confirms the ability of our vaccine to prevent COVID-19 disease with 94.1% efficacy and, importantly, the ability to prevent severe COVID-19 disease,” said Stéphane Bancel, MBA, MEng, chief executive officer of Moderna, in the news release. “We believe that our vaccine will provide a new and powerful tool that may change the course of this pandemic and help prevent severe disease, hospitalizations, and death.”

Vaccine efficacy remained consistent across different groups analyzed by age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The 196 COVID-19 cases in the trial included 33 adults older than 65 years and 42 people from diverse communities, including 29 Hispanic or Latinx, six Black or African Americans, four Asian Americans, and three multiracial participants, the company reported.
 

No serious vaccine-related safety issues

The mRNA-1273 vaccine was generally well tolerated and no serious safety concerns with the vaccine have been identified to date, the company reported. 

Injection site pain, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and erythema/redness at the injection site were the most common solicited adverse events in a prior analysis. The company noted that these solicited adverse reactions increased in frequency and severity after the second vaccine dose. A continuous review of safety data is ongoing.

One COVID-19-related death in the study occurred in the placebo group.
 

Ready to start shipping

Moderna expects to have approximately 20 million doses of mRNA-1273 available in the United States by the end of this year. The company reports that it’s on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021.

The company also is seeking approval from nations and organizations worldwide, including a conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The  study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Moderna will be the second company to file an EUA with the FDA for a COVID vaccine, after Pfizer requested one for its mRNA vaccine earlier this month.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hyperglycemia at hospital admission – regardless of diabetes status – is a key predictor of COVID-19-related death and severity among noncritical patients, new research from Spain finds.

The observational study, the largest to date to investigate this association, was published online Nov. 23 in Annals of Medicine by Francisco Javier Carrasco-Sánchez, MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Among more than 11,000 patients with confirmed COVID-19 from March to May 2020 in a nationwide Spanish registry involving 109 hospitals, admission hyperglycemia independently predicted progression from noncritical to critical condition and death, regardless of prior diabetes history. 

Those with abnormally high glucose levels were more than twice as likely to die from the virus than those with normal readings (41.4% vs 15.7%). They also had an increased need for a ventilator and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

“These results provided a simple and practical way to stratify risk of death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Hence, admission hyperglycemia should not be overlooked, but rather detected and appropriately treated to improve the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without diabetes,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez and colleagues wrote.

The findings confirm those of previous retrospective observational studies, but the current study “has, by far, the biggest number of patients involved in this kind of study [to date]. All conclusions are consistent to other studies,” Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez, of University Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez, Huelva, Spain, said in an interview.

However, a surprising finding, he said, “was how hyperglycemia works in the nondiabetic population and [that] glucose levels over 140 [mg/dL] ... increase the risk of death.”
 

Pay attention to even mild hyperglycemia from admission

The study also differs from some of the prior observational ones in that it examines outcome by admission glycemia rather than during the hospital stay, therefore eliminating the effect of any inpatient treatment, such as dexamethasone, he noted.

Although blood glucose measurement at admission is routine for all patients in Spain, as it is in the United States and elsewhere, a mildly elevated level in a person without a diagnosis of diabetes may not be recognized as important.

“In patients with diabetes we start the protocol to control and treat hyperglycemia during hospitalization. However, in nondiabetic patients blood glucose levels under 180 [mg/dL], and even greater, are usually overlooked. This means there is not a correct follow-up of the patients during hospitalization.

“After this study we learned that we need to pay attention to this population ... who develop hyperglycemia from the beginning,” he said.  

The study was limited in that patients who had previously undiagnosed diabetes couldn’t always be distinguished from those with acute “stress hyperglycemia.”

However, both need to be managed during hospitalization, he said. “Unfortunately, there is high variability in inpatient glucose management. The working group of diabetes of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine is working on specific protocols,” said Dr. Carrasco-Sánchez.
 

All-cause death, progress to critical care higher with hyperglycemia

The retrospective, multicenter study was based on data from 11,312 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 109 hospitals participating in Spain’s SEMI-COVID-19 registry as of May 29, 2020. They had a mean age of 67 years, 57% were male, and 19% had a diagnosis of diabetes. A total of 20% (n = 2,289) died during hospitalization.

Overall all-cause mortality was 41.1% among those with admission blood glucose levels above 180 mg/dL, 33.0% for those with glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL, and 15.7% for levels below 140 mg/dL. All differences were significant (P < .0001), but there were no differences in mortality rates within each blood glucose category between patients with or without a previous diagnosis of diabetes.

After adjustment for confounding factors, elevated admission blood glucose level remained a significant predictor of death. Compared to < 140 mg/dL, the hazard ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL were 1.48 and 1.50, respectively (both P < .001). (Adjustments included age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lymphopenia, anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL), serum creatinine, C-reactive protein > 60 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 400 U/L and D-dimer >1000 ng/mL.)

Length of stay was 12, 11.5, and 11.1 days for those with admission blood glucose levels > 180, 140-180, and < 140 mg/dL, respectively (P = .011).

Use of mechanical ventilation and admission to intensive care also rose with higher admission blood glucose levels. For the composite of death, mechanical ventilation, and/or ICU admission, odds ratios for 140-180 mg/dL and > 180 mg/dL compared with < 140 mg/dL were 1.70 and 2.02, respectively (both P < .001). 

The study was supported by the Spanish Federation of Internal Medicine. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

LAS VEGAS – Current major guidelines for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) shortchange the value of the anti–interleukin-17 biologics for this disease, Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

The 2018 joint American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Association guidelines recommend the anti–tumor necrosis factor agents as first-line biologic therapy for PsA, with the anti–IL-17 biologics held in reserve as second-tier therapy for when the anti-TNFs don’t work. That’s largely because the guidance was developed before the compelling evidence for the anti–IL-17 agents as the biologics of choice was appreciated, according to Dr. Gordon, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“Many people go by these guidelines,” the dermatologist noted. “I think it’s really critical to look at the data and not just the guidelines because the guidelines don’t give full credit to the anti–IL-17 agents,” he added.

“Emerging psoriatic arthritis data may likely put this class of medications into the forefront of treatment for patients who have both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis because you generally get higher responses for the skin disease than with anti-TNF therapy, and with similar responses in psoriatic arthritis.”

Two IL-17 inhibitors are approved for both PsA and psoriasis: secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz). In addition, brodalumab (Siliq), approved for psoriasis, is expected to receive an expanded indication for PsA based upon its strong showing in the AMVISION-1 and -2 trials. Data from those trials, as well as the FUTURE 2 trial for secukinumab and SPIRIT-P1 for ixekizumab, consistently document at least 20% improvement in the ACR criteria for PsA severity – that is, an ACR 20 response – in 50%-60% of patients on one of the three IL-17 inhibitors, as well as ACR 50 response rates of around 30%. Those outcomes are quite consistent with the impact of the anti-TNF biologics on joint disease. But the TNF inhibitors can’t touch the anti–IL-17 biologics when it comes to improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores: The anti–IL-17 agents have week-52 PASI 75 response rates in the range of 80%, PASI 90 response rates of 70%-75%, and PASI 100 response rates of 40%-55%, with the highest-end results being seen with brodalumab, he continued.

A point worth remembering when prescribing secukinumab is that the approved dose for PsA is 150 mg every 4 weeks, which is just half of the typical dose in psoriasis.

“I spend a lot of time convincing my rheumatology colleagues that if you’re treating both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, use the psoriasis dose. There’s some evidence that the higher dose provides some benefit in terms of prevention of permanent joint damage by x-ray,” Dr. Gordon said.

Evidence that TNF inhibitors inhibit permanent joint damage in patients with PsA has been considered a major advantage, establishing this medication class as first-line biologic therapy. But anti–IL-17 therapies appear to have a similar beneficial effect. That was demonstrated in the SPIRIT-P1 trial, where Sharp scores – a radiographic measure of progression of joint damage – were similar at 24 weeks in PsA patients randomized to ixekizumab as compared to adalimumab, with both biologics being superior to placebo. An Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 20% improvement (ASAS 20) response or an ACR 50 response doesn’t capture what’s going on with regard to axial disease. That’s assessed through ASAS 20 and ASAS 40 responses – that is, at least 20% or 40% improvement, compared with baseline, in Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis scores. And in the MEASURE 1 and 2 trials, secukinumab achieved robust improvement in axial disease as reflected in favorable ASAS 20 and ASAS 40 responses through 52 weeks in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis.

“The anti–IL-17 agents do actually work in ankylosing spondylitis, which might be a surrogate for the treatment effect in axial psoriatic arthritis,” Dr. Gordon commented.

The phase 3b MAXIMISE trial presented at the 2019 EULAR meeting looked specifically at the impact of secukinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis with axial involvement. An ASAS 20 response at week 12 was seen in 67% and 65% of patients randomized to secukinumab at 150 or 300 mg, respectively, if they were on concomitant methotrexate, and 64% and 61% if they were not, compared with ASAS 20 rates of 34% and 31% in placebo-treated controls.

“This is the only study of an anti–IL-17 agent that’s been done for axial disease to date in psoriatic arthritis. It’s very, very encouraging,” the dermatologist commented.

 

Durability of response and safety

“In terms of safety, the anti–IL-17s have been a truly remarkable success story. There are very low rates of things to be concerned about,” Dr. Gordon said.

Oral candidiasis occurs in 2%-4% of treated patients, but he noted, “It’s almost always very mild disease” that’s easily treatable with nystatin or, in the worst case, with some fluconazole.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as a side effect of anti–IL-17 therapy has been a controversial issue. Dr. Gordon’s interpretation of the evidence is that there probably is a very slight increase in the risk of developing ulcerative colitis, but not Crohn’s disease.

“This rate is extraordinarily low, so while it’s something that I consider, and if a patient has a personal history of IBD I will sometimes hesitate to use an anti–IL-17 agent, in patients who don’t have a personal history I’ll go ahead,” he explained.

There is a signal of a slight increase in risk of depression in patients on brodalumab, which isn’t the case for secukinumab or ixekizumab.

Importantly, large long-term extension studies with years of follow-up show that the initially low adverse event rates associated with the IL-17 inhibitors don’t increase over time; rather, they remain steady over years of use.

Long-term maintenance of response with these biologics is impressive. “It’s not perfect, but it’s still a tremendous advantage for patients, especially if you can get them through that initial period,” Dr. Gordon said.

For example, in the long-term extension of the UNCOVER-1 trial, psoriasis patients who had clear or almost clear skin at week 12 on ixekizumab and continued to take the medication open label for 5 years had PASI 75, 90, and 100 response rates of 94%, 82%, and 47%, respectively, at week 264.
 

What about IL-12/23 and IL-23 inhibitors in PsA?

In a separate presentation at the MedscapeLive seminar, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, said that, although ustekinumab (Stelara) is approved for both psoriasis and PsA, the IL-12/-23 inhibitor’s efficacy in PsA is inconsistent and lower than other approved biologics. In contrast, the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya), which also has the dual indications, is a strong performer in both. In the DISCOVER-2 trial, conducted in treatment-naive patients with PsA, guselkumab at the approved dose of 100 mg every 8 weeks achieved ACR 20, 50, and 70 rates of 64%, 31%, and 19%, respectively. It was also significantly better than placebo for resolution of enthesitis.

An important caveat: While radiographic inhibition of progression of joint disease occurred with guselkumab dosed at 100 mg every 4 weeks in DISCOVER-2, that’s not the approved dose. At 100 mg every 8 weeks – the FDA-approved dosing for both psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis – radiographic inhibition wasn’t better than with placebo, noted Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Gordon and Dr. Strober are clinical trialists who reported receiving research support and/or honoraria from more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies, including virtually all of those with biologics for dermatology.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Current major guidelines for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) shortchange the value of the anti–interleukin-17 biologics for this disease, Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

The 2018 joint American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Association guidelines recommend the anti–tumor necrosis factor agents as first-line biologic therapy for PsA, with the anti–IL-17 biologics held in reserve as second-tier therapy for when the anti-TNFs don’t work. That’s largely because the guidance was developed before the compelling evidence for the anti–IL-17 agents as the biologics of choice was appreciated, according to Dr. Gordon, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“Many people go by these guidelines,” the dermatologist noted. “I think it’s really critical to look at the data and not just the guidelines because the guidelines don’t give full credit to the anti–IL-17 agents,” he added.

“Emerging psoriatic arthritis data may likely put this class of medications into the forefront of treatment for patients who have both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis because you generally get higher responses for the skin disease than with anti-TNF therapy, and with similar responses in psoriatic arthritis.”

Two IL-17 inhibitors are approved for both PsA and psoriasis: secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz). In addition, brodalumab (Siliq), approved for psoriasis, is expected to receive an expanded indication for PsA based upon its strong showing in the AMVISION-1 and -2 trials. Data from those trials, as well as the FUTURE 2 trial for secukinumab and SPIRIT-P1 for ixekizumab, consistently document at least 20% improvement in the ACR criteria for PsA severity – that is, an ACR 20 response – in 50%-60% of patients on one of the three IL-17 inhibitors, as well as ACR 50 response rates of around 30%. Those outcomes are quite consistent with the impact of the anti-TNF biologics on joint disease. But the TNF inhibitors can’t touch the anti–IL-17 biologics when it comes to improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores: The anti–IL-17 agents have week-52 PASI 75 response rates in the range of 80%, PASI 90 response rates of 70%-75%, and PASI 100 response rates of 40%-55%, with the highest-end results being seen with brodalumab, he continued.

A point worth remembering when prescribing secukinumab is that the approved dose for PsA is 150 mg every 4 weeks, which is just half of the typical dose in psoriasis.

“I spend a lot of time convincing my rheumatology colleagues that if you’re treating both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, use the psoriasis dose. There’s some evidence that the higher dose provides some benefit in terms of prevention of permanent joint damage by x-ray,” Dr. Gordon said.

Evidence that TNF inhibitors inhibit permanent joint damage in patients with PsA has been considered a major advantage, establishing this medication class as first-line biologic therapy. But anti–IL-17 therapies appear to have a similar beneficial effect. That was demonstrated in the SPIRIT-P1 trial, where Sharp scores – a radiographic measure of progression of joint damage – were similar at 24 weeks in PsA patients randomized to ixekizumab as compared to adalimumab, with both biologics being superior to placebo. An Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 20% improvement (ASAS 20) response or an ACR 50 response doesn’t capture what’s going on with regard to axial disease. That’s assessed through ASAS 20 and ASAS 40 responses – that is, at least 20% or 40% improvement, compared with baseline, in Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis scores. And in the MEASURE 1 and 2 trials, secukinumab achieved robust improvement in axial disease as reflected in favorable ASAS 20 and ASAS 40 responses through 52 weeks in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis.

“The anti–IL-17 agents do actually work in ankylosing spondylitis, which might be a surrogate for the treatment effect in axial psoriatic arthritis,” Dr. Gordon commented.

The phase 3b MAXIMISE trial presented at the 2019 EULAR meeting looked specifically at the impact of secukinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis with axial involvement. An ASAS 20 response at week 12 was seen in 67% and 65% of patients randomized to secukinumab at 150 or 300 mg, respectively, if they were on concomitant methotrexate, and 64% and 61% if they were not, compared with ASAS 20 rates of 34% and 31% in placebo-treated controls.

“This is the only study of an anti–IL-17 agent that’s been done for axial disease to date in psoriatic arthritis. It’s very, very encouraging,” the dermatologist commented.

 

Durability of response and safety

“In terms of safety, the anti–IL-17s have been a truly remarkable success story. There are very low rates of things to be concerned about,” Dr. Gordon said.

Oral candidiasis occurs in 2%-4% of treated patients, but he noted, “It’s almost always very mild disease” that’s easily treatable with nystatin or, in the worst case, with some fluconazole.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as a side effect of anti–IL-17 therapy has been a controversial issue. Dr. Gordon’s interpretation of the evidence is that there probably is a very slight increase in the risk of developing ulcerative colitis, but not Crohn’s disease.

“This rate is extraordinarily low, so while it’s something that I consider, and if a patient has a personal history of IBD I will sometimes hesitate to use an anti–IL-17 agent, in patients who don’t have a personal history I’ll go ahead,” he explained.

There is a signal of a slight increase in risk of depression in patients on brodalumab, which isn’t the case for secukinumab or ixekizumab.

Importantly, large long-term extension studies with years of follow-up show that the initially low adverse event rates associated with the IL-17 inhibitors don’t increase over time; rather, they remain steady over years of use.

Long-term maintenance of response with these biologics is impressive. “It’s not perfect, but it’s still a tremendous advantage for patients, especially if you can get them through that initial period,” Dr. Gordon said.

For example, in the long-term extension of the UNCOVER-1 trial, psoriasis patients who had clear or almost clear skin at week 12 on ixekizumab and continued to take the medication open label for 5 years had PASI 75, 90, and 100 response rates of 94%, 82%, and 47%, respectively, at week 264.
 

What about IL-12/23 and IL-23 inhibitors in PsA?

In a separate presentation at the MedscapeLive seminar, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, said that, although ustekinumab (Stelara) is approved for both psoriasis and PsA, the IL-12/-23 inhibitor’s efficacy in PsA is inconsistent and lower than other approved biologics. In contrast, the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya), which also has the dual indications, is a strong performer in both. In the DISCOVER-2 trial, conducted in treatment-naive patients with PsA, guselkumab at the approved dose of 100 mg every 8 weeks achieved ACR 20, 50, and 70 rates of 64%, 31%, and 19%, respectively. It was also significantly better than placebo for resolution of enthesitis.

An important caveat: While radiographic inhibition of progression of joint disease occurred with guselkumab dosed at 100 mg every 4 weeks in DISCOVER-2, that’s not the approved dose. At 100 mg every 8 weeks – the FDA-approved dosing for both psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis – radiographic inhibition wasn’t better than with placebo, noted Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Gordon and Dr. Strober are clinical trialists who reported receiving research support and/or honoraria from more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies, including virtually all of those with biologics for dermatology.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Current major guidelines for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) shortchange the value of the anti–interleukin-17 biologics for this disease, Kenneth B. Gordon, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

The 2018 joint American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Association guidelines recommend the anti–tumor necrosis factor agents as first-line biologic therapy for PsA, with the anti–IL-17 biologics held in reserve as second-tier therapy for when the anti-TNFs don’t work. That’s largely because the guidance was developed before the compelling evidence for the anti–IL-17 agents as the biologics of choice was appreciated, according to Dr. Gordon, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“Many people go by these guidelines,” the dermatologist noted. “I think it’s really critical to look at the data and not just the guidelines because the guidelines don’t give full credit to the anti–IL-17 agents,” he added.

“Emerging psoriatic arthritis data may likely put this class of medications into the forefront of treatment for patients who have both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis because you generally get higher responses for the skin disease than with anti-TNF therapy, and with similar responses in psoriatic arthritis.”

Two IL-17 inhibitors are approved for both PsA and psoriasis: secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz). In addition, brodalumab (Siliq), approved for psoriasis, is expected to receive an expanded indication for PsA based upon its strong showing in the AMVISION-1 and -2 trials. Data from those trials, as well as the FUTURE 2 trial for secukinumab and SPIRIT-P1 for ixekizumab, consistently document at least 20% improvement in the ACR criteria for PsA severity – that is, an ACR 20 response – in 50%-60% of patients on one of the three IL-17 inhibitors, as well as ACR 50 response rates of around 30%. Those outcomes are quite consistent with the impact of the anti-TNF biologics on joint disease. But the TNF inhibitors can’t touch the anti–IL-17 biologics when it comes to improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores: The anti–IL-17 agents have week-52 PASI 75 response rates in the range of 80%, PASI 90 response rates of 70%-75%, and PASI 100 response rates of 40%-55%, with the highest-end results being seen with brodalumab, he continued.

A point worth remembering when prescribing secukinumab is that the approved dose for PsA is 150 mg every 4 weeks, which is just half of the typical dose in psoriasis.

“I spend a lot of time convincing my rheumatology colleagues that if you’re treating both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, use the psoriasis dose. There’s some evidence that the higher dose provides some benefit in terms of prevention of permanent joint damage by x-ray,” Dr. Gordon said.

Evidence that TNF inhibitors inhibit permanent joint damage in patients with PsA has been considered a major advantage, establishing this medication class as first-line biologic therapy. But anti–IL-17 therapies appear to have a similar beneficial effect. That was demonstrated in the SPIRIT-P1 trial, where Sharp scores – a radiographic measure of progression of joint damage – were similar at 24 weeks in PsA patients randomized to ixekizumab as compared to adalimumab, with both biologics being superior to placebo. An Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 20% improvement (ASAS 20) response or an ACR 50 response doesn’t capture what’s going on with regard to axial disease. That’s assessed through ASAS 20 and ASAS 40 responses – that is, at least 20% or 40% improvement, compared with baseline, in Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis scores. And in the MEASURE 1 and 2 trials, secukinumab achieved robust improvement in axial disease as reflected in favorable ASAS 20 and ASAS 40 responses through 52 weeks in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis.

“The anti–IL-17 agents do actually work in ankylosing spondylitis, which might be a surrogate for the treatment effect in axial psoriatic arthritis,” Dr. Gordon commented.

The phase 3b MAXIMISE trial presented at the 2019 EULAR meeting looked specifically at the impact of secukinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis with axial involvement. An ASAS 20 response at week 12 was seen in 67% and 65% of patients randomized to secukinumab at 150 or 300 mg, respectively, if they were on concomitant methotrexate, and 64% and 61% if they were not, compared with ASAS 20 rates of 34% and 31% in placebo-treated controls.

“This is the only study of an anti–IL-17 agent that’s been done for axial disease to date in psoriatic arthritis. It’s very, very encouraging,” the dermatologist commented.

 

Durability of response and safety

“In terms of safety, the anti–IL-17s have been a truly remarkable success story. There are very low rates of things to be concerned about,” Dr. Gordon said.

Oral candidiasis occurs in 2%-4% of treated patients, but he noted, “It’s almost always very mild disease” that’s easily treatable with nystatin or, in the worst case, with some fluconazole.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as a side effect of anti–IL-17 therapy has been a controversial issue. Dr. Gordon’s interpretation of the evidence is that there probably is a very slight increase in the risk of developing ulcerative colitis, but not Crohn’s disease.

“This rate is extraordinarily low, so while it’s something that I consider, and if a patient has a personal history of IBD I will sometimes hesitate to use an anti–IL-17 agent, in patients who don’t have a personal history I’ll go ahead,” he explained.

There is a signal of a slight increase in risk of depression in patients on brodalumab, which isn’t the case for secukinumab or ixekizumab.

Importantly, large long-term extension studies with years of follow-up show that the initially low adverse event rates associated with the IL-17 inhibitors don’t increase over time; rather, they remain steady over years of use.

Long-term maintenance of response with these biologics is impressive. “It’s not perfect, but it’s still a tremendous advantage for patients, especially if you can get them through that initial period,” Dr. Gordon said.

For example, in the long-term extension of the UNCOVER-1 trial, psoriasis patients who had clear or almost clear skin at week 12 on ixekizumab and continued to take the medication open label for 5 years had PASI 75, 90, and 100 response rates of 94%, 82%, and 47%, respectively, at week 264.
 

What about IL-12/23 and IL-23 inhibitors in PsA?

In a separate presentation at the MedscapeLive seminar, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, said that, although ustekinumab (Stelara) is approved for both psoriasis and PsA, the IL-12/-23 inhibitor’s efficacy in PsA is inconsistent and lower than other approved biologics. In contrast, the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya), which also has the dual indications, is a strong performer in both. In the DISCOVER-2 trial, conducted in treatment-naive patients with PsA, guselkumab at the approved dose of 100 mg every 8 weeks achieved ACR 20, 50, and 70 rates of 64%, 31%, and 19%, respectively. It was also significantly better than placebo for resolution of enthesitis.

An important caveat: While radiographic inhibition of progression of joint disease occurred with guselkumab dosed at 100 mg every 4 weeks in DISCOVER-2, that’s not the approved dose. At 100 mg every 8 weeks – the FDA-approved dosing for both psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis – radiographic inhibition wasn’t better than with placebo, noted Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Gordon and Dr. Strober are clinical trialists who reported receiving research support and/or honoraria from more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies, including virtually all of those with biologics for dermatology.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Most potential complications associated with filler and neuromodulator injections can be managed or prevented, and the right protocols can help in the rare cases of serious complications, Katie Beleznay, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a virtual presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

The number of reported cases of vascular complications in patients receiving fillers has increased in recent years, said Dr. Beleznay, who also treats patients in private practice in Vancouver. However, knowing the facial anatomy and recognizing that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach goes a long way in preventing and managing complications.

In terms of neuromodulators such as Botox, the upper face is the most common area for treatment, and potential complications include eyelid ptosis, brow ptosis, and the “Spock brow,” Dr. Beleznay noted. For example, patients won’t be able to engage elevator muscles, such as the frontalis, if too much neuromodulator is injected. But, a couple of units in the upper forehead can help make the effect look natural, soften the lines, without being too frozen.

To help avoid eyelid ptosis with neuromodulators, inject at least one centimeter above the supraorbital rim at the midpupillary line, Dr. Beleznay advised. “I will feel the muscle,” because some brows are drawn or microbladed on, she noted. Patients who develop eyelid ptosis can be treated with apraclonidine drops.

To avoid brow ptosis with neuromodulators, it is important to assess the anatomy at baseline, Dr. Beleznay said. Some patients like to be able to lift their brows, and too much Botox will prevent their doing so. In order to mitigate this, it is important to treat brow depressors to balance and provide lift, and staying above the first horizontal forehead rhytid when injecting can help reduce brow ptosis risk.

Remember when injecting the upper face there are several glabellar contraction patterns, so “be sure you are targeting the treatment for the muscle pulling pattern that you see,” she said.
 

Complications associated with fillers

When injecting fillers, there are rare complications, including blindness, that are worth acknowledging, said Dr. Beleznay, lead author of a study on global cases of blindness caused by fillers published in 2015, including 98 cases up to 2015, and another 48 cases in a study published in 2019.

The highest-risk areas for causing blindness with fillers are the glabella and the nose, but “anywhere you are injecting is at risk for this complication,” she commented.

Explaining the mechanism of action for blindness resulting from filler injections, she said: “When the tip of the needle gets into the vessel, if you put enough pressure on the plunger, the filler can travel retrograde in the vessel back into the ophthalmic artery system, and then travels distally and blocks blood supply to the retina,” causing vision complications.

Understanding the potential mechanism for these complications informs preventive strategies, Dr. Beleznay emphasized.

If vision complications from fillers occur, they are likely to happen immediately, she said. There could be skin involvement or stroke-like features in addition to vision complications, so it is important to screen for these conditions as well if patients complain of vision loss.

Tips for prevention

Knowing the anatomy is the first step to maximize safe placement of fillers, Dr. Beleznay said. For example, the glabella is a high-risk location and includes the supraorbital and supratrochlear arteries, which start deep and become more superficial as they travel up the forehead.

When Dr. Beleznay injects in the glabella area, “I will do a true intradermal injection using tiny microdroplets, because that feels safest to me.” A video with additional details on surface anatomy and safer planes for injecting is available online to members of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery.

Other tips to reduce the risk of vascular complications include injecting slowly and with a minimal amount of pressure, Dr. Beleznay emphasized. Injecting in small increments, moving the needle tip between injections, and using a cannula also may help reduce risk.

Always ask and use caution if patients have had other recent surgical procedures, she added.

Vascular complications such as blindness can be devastating, but the overall risks remain low. It’s important that clinicians know their anatomy, educate patients, and have prepared treatment protocols in place in the event of serious complications, Dr. Beleznay noted.

Dr. Beleznay disclosed relationships as an investigator, speaker, and/or consultant with AbbVie, Actelion, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Bausch Health, Celgene, Cipher, Evolus, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal, Leo, Merz, Novartis, Procter & Gamble, Prollenium, Revance, Sandoz, Sanofi, Valeant, Vichy, and Zeltiq.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Most potential complications associated with filler and neuromodulator injections can be managed or prevented, and the right protocols can help in the rare cases of serious complications, Katie Beleznay, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a virtual presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

The number of reported cases of vascular complications in patients receiving fillers has increased in recent years, said Dr. Beleznay, who also treats patients in private practice in Vancouver. However, knowing the facial anatomy and recognizing that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach goes a long way in preventing and managing complications.

In terms of neuromodulators such as Botox, the upper face is the most common area for treatment, and potential complications include eyelid ptosis, brow ptosis, and the “Spock brow,” Dr. Beleznay noted. For example, patients won’t be able to engage elevator muscles, such as the frontalis, if too much neuromodulator is injected. But, a couple of units in the upper forehead can help make the effect look natural, soften the lines, without being too frozen.

To help avoid eyelid ptosis with neuromodulators, inject at least one centimeter above the supraorbital rim at the midpupillary line, Dr. Beleznay advised. “I will feel the muscle,” because some brows are drawn or microbladed on, she noted. Patients who develop eyelid ptosis can be treated with apraclonidine drops.

To avoid brow ptosis with neuromodulators, it is important to assess the anatomy at baseline, Dr. Beleznay said. Some patients like to be able to lift their brows, and too much Botox will prevent their doing so. In order to mitigate this, it is important to treat brow depressors to balance and provide lift, and staying above the first horizontal forehead rhytid when injecting can help reduce brow ptosis risk.

Remember when injecting the upper face there are several glabellar contraction patterns, so “be sure you are targeting the treatment for the muscle pulling pattern that you see,” she said.
 

Complications associated with fillers

When injecting fillers, there are rare complications, including blindness, that are worth acknowledging, said Dr. Beleznay, lead author of a study on global cases of blindness caused by fillers published in 2015, including 98 cases up to 2015, and another 48 cases in a study published in 2019.

The highest-risk areas for causing blindness with fillers are the glabella and the nose, but “anywhere you are injecting is at risk for this complication,” she commented.

Explaining the mechanism of action for blindness resulting from filler injections, she said: “When the tip of the needle gets into the vessel, if you put enough pressure on the plunger, the filler can travel retrograde in the vessel back into the ophthalmic artery system, and then travels distally and blocks blood supply to the retina,” causing vision complications.

Understanding the potential mechanism for these complications informs preventive strategies, Dr. Beleznay emphasized.

If vision complications from fillers occur, they are likely to happen immediately, she said. There could be skin involvement or stroke-like features in addition to vision complications, so it is important to screen for these conditions as well if patients complain of vision loss.

Tips for prevention

Knowing the anatomy is the first step to maximize safe placement of fillers, Dr. Beleznay said. For example, the glabella is a high-risk location and includes the supraorbital and supratrochlear arteries, which start deep and become more superficial as they travel up the forehead.

When Dr. Beleznay injects in the glabella area, “I will do a true intradermal injection using tiny microdroplets, because that feels safest to me.” A video with additional details on surface anatomy and safer planes for injecting is available online to members of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery.

Other tips to reduce the risk of vascular complications include injecting slowly and with a minimal amount of pressure, Dr. Beleznay emphasized. Injecting in small increments, moving the needle tip between injections, and using a cannula also may help reduce risk.

Always ask and use caution if patients have had other recent surgical procedures, she added.

Vascular complications such as blindness can be devastating, but the overall risks remain low. It’s important that clinicians know their anatomy, educate patients, and have prepared treatment protocols in place in the event of serious complications, Dr. Beleznay noted.

Dr. Beleznay disclosed relationships as an investigator, speaker, and/or consultant with AbbVie, Actelion, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Bausch Health, Celgene, Cipher, Evolus, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal, Leo, Merz, Novartis, Procter & Gamble, Prollenium, Revance, Sandoz, Sanofi, Valeant, Vichy, and Zeltiq.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Most potential complications associated with filler and neuromodulator injections can be managed or prevented, and the right protocols can help in the rare cases of serious complications, Katie Beleznay, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in a virtual presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

The number of reported cases of vascular complications in patients receiving fillers has increased in recent years, said Dr. Beleznay, who also treats patients in private practice in Vancouver. However, knowing the facial anatomy and recognizing that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach goes a long way in preventing and managing complications.

In terms of neuromodulators such as Botox, the upper face is the most common area for treatment, and potential complications include eyelid ptosis, brow ptosis, and the “Spock brow,” Dr. Beleznay noted. For example, patients won’t be able to engage elevator muscles, such as the frontalis, if too much neuromodulator is injected. But, a couple of units in the upper forehead can help make the effect look natural, soften the lines, without being too frozen.

To help avoid eyelid ptosis with neuromodulators, inject at least one centimeter above the supraorbital rim at the midpupillary line, Dr. Beleznay advised. “I will feel the muscle,” because some brows are drawn or microbladed on, she noted. Patients who develop eyelid ptosis can be treated with apraclonidine drops.

To avoid brow ptosis with neuromodulators, it is important to assess the anatomy at baseline, Dr. Beleznay said. Some patients like to be able to lift their brows, and too much Botox will prevent their doing so. In order to mitigate this, it is important to treat brow depressors to balance and provide lift, and staying above the first horizontal forehead rhytid when injecting can help reduce brow ptosis risk.

Remember when injecting the upper face there are several glabellar contraction patterns, so “be sure you are targeting the treatment for the muscle pulling pattern that you see,” she said.
 

Complications associated with fillers

When injecting fillers, there are rare complications, including blindness, that are worth acknowledging, said Dr. Beleznay, lead author of a study on global cases of blindness caused by fillers published in 2015, including 98 cases up to 2015, and another 48 cases in a study published in 2019.

The highest-risk areas for causing blindness with fillers are the glabella and the nose, but “anywhere you are injecting is at risk for this complication,” she commented.

Explaining the mechanism of action for blindness resulting from filler injections, she said: “When the tip of the needle gets into the vessel, if you put enough pressure on the plunger, the filler can travel retrograde in the vessel back into the ophthalmic artery system, and then travels distally and blocks blood supply to the retina,” causing vision complications.

Understanding the potential mechanism for these complications informs preventive strategies, Dr. Beleznay emphasized.

If vision complications from fillers occur, they are likely to happen immediately, she said. There could be skin involvement or stroke-like features in addition to vision complications, so it is important to screen for these conditions as well if patients complain of vision loss.

Tips for prevention

Knowing the anatomy is the first step to maximize safe placement of fillers, Dr. Beleznay said. For example, the glabella is a high-risk location and includes the supraorbital and supratrochlear arteries, which start deep and become more superficial as they travel up the forehead.

When Dr. Beleznay injects in the glabella area, “I will do a true intradermal injection using tiny microdroplets, because that feels safest to me.” A video with additional details on surface anatomy and safer planes for injecting is available online to members of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery.

Other tips to reduce the risk of vascular complications include injecting slowly and with a minimal amount of pressure, Dr. Beleznay emphasized. Injecting in small increments, moving the needle tip between injections, and using a cannula also may help reduce risk.

Always ask and use caution if patients have had other recent surgical procedures, she added.

Vascular complications such as blindness can be devastating, but the overall risks remain low. It’s important that clinicians know their anatomy, educate patients, and have prepared treatment protocols in place in the event of serious complications, Dr. Beleznay noted.

Dr. Beleznay disclosed relationships as an investigator, speaker, and/or consultant with AbbVie, Actelion, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Bausch Health, Celgene, Cipher, Evolus, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal, Leo, Merz, Novartis, Procter & Gamble, Prollenium, Revance, Sandoz, Sanofi, Valeant, Vichy, and Zeltiq.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

Big changes are coming in the use of oral apremilast, currently approved for moderate to severe psoriasis and plaque psoriasis in adults, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, predicted at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

“We’ll have a pediatric indication for apremilast in psoriasis down the line, and probably a mild to moderate indication for psoriasis, meaning we can use this drug in patients in whom we typically think about using only topical therapies. Keep on the lookout: I think the mild to moderate indication may be coming next year, and that’s going to really shake up the whole landscape of psoriasis therapy,” said Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and Central Connecticut Dermatology in Cromwell, Conn.
 

Mild or moderate psoriasis

Apremilast manufacturer Amgen has announced positive topline results from the phase 3 ADVANCE trial, a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, study of 595 patients with mild or moderate psoriasis as defined by an involved body surface area of 2%-15% and a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of 2-15. Participants were randomized to the approved dose of apremilast (Otezla) – 30 mg twice daily – or placebo for 16 weeks, followed by 16 weeks of open-label apremilast for all. The full study findings haven’t yet been published or presented at a medical conference, but Amgen announced that the results were positive for all primary and secondary endpoints, and the company plans to file a request with the Food and Drug Administration for an expanded indication for the oral agent.

Pediatric studies

A recently published phase 2, open-label, 1-year study of apremilast in 42 children and adolescents with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis demonstrated that weight-based dosing is the best approach in the pediatric population. The study, which serves as the template for coming phase 3 trials, showed that dosing apremilast at 20 mg twice daily in youths weighing not more than 35 kg and 30 mg twice daily in those who weighed more provided pharmacokinetic exposure similar to that achieved with apremilast at the standard adult dose of 30 mg twice daily. Most participants liked the taste of the tablet.

“My prediction is apremilast will have efficacy in children and teenagers comparable to what it has in adults, with a similar safety and adverse event profile,” Dr. Strober said.

Apremilast works by blocking phosphodiesterase type 4, thereby reducing cyclic AMP metabolism, with a resultant increase in cyclic AMP levels. Cyclic AMP is a regulator of inflammation. Boosting its level has the effect of decreasing tumor necrosis factor and other proinflammatory cytokines while increasing anti-inflammatory mediators, such as interleukin-10.

Dr. Strober characterized apremilast’s efficacy as “modest” by contemporary standards in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis, with week 16 PASI 75 rates of about 30% in randomized trials, compared with 5% in placebo-treated controls. He considers it a good option in patients with moderate disease who are needle phobic and in those averse to the inconvenience of laboratory monitoring. The drug is useful in treating psoriasis in especially challenging locations. Apremilast is specifically approved for scalp psoriasis, and Dr. Strober has anecdotally found it helpful in patients with palmoplantar psoriasis or genital psoriasis.

“Apremilast has tolerability issues: first and foremost diarrhea, nausea, and headache. Probably 15%-20% of patients have nausea or diarrhea ranging from mild to severe, and 1 in 20 have headache. You have to warn patients,” he said.

Roughly 1% of patients experience depressed mood. “I’ve seen it in a few patients. I definitely believe it’s real, so query patients about mood changes while taking apremilast,” the dermatologist advised.

One in 5 patients loses 5% of body weight during the first 6 months on apremilast, but there’s no additional weight loss thereafter. It’s wrong to characterize the oral agent as a weight-loss drug, though, since 80% of patients don’t lose weight, Dr. Strober noted.
 

Topical PDE-4 inhibitor shows promise

Separately at the Las Vegas meeting, Linda Stein Gold, MD, provided highlights of a phase 2b randomized trial of a topical cream formulation of an extremely potent PDE-4 inhibitor, roflumilast, in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. This molecule is a couple hundred times more effective at inhibiting the PDE-4 receptor than either oral apremilast or topical crisaborole (Eucrisa). And as a once-daily topical agent with very little systemic absorption, roflumilast cream sidesteps the tolerability issues that accompany apremilast.

“Roflumilast is currently available as an oral formulation for treatment of [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], so it has a fairly well-established safety profile,” noted Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

The 12-week, multicenter, phase 2b study sponsored by Arcutis Biotherapeutics included 331 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who were randomized to once-daily 0.3% roflumilast cream, 0.15% roflumilast cream, or vehicle. Three-quarters of participants had baseline moderate disease.

A week-8 Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, meaning clear skin or almost clear, plus at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline occurred in 32% of the high-dose roflumilast group, 25% of those on the 0.15% formulation, and 10% of controls. On the secondary endpoint of improvement in tough-to-treat intertriginous psoriasis, at week 12 an intertriginous IGA score of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-point improvement from baseline was seen in 86% of the 0.3% roflumilast cream group, 50% on low-dose therapy, and 29% of controls. Moreover, the clinical improvements in IGA and itch kicked in quickly, with significant separation from placebo by week 2, Dr. Stein Gold noted.

The phase 3 program is now recruiting participants.

Dr. Strober and Dr. Stein Gold reported receiving research funding from and serving as consultants to Amgen and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Big changes are coming in the use of oral apremilast, currently approved for moderate to severe psoriasis and plaque psoriasis in adults, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, predicted at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

“We’ll have a pediatric indication for apremilast in psoriasis down the line, and probably a mild to moderate indication for psoriasis, meaning we can use this drug in patients in whom we typically think about using only topical therapies. Keep on the lookout: I think the mild to moderate indication may be coming next year, and that’s going to really shake up the whole landscape of psoriasis therapy,” said Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and Central Connecticut Dermatology in Cromwell, Conn.
 

Mild or moderate psoriasis

Apremilast manufacturer Amgen has announced positive topline results from the phase 3 ADVANCE trial, a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, study of 595 patients with mild or moderate psoriasis as defined by an involved body surface area of 2%-15% and a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of 2-15. Participants were randomized to the approved dose of apremilast (Otezla) – 30 mg twice daily – or placebo for 16 weeks, followed by 16 weeks of open-label apremilast for all. The full study findings haven’t yet been published or presented at a medical conference, but Amgen announced that the results were positive for all primary and secondary endpoints, and the company plans to file a request with the Food and Drug Administration for an expanded indication for the oral agent.

Pediatric studies

A recently published phase 2, open-label, 1-year study of apremilast in 42 children and adolescents with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis demonstrated that weight-based dosing is the best approach in the pediatric population. The study, which serves as the template for coming phase 3 trials, showed that dosing apremilast at 20 mg twice daily in youths weighing not more than 35 kg and 30 mg twice daily in those who weighed more provided pharmacokinetic exposure similar to that achieved with apremilast at the standard adult dose of 30 mg twice daily. Most participants liked the taste of the tablet.

“My prediction is apremilast will have efficacy in children and teenagers comparable to what it has in adults, with a similar safety and adverse event profile,” Dr. Strober said.

Apremilast works by blocking phosphodiesterase type 4, thereby reducing cyclic AMP metabolism, with a resultant increase in cyclic AMP levels. Cyclic AMP is a regulator of inflammation. Boosting its level has the effect of decreasing tumor necrosis factor and other proinflammatory cytokines while increasing anti-inflammatory mediators, such as interleukin-10.

Dr. Strober characterized apremilast’s efficacy as “modest” by contemporary standards in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis, with week 16 PASI 75 rates of about 30% in randomized trials, compared with 5% in placebo-treated controls. He considers it a good option in patients with moderate disease who are needle phobic and in those averse to the inconvenience of laboratory monitoring. The drug is useful in treating psoriasis in especially challenging locations. Apremilast is specifically approved for scalp psoriasis, and Dr. Strober has anecdotally found it helpful in patients with palmoplantar psoriasis or genital psoriasis.

“Apremilast has tolerability issues: first and foremost diarrhea, nausea, and headache. Probably 15%-20% of patients have nausea or diarrhea ranging from mild to severe, and 1 in 20 have headache. You have to warn patients,” he said.

Roughly 1% of patients experience depressed mood. “I’ve seen it in a few patients. I definitely believe it’s real, so query patients about mood changes while taking apremilast,” the dermatologist advised.

One in 5 patients loses 5% of body weight during the first 6 months on apremilast, but there’s no additional weight loss thereafter. It’s wrong to characterize the oral agent as a weight-loss drug, though, since 80% of patients don’t lose weight, Dr. Strober noted.
 

Topical PDE-4 inhibitor shows promise

Separately at the Las Vegas meeting, Linda Stein Gold, MD, provided highlights of a phase 2b randomized trial of a topical cream formulation of an extremely potent PDE-4 inhibitor, roflumilast, in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. This molecule is a couple hundred times more effective at inhibiting the PDE-4 receptor than either oral apremilast or topical crisaborole (Eucrisa). And as a once-daily topical agent with very little systemic absorption, roflumilast cream sidesteps the tolerability issues that accompany apremilast.

“Roflumilast is currently available as an oral formulation for treatment of [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], so it has a fairly well-established safety profile,” noted Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

The 12-week, multicenter, phase 2b study sponsored by Arcutis Biotherapeutics included 331 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who were randomized to once-daily 0.3% roflumilast cream, 0.15% roflumilast cream, or vehicle. Three-quarters of participants had baseline moderate disease.

A week-8 Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, meaning clear skin or almost clear, plus at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline occurred in 32% of the high-dose roflumilast group, 25% of those on the 0.15% formulation, and 10% of controls. On the secondary endpoint of improvement in tough-to-treat intertriginous psoriasis, at week 12 an intertriginous IGA score of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-point improvement from baseline was seen in 86% of the 0.3% roflumilast cream group, 50% on low-dose therapy, and 29% of controls. Moreover, the clinical improvements in IGA and itch kicked in quickly, with significant separation from placebo by week 2, Dr. Stein Gold noted.

The phase 3 program is now recruiting participants.

Dr. Strober and Dr. Stein Gold reported receiving research funding from and serving as consultants to Amgen and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Big changes are coming in the use of oral apremilast, currently approved for moderate to severe psoriasis and plaque psoriasis in adults, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, predicted at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

“We’ll have a pediatric indication for apremilast in psoriasis down the line, and probably a mild to moderate indication for psoriasis, meaning we can use this drug in patients in whom we typically think about using only topical therapies. Keep on the lookout: I think the mild to moderate indication may be coming next year, and that’s going to really shake up the whole landscape of psoriasis therapy,” said Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and Central Connecticut Dermatology in Cromwell, Conn.
 

Mild or moderate psoriasis

Apremilast manufacturer Amgen has announced positive topline results from the phase 3 ADVANCE trial, a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, study of 595 patients with mild or moderate psoriasis as defined by an involved body surface area of 2%-15% and a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of 2-15. Participants were randomized to the approved dose of apremilast (Otezla) – 30 mg twice daily – or placebo for 16 weeks, followed by 16 weeks of open-label apremilast for all. The full study findings haven’t yet been published or presented at a medical conference, but Amgen announced that the results were positive for all primary and secondary endpoints, and the company plans to file a request with the Food and Drug Administration for an expanded indication for the oral agent.

Pediatric studies

A recently published phase 2, open-label, 1-year study of apremilast in 42 children and adolescents with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis demonstrated that weight-based dosing is the best approach in the pediatric population. The study, which serves as the template for coming phase 3 trials, showed that dosing apremilast at 20 mg twice daily in youths weighing not more than 35 kg and 30 mg twice daily in those who weighed more provided pharmacokinetic exposure similar to that achieved with apremilast at the standard adult dose of 30 mg twice daily. Most participants liked the taste of the tablet.

“My prediction is apremilast will have efficacy in children and teenagers comparable to what it has in adults, with a similar safety and adverse event profile,” Dr. Strober said.

Apremilast works by blocking phosphodiesterase type 4, thereby reducing cyclic AMP metabolism, with a resultant increase in cyclic AMP levels. Cyclic AMP is a regulator of inflammation. Boosting its level has the effect of decreasing tumor necrosis factor and other proinflammatory cytokines while increasing anti-inflammatory mediators, such as interleukin-10.

Dr. Strober characterized apremilast’s efficacy as “modest” by contemporary standards in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis, with week 16 PASI 75 rates of about 30% in randomized trials, compared with 5% in placebo-treated controls. He considers it a good option in patients with moderate disease who are needle phobic and in those averse to the inconvenience of laboratory monitoring. The drug is useful in treating psoriasis in especially challenging locations. Apremilast is specifically approved for scalp psoriasis, and Dr. Strober has anecdotally found it helpful in patients with palmoplantar psoriasis or genital psoriasis.

“Apremilast has tolerability issues: first and foremost diarrhea, nausea, and headache. Probably 15%-20% of patients have nausea or diarrhea ranging from mild to severe, and 1 in 20 have headache. You have to warn patients,” he said.

Roughly 1% of patients experience depressed mood. “I’ve seen it in a few patients. I definitely believe it’s real, so query patients about mood changes while taking apremilast,” the dermatologist advised.

One in 5 patients loses 5% of body weight during the first 6 months on apremilast, but there’s no additional weight loss thereafter. It’s wrong to characterize the oral agent as a weight-loss drug, though, since 80% of patients don’t lose weight, Dr. Strober noted.
 

Topical PDE-4 inhibitor shows promise

Separately at the Las Vegas meeting, Linda Stein Gold, MD, provided highlights of a phase 2b randomized trial of a topical cream formulation of an extremely potent PDE-4 inhibitor, roflumilast, in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. This molecule is a couple hundred times more effective at inhibiting the PDE-4 receptor than either oral apremilast or topical crisaborole (Eucrisa). And as a once-daily topical agent with very little systemic absorption, roflumilast cream sidesteps the tolerability issues that accompany apremilast.

“Roflumilast is currently available as an oral formulation for treatment of [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], so it has a fairly well-established safety profile,” noted Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

The 12-week, multicenter, phase 2b study sponsored by Arcutis Biotherapeutics included 331 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who were randomized to once-daily 0.3% roflumilast cream, 0.15% roflumilast cream, or vehicle. Three-quarters of participants had baseline moderate disease.

A week-8 Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, meaning clear skin or almost clear, plus at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline occurred in 32% of the high-dose roflumilast group, 25% of those on the 0.15% formulation, and 10% of controls. On the secondary endpoint of improvement in tough-to-treat intertriginous psoriasis, at week 12 an intertriginous IGA score of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-point improvement from baseline was seen in 86% of the 0.3% roflumilast cream group, 50% on low-dose therapy, and 29% of controls. Moreover, the clinical improvements in IGA and itch kicked in quickly, with significant separation from placebo by week 2, Dr. Stein Gold noted.

The phase 3 program is now recruiting participants.

Dr. Strober and Dr. Stein Gold reported receiving research funding from and serving as consultants to Amgen and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase the risk of developing or dying from COVID-19, according to a pair of studies presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

Cytokine storm plays a major role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. This has generated concern about using ICIs during the pandemic, given their immunostimulatory activity and the risk of immune-related adverse effects.

However, two retrospective studies suggest ICIs do not increase the risk of developing COVID-19 or dying from the disease.

In a study of 1,545 cancer patients prescribed ICIs and 20,418 matched controls, the incidence of COVID-19 was 1.4% with ICI therapy and 1.0% without it (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .15).

In a case-control study of 50 patients with cancer and COVID-19, 28% of patients who had received ICIs died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of patients who had not received ICIs (OR, 0.36; P = .23).

Vartan Pahalyants and Kevin Tyan, both students in Harvard University’s joint MD/MBA program in Boston, presented these studies at the meeting.
 

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

Mr. Pahalyants and colleagues analyzed data from cancer patients treated in the Mass General Brigham health care system. The researchers compared 1,545 patients with at least one ICI prescription between July 1, 2019, and Feb. 29, 2020, with 20,418 matched cancer patients not prescribed ICIs. The team assessed COVID-19 incidence based on positive test results through June 19, 2020, from public health data.

The incidence of COVID-19 was low in both groups – 1.4% in the ICI group and 1.0% in the matched control group (P = .16). Among COVID-19–positive patients, the all-cause death rate was 40.9% in the ICI group and 28.6% in the control group (P = .23).

In multivariate analysis, patients prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for COVID-19 relative to peers not prescribed ICIs (OR, 1.38; P = .15). However, risk was significantly increased for female patients (OR, 1.74; P < .001), those living in a town or county with higher COVID-19 positivity rate (OR, 1.59; P < .001), and those with severe comorbidity (vs. mild or moderate; OR, 9.77; P = .02).

Among COVID-19–positive patients, those prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for all-cause mortality (OR, 1.60; P = .71), but male sex and lower income were associated with an increased risk of death.

“We did not identify an increased risk of [COVID-19] diagnosis among patients prescribed ICIs compared to the controls,” Mr. Pahalyants said. “This information may assist patients and their providers in decision-making around continuation of therapy during this protracted pandemic. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine potential behavioral and testing factors that may have affected COVID-19 diagnosis susceptibility among patients included in the study.”

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

For their study, Mr. Tyan and colleagues identified 25 cancer patients who had received ICIs in the year before a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 20, 2020, and June 3, 2020, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham network. The researchers then matched each patient with a cancer patient having a COVID-19 diagnosis who had not received ICIs during the preceding year.

Overall, 28% of patients who had received ICIs before their COVID-19 diagnosis died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of those who had not received ICIs.

In multivariate analysis, ICI therapy did not predict COVID-19 mortality (OR, 0.36; P = .23). However, the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age (OR, 1.14; P = .01) and for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 12.26; P = .01), and risk was lower for statin users (OR, 0.08; P = .02). Findings were similar in an analysis restricted to hospitalized patients in the ICI group and their matched controls.

Two ICI-treated patients with COVID-19 had persistent immune-related adverse events (hypophysitis in both cases), and one ICI-treated patient developed a new immune-related adverse event (hypothyroidism).

At COVID-19 presentation, relative to counterparts who had not received ICIs, patients who had received ICIs had higher platelet counts (P = .017) and higher D-dimer levels (P = .037). In the context of similar levels of other biomarkers, this finding is “of unclear significance, as all deaths in the cohort were due to respiratory failure as opposed to hypercoagulability,” Mr. Tyan said.

The patients treated with ICIs were more likely to die from COVID-19 if they had elevated troponin levels (P = .01), whereas no such association was seen for those not treated with ICIs.

“We found that ICI therapy is not associated with greater risk for COVID-19 mortality. Our period of follow-up was relatively short, but we did not observe a high incidence of new or persistent immune-related adverse events among our patients taking ICIs,” Mr. Tyan said.

“While larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate long-term safety in the context of COVID-19 infection, our findings support the continuation of ICI therapy during the pandemic as it does not appear to worsen outcomes for cancer patients,” he concluded.
 

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

“The question of susceptibility to COVID-19 has been unclear as ICIs do not necessarily cause immunosuppression but certainly result in modulation of a patient’s immune system,” said Deborah Doroshow, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Tisch Cancer Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She was not involved in these studies.

“The findings of the study by Pahalyants and colleagues, which used a very large sample size, appear to convincingly demonstrate that ICI receipt is not associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19,” Dr. Doroshow said in an interview.

SOURCE: Pahalyants V et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 826. Tyan K et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 481.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase the risk of developing or dying from COVID-19, according to a pair of studies presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

Cytokine storm plays a major role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. This has generated concern about using ICIs during the pandemic, given their immunostimulatory activity and the risk of immune-related adverse effects.

However, two retrospective studies suggest ICIs do not increase the risk of developing COVID-19 or dying from the disease.

In a study of 1,545 cancer patients prescribed ICIs and 20,418 matched controls, the incidence of COVID-19 was 1.4% with ICI therapy and 1.0% without it (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .15).

In a case-control study of 50 patients with cancer and COVID-19, 28% of patients who had received ICIs died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of patients who had not received ICIs (OR, 0.36; P = .23).

Vartan Pahalyants and Kevin Tyan, both students in Harvard University’s joint MD/MBA program in Boston, presented these studies at the meeting.
 

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

Mr. Pahalyants and colleagues analyzed data from cancer patients treated in the Mass General Brigham health care system. The researchers compared 1,545 patients with at least one ICI prescription between July 1, 2019, and Feb. 29, 2020, with 20,418 matched cancer patients not prescribed ICIs. The team assessed COVID-19 incidence based on positive test results through June 19, 2020, from public health data.

The incidence of COVID-19 was low in both groups – 1.4% in the ICI group and 1.0% in the matched control group (P = .16). Among COVID-19–positive patients, the all-cause death rate was 40.9% in the ICI group and 28.6% in the control group (P = .23).

In multivariate analysis, patients prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for COVID-19 relative to peers not prescribed ICIs (OR, 1.38; P = .15). However, risk was significantly increased for female patients (OR, 1.74; P < .001), those living in a town or county with higher COVID-19 positivity rate (OR, 1.59; P < .001), and those with severe comorbidity (vs. mild or moderate; OR, 9.77; P = .02).

Among COVID-19–positive patients, those prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for all-cause mortality (OR, 1.60; P = .71), but male sex and lower income were associated with an increased risk of death.

“We did not identify an increased risk of [COVID-19] diagnosis among patients prescribed ICIs compared to the controls,” Mr. Pahalyants said. “This information may assist patients and their providers in decision-making around continuation of therapy during this protracted pandemic. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine potential behavioral and testing factors that may have affected COVID-19 diagnosis susceptibility among patients included in the study.”

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

For their study, Mr. Tyan and colleagues identified 25 cancer patients who had received ICIs in the year before a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 20, 2020, and June 3, 2020, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham network. The researchers then matched each patient with a cancer patient having a COVID-19 diagnosis who had not received ICIs during the preceding year.

Overall, 28% of patients who had received ICIs before their COVID-19 diagnosis died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of those who had not received ICIs.

In multivariate analysis, ICI therapy did not predict COVID-19 mortality (OR, 0.36; P = .23). However, the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age (OR, 1.14; P = .01) and for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 12.26; P = .01), and risk was lower for statin users (OR, 0.08; P = .02). Findings were similar in an analysis restricted to hospitalized patients in the ICI group and their matched controls.

Two ICI-treated patients with COVID-19 had persistent immune-related adverse events (hypophysitis in both cases), and one ICI-treated patient developed a new immune-related adverse event (hypothyroidism).

At COVID-19 presentation, relative to counterparts who had not received ICIs, patients who had received ICIs had higher platelet counts (P = .017) and higher D-dimer levels (P = .037). In the context of similar levels of other biomarkers, this finding is “of unclear significance, as all deaths in the cohort were due to respiratory failure as opposed to hypercoagulability,” Mr. Tyan said.

The patients treated with ICIs were more likely to die from COVID-19 if they had elevated troponin levels (P = .01), whereas no such association was seen for those not treated with ICIs.

“We found that ICI therapy is not associated with greater risk for COVID-19 mortality. Our period of follow-up was relatively short, but we did not observe a high incidence of new or persistent immune-related adverse events among our patients taking ICIs,” Mr. Tyan said.

“While larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate long-term safety in the context of COVID-19 infection, our findings support the continuation of ICI therapy during the pandemic as it does not appear to worsen outcomes for cancer patients,” he concluded.
 

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

“The question of susceptibility to COVID-19 has been unclear as ICIs do not necessarily cause immunosuppression but certainly result in modulation of a patient’s immune system,” said Deborah Doroshow, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Tisch Cancer Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She was not involved in these studies.

“The findings of the study by Pahalyants and colleagues, which used a very large sample size, appear to convincingly demonstrate that ICI receipt is not associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19,” Dr. Doroshow said in an interview.

SOURCE: Pahalyants V et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 826. Tyan K et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 481.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase the risk of developing or dying from COVID-19, according to a pair of studies presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

Cytokine storm plays a major role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, according to research published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. This has generated concern about using ICIs during the pandemic, given their immunostimulatory activity and the risk of immune-related adverse effects.

However, two retrospective studies suggest ICIs do not increase the risk of developing COVID-19 or dying from the disease.

In a study of 1,545 cancer patients prescribed ICIs and 20,418 matched controls, the incidence of COVID-19 was 1.4% with ICI therapy and 1.0% without it (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .15).

In a case-control study of 50 patients with cancer and COVID-19, 28% of patients who had received ICIs died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of patients who had not received ICIs (OR, 0.36; P = .23).

Vartan Pahalyants and Kevin Tyan, both students in Harvard University’s joint MD/MBA program in Boston, presented these studies at the meeting.
 

COVID-19 incidence with ICIs

Mr. Pahalyants and colleagues analyzed data from cancer patients treated in the Mass General Brigham health care system. The researchers compared 1,545 patients with at least one ICI prescription between July 1, 2019, and Feb. 29, 2020, with 20,418 matched cancer patients not prescribed ICIs. The team assessed COVID-19 incidence based on positive test results through June 19, 2020, from public health data.

The incidence of COVID-19 was low in both groups – 1.4% in the ICI group and 1.0% in the matched control group (P = .16). Among COVID-19–positive patients, the all-cause death rate was 40.9% in the ICI group and 28.6% in the control group (P = .23).

In multivariate analysis, patients prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for COVID-19 relative to peers not prescribed ICIs (OR, 1.38; P = .15). However, risk was significantly increased for female patients (OR, 1.74; P < .001), those living in a town or county with higher COVID-19 positivity rate (OR, 1.59; P < .001), and those with severe comorbidity (vs. mild or moderate; OR, 9.77; P = .02).

Among COVID-19–positive patients, those prescribed ICIs did not have a significantly elevated risk for all-cause mortality (OR, 1.60; P = .71), but male sex and lower income were associated with an increased risk of death.

“We did not identify an increased risk of [COVID-19] diagnosis among patients prescribed ICIs compared to the controls,” Mr. Pahalyants said. “This information may assist patients and their providers in decision-making around continuation of therapy during this protracted pandemic. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine potential behavioral and testing factors that may have affected COVID-19 diagnosis susceptibility among patients included in the study.”

COVID-19 mortality with ICIs

For their study, Mr. Tyan and colleagues identified 25 cancer patients who had received ICIs in the year before a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 20, 2020, and June 3, 2020, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Mass General Brigham network. The researchers then matched each patient with a cancer patient having a COVID-19 diagnosis who had not received ICIs during the preceding year.

Overall, 28% of patients who had received ICIs before their COVID-19 diagnosis died from COVID-19, compared with 36% of those who had not received ICIs.

In multivariate analysis, ICI therapy did not predict COVID-19 mortality (OR, 0.36; P = .23). However, the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age (OR, 1.14; P = .01) and for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 12.26; P = .01), and risk was lower for statin users (OR, 0.08; P = .02). Findings were similar in an analysis restricted to hospitalized patients in the ICI group and their matched controls.

Two ICI-treated patients with COVID-19 had persistent immune-related adverse events (hypophysitis in both cases), and one ICI-treated patient developed a new immune-related adverse event (hypothyroidism).

At COVID-19 presentation, relative to counterparts who had not received ICIs, patients who had received ICIs had higher platelet counts (P = .017) and higher D-dimer levels (P = .037). In the context of similar levels of other biomarkers, this finding is “of unclear significance, as all deaths in the cohort were due to respiratory failure as opposed to hypercoagulability,” Mr. Tyan said.

The patients treated with ICIs were more likely to die from COVID-19 if they had elevated troponin levels (P = .01), whereas no such association was seen for those not treated with ICIs.

“We found that ICI therapy is not associated with greater risk for COVID-19 mortality. Our period of follow-up was relatively short, but we did not observe a high incidence of new or persistent immune-related adverse events among our patients taking ICIs,” Mr. Tyan said.

“While larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate long-term safety in the context of COVID-19 infection, our findings support the continuation of ICI therapy during the pandemic as it does not appear to worsen outcomes for cancer patients,” he concluded.
 

ICI therapy can continue, with precautions

“The question of susceptibility to COVID-19 has been unclear as ICIs do not necessarily cause immunosuppression but certainly result in modulation of a patient’s immune system,” said Deborah Doroshow, MD, PhD, assistant professor at the Tisch Cancer Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She was not involved in these studies.

“The findings of the study by Pahalyants and colleagues, which used a very large sample size, appear to convincingly demonstrate that ICI receipt is not associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19,” Dr. Doroshow said in an interview.

SOURCE: Pahalyants V et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 826. Tyan K et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 481.

Patients self-identified as non-White are far more likely to express a preference for dermatologic care from a physician of their own race or ethnicity, according to a patient survey.

In the survey, 42% of self-identified Black patients and 44% of self-identified Hispanic patients assigned some level of importance to the race or ethnicity of their dermatologist. Of patients self-identified as White, the figure was 2%, which was significantly lower (P less than .001).

Responses to the survey indicated that there is concern among non-White patients that White physicians are not fully sensitive to the clinical issues presented by their skin type. For example, 22% of Hispanic patients and 21% of Black patients agreed that a race-concordant physician would be better trained to treat their skin.

The results of the survey were recently published in a Research Letter in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

When patients were asked to agree or disagree with the statement that non-White patients receive the same quality of care as White patients, about a third disagreed, “but about half said they were unsure, which I interpret basically as a negative answer,” reported the lead author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington.

“These data are a call to action. Certainly, we need to diversify our workforce to mirror the overall population, but we can also do more to improve training for dermatologic diseases across skin types,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.

“Ensuring all skin types are represented in all dermatologic education, from resident book clubs to the national stage is but one step to making dermatology more inclusive and prepared to care for all patients,” he added.

Ninety-two patients receiving dermatology care at Dr. Friedman’s institution completed the survey. Fifty identified themselves as White, nine as Hispanic, and 33 as Black. Allowing patients to self-identify race was an important feature of this survey, according to Dr. Friedman.

“Something I really struggle with is terminology. Are race and ethnicity the appropriate terms when discussing different skin types and tones? It is so easy to misuse even validated tools. The Fitzpatrick Scale, for example, requires patients to relay how easily they burn, but reveals nothing about how patients refer to their skin tone,” Dr. Friedman explained. “We need to reset how we characterize and categorize skin types.”

Among those who assigned at least some importance to having a dermatologist of the same race or ethnicity, the most common reason was that such physicians “are better able to listen and relate to me.” Thirty percent of Black patients and 22% of Hispanic patients agreed with this statement. The perception that such physicians are better trained to treat non-White skin was the next most common reason.

The results of the survey emphasize the importance of ensuring that there is comprehensive training in managing all skin types and that physicians receive rigorous implicit bias and cultural sensitivity training in order to win patient trust, according to Dr. Friedman. He suggested that the perception that White physicians might not provide optimal care to non-White patients by study participants “has some validity. Structural racism in medicine is well-documented, and dermatologists have already begun to combat this on several fronts.”

In fact, the process of conducting and analyzing data from this survey proved to be its own lesson in sociocultural sensitivity, he said.

After a draft completed peer review and was accepted for publication, Dr. Friedman was confronted with numerous criticisms of the language that was used. In particular, one of his former residents, Misty Eleryan, MD, who is now a Mohs Fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, was instrumental in pointing out problems. Ultimately, he withdrew the paper to rephrase the findings.

“It was not until then that I also learned that there is a JAAD Sensitivity Workgroup, which was very helpful in identifying issues we had overlooked,” Dr. Friedman said. For example, he had used the term “minorities” for non-White populations, which is not only inaccurate in many situations but has a pejorative undertone.

“It is important to recognize that the impact is more important than the intention,” said Dr. Friedman, who reported that he learned a lot in this process.

It is the need for this type of augmented sensitivity that the survey underscores, he added. He called for cultural sensitivity to be part of medical training to undo unrecognized bias, and said, “We need to understand how our patients perceive us.”

SOURCE: Friedman A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Sep 16;S0190-9622(20)32620-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.032.

Patients self-identified as non-White are far more likely to express a preference for dermatologic care from a physician of their own race or ethnicity, according to a patient survey.

In the survey, 42% of self-identified Black patients and 44% of self-identified Hispanic patients assigned some level of importance to the race or ethnicity of their dermatologist. Of patients self-identified as White, the figure was 2%, which was significantly lower (P less than .001).

Responses to the survey indicated that there is concern among non-White patients that White physicians are not fully sensitive to the clinical issues presented by their skin type. For example, 22% of Hispanic patients and 21% of Black patients agreed that a race-concordant physician would be better trained to treat their skin.

The results of the survey were recently published in a Research Letter in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

When patients were asked to agree or disagree with the statement that non-White patients receive the same quality of care as White patients, about a third disagreed, “but about half said they were unsure, which I interpret basically as a negative answer,” reported the lead author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington.

“These data are a call to action. Certainly, we need to diversify our workforce to mirror the overall population, but we can also do more to improve training for dermatologic diseases across skin types,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.

“Ensuring all skin types are represented in all dermatologic education, from resident book clubs to the national stage is but one step to making dermatology more inclusive and prepared to care for all patients,” he added.

Ninety-two patients receiving dermatology care at Dr. Friedman’s institution completed the survey. Fifty identified themselves as White, nine as Hispanic, and 33 as Black. Allowing patients to self-identify race was an important feature of this survey, according to Dr. Friedman.

“Something I really struggle with is terminology. Are race and ethnicity the appropriate terms when discussing different skin types and tones? It is so easy to misuse even validated tools. The Fitzpatrick Scale, for example, requires patients to relay how easily they burn, but reveals nothing about how patients refer to their skin tone,” Dr. Friedman explained. “We need to reset how we characterize and categorize skin types.”

Among those who assigned at least some importance to having a dermatologist of the same race or ethnicity, the most common reason was that such physicians “are better able to listen and relate to me.” Thirty percent of Black patients and 22% of Hispanic patients agreed with this statement. The perception that such physicians are better trained to treat non-White skin was the next most common reason.

The results of the survey emphasize the importance of ensuring that there is comprehensive training in managing all skin types and that physicians receive rigorous implicit bias and cultural sensitivity training in order to win patient trust, according to Dr. Friedman. He suggested that the perception that White physicians might not provide optimal care to non-White patients by study participants “has some validity. Structural racism in medicine is well-documented, and dermatologists have already begun to combat this on several fronts.”

In fact, the process of conducting and analyzing data from this survey proved to be its own lesson in sociocultural sensitivity, he said.

After a draft completed peer review and was accepted for publication, Dr. Friedman was confronted with numerous criticisms of the language that was used. In particular, one of his former residents, Misty Eleryan, MD, who is now a Mohs Fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, was instrumental in pointing out problems. Ultimately, he withdrew the paper to rephrase the findings.

“It was not until then that I also learned that there is a JAAD Sensitivity Workgroup, which was very helpful in identifying issues we had overlooked,” Dr. Friedman said. For example, he had used the term “minorities” for non-White populations, which is not only inaccurate in many situations but has a pejorative undertone.

“It is important to recognize that the impact is more important than the intention,” said Dr. Friedman, who reported that he learned a lot in this process.

It is the need for this type of augmented sensitivity that the survey underscores, he added. He called for cultural sensitivity to be part of medical training to undo unrecognized bias, and said, “We need to understand how our patients perceive us.”

SOURCE: Friedman A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Sep 16;S0190-9622(20)32620-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.032.

Patients self-identified as non-White are far more likely to express a preference for dermatologic care from a physician of their own race or ethnicity, according to a patient survey.

In the survey, 42% of self-identified Black patients and 44% of self-identified Hispanic patients assigned some level of importance to the race or ethnicity of their dermatologist. Of patients self-identified as White, the figure was 2%, which was significantly lower (P less than .001).

Responses to the survey indicated that there is concern among non-White patients that White physicians are not fully sensitive to the clinical issues presented by their skin type. For example, 22% of Hispanic patients and 21% of Black patients agreed that a race-concordant physician would be better trained to treat their skin.

The results of the survey were recently published in a Research Letter in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

When patients were asked to agree or disagree with the statement that non-White patients receive the same quality of care as White patients, about a third disagreed, “but about half said they were unsure, which I interpret basically as a negative answer,” reported the lead author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and interim chair of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington.

“These data are a call to action. Certainly, we need to diversify our workforce to mirror the overall population, but we can also do more to improve training for dermatologic diseases across skin types,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.

“Ensuring all skin types are represented in all dermatologic education, from resident book clubs to the national stage is but one step to making dermatology more inclusive and prepared to care for all patients,” he added.

Ninety-two patients receiving dermatology care at Dr. Friedman’s institution completed the survey. Fifty identified themselves as White, nine as Hispanic, and 33 as Black. Allowing patients to self-identify race was an important feature of this survey, according to Dr. Friedman.

“Something I really struggle with is terminology. Are race and ethnicity the appropriate terms when discussing different skin types and tones? It is so easy to misuse even validated tools. The Fitzpatrick Scale, for example, requires patients to relay how easily they burn, but reveals nothing about how patients refer to their skin tone,” Dr. Friedman explained. “We need to reset how we characterize and categorize skin types.”

Among those who assigned at least some importance to having a dermatologist of the same race or ethnicity, the most common reason was that such physicians “are better able to listen and relate to me.” Thirty percent of Black patients and 22% of Hispanic patients agreed with this statement. The perception that such physicians are better trained to treat non-White skin was the next most common reason.

The results of the survey emphasize the importance of ensuring that there is comprehensive training in managing all skin types and that physicians receive rigorous implicit bias and cultural sensitivity training in order to win patient trust, according to Dr. Friedman. He suggested that the perception that White physicians might not provide optimal care to non-White patients by study participants “has some validity. Structural racism in medicine is well-documented, and dermatologists have already begun to combat this on several fronts.”

In fact, the process of conducting and analyzing data from this survey proved to be its own lesson in sociocultural sensitivity, he said.

After a draft completed peer review and was accepted for publication, Dr. Friedman was confronted with numerous criticisms of the language that was used. In particular, one of his former residents, Misty Eleryan, MD, who is now a Mohs Fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, was instrumental in pointing out problems. Ultimately, he withdrew the paper to rephrase the findings.

“It was not until then that I also learned that there is a JAAD Sensitivity Workgroup, which was very helpful in identifying issues we had overlooked,” Dr. Friedman said. For example, he had used the term “minorities” for non-White populations, which is not only inaccurate in many situations but has a pejorative undertone.

“It is important to recognize that the impact is more important than the intention,” said Dr. Friedman, who reported that he learned a lot in this process.

It is the need for this type of augmented sensitivity that the survey underscores, he added. He called for cultural sensitivity to be part of medical training to undo unrecognized bias, and said, “We need to understand how our patients perceive us.”

SOURCE: Friedman A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Sep 16;S0190-9622(20)32620-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.032.