Dermatology News

Most patients who present to a dermatologist with a keloid say they want it gone “by whatever means possible, and yesterday,” although few understand what this process entails, according to Hilary E. Baldwin, MD, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

A key point to keep in mind about keloids is that, while they result from trauma, however slight, trauma alone does not cause them, Dr. Baldwin said in a presentation at the virtual MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

In general, people with darker skin form keloids more easily and consistently than those with lighter skin, but keloids in people with darker skin are often easier to treat, Dr. Baldwin added. Also worth noting is the fact that earlobe keloids recur less frequently, she said.

Most patients with keloids are not surgical candidates, and they need convincing to pursue alternative options, Dr. Baldwin said.

However, successful management of keloids starts with sorting out what the patient wants. Some want “eradication with normal skin,” which is not realistic, versus simply flattening, lightening, or eradication of the keloid and leaving a scar, she noted. “That skin is never going to look normal,” she said. “Very often, they don’t need the whole thing gone, they just want to be better, and not itch or cause them to think about it all the time.”

Quality clinical research on the management of keloids is limited, Dr. Baldwin continued. “If you are holding out for a good randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study with a healthy ‘N,’ adequate follow-up rational conclusions, don’t hold your breath,” she said. The few literature reviews on keloids in recent decades concluded that modalities used to treat keloids are based on anecdotal evidence rather than rigorous research, she noted.
 

Size (and shape) matters

The decision to cut a keloid depends on several factors, including lesion size, shape, age, and location, but especially patient commitment to follow up and postsurgery care, said Dr. Baldwin.

She noted that larger keloids are no more difficult to remove than smaller ones, and patients tend to be more satisfied with the outcome with larger keloids. In terms of shape, pedunculated lesions are most amenable to surgery because of their small footprint. “Often the base does not contain keloidal tissue, and the patient gets the maximum benefit for the least risk,” she said. In addition, the residue from the removal of large keloids is often more acceptable.

Options for adjunctive therapy when excising keloids include corticosteroids, radiation, interferon, pressure dressings, dextran hydrogel scaffolding, and possibly botulinum toxin A, Dr. Baldwin said.
 

Adjunctive treatment alternatives

Intralesional corticosteroids can prevent the recurrence of keloids, and Dr. Baldwin recommends a 40 mg/cc injection into the base and walls of the excision site immediately postop, with repeat injections every 2 weeks for 2 months regardless of the patient’s clinical appearance. However, appearance determines the dose and concentration during 6 months of monthly follow-up, she said.

Radiation therapy, while not an effective monotherapy for keloids, can be used as an adjunct. A short radiation treatment plan may improve compliance, and no local malignancies linked to radiation therapy for keloids have been reported, she said. Dr. Baldwin also shared details of using an in-office superficial radiation therapy with the SRT-100 device, which she said has shown some ability to reduce recurrence of keloids.

Interferon, which can reduce production of collagen and increase collagenase can be used in an amount of 1.5 million units per linear cm around the base and walls of a keloid excision (maximum is 5 million units a day). Be aware that patients can develop flulike symptoms within a day or so, and warn patients to take it easy and monitor for symptoms, she said.

Studies of imiquimod for keloid recurrence have yielded mixed results, and a 2020 literature review concluded that it is not recommended as a treatment option for keloids, said Dr. Baldwin. Pressure dressings also have not shown effectiveness on existing lesions.

Botulinum toxin A has been studied as a way to prevent hypertrophic scars and keloids and potentially for preventing recurrence by injecting at the wound edges, she said. A meta-analysis showed that botulinum toxin was superior to corticosteroids for treating keloids, but “there were a lot of problems with the studies,” she said.

One other option for postexcision keloid treatment is dextran hydrogel scaffolding, which involves a triple-stranded collagen denatured by heat, with the addition of dextran to form a scaffold for fibroblasts, Dr. Baldwin said. This product, when injected prior to the final closure of surgical excision of keloids, may improve outcomes in certain areas, such as the earlobe, she said.

Dr. Baldwin concluded with comments about preventing other keloids from getting out of hand, which is extraordinarily challenging. However, treatment with dupilumab might provide an answer, although data are limited and more research is needed. She cited a case study of a male patient who had severe atopic dermatitis, with two keloids that improved after 7 months on dupilumab. The Th2 cytokines interleukin (IL)–4 and IL-13 have been implicated as key mediators in the pathogenesis of fibroproliferative disorders, which may respond to dupilumab, which targets Th2, she noted.

Dr. Baldwin had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Most patients who present to a dermatologist with a keloid say they want it gone “by whatever means possible, and yesterday,” although few understand what this process entails, according to Hilary E. Baldwin, MD, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

A key point to keep in mind about keloids is that, while they result from trauma, however slight, trauma alone does not cause them, Dr. Baldwin said in a presentation at the virtual MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

In general, people with darker skin form keloids more easily and consistently than those with lighter skin, but keloids in people with darker skin are often easier to treat, Dr. Baldwin added. Also worth noting is the fact that earlobe keloids recur less frequently, she said.

Most patients with keloids are not surgical candidates, and they need convincing to pursue alternative options, Dr. Baldwin said.

However, successful management of keloids starts with sorting out what the patient wants. Some want “eradication with normal skin,” which is not realistic, versus simply flattening, lightening, or eradication of the keloid and leaving a scar, she noted. “That skin is never going to look normal,” she said. “Very often, they don’t need the whole thing gone, they just want to be better, and not itch or cause them to think about it all the time.”

Quality clinical research on the management of keloids is limited, Dr. Baldwin continued. “If you are holding out for a good randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study with a healthy ‘N,’ adequate follow-up rational conclusions, don’t hold your breath,” she said. The few literature reviews on keloids in recent decades concluded that modalities used to treat keloids are based on anecdotal evidence rather than rigorous research, she noted.
 

Size (and shape) matters

The decision to cut a keloid depends on several factors, including lesion size, shape, age, and location, but especially patient commitment to follow up and postsurgery care, said Dr. Baldwin.

She noted that larger keloids are no more difficult to remove than smaller ones, and patients tend to be more satisfied with the outcome with larger keloids. In terms of shape, pedunculated lesions are most amenable to surgery because of their small footprint. “Often the base does not contain keloidal tissue, and the patient gets the maximum benefit for the least risk,” she said. In addition, the residue from the removal of large keloids is often more acceptable.

Options for adjunctive therapy when excising keloids include corticosteroids, radiation, interferon, pressure dressings, dextran hydrogel scaffolding, and possibly botulinum toxin A, Dr. Baldwin said.
 

Adjunctive treatment alternatives

Intralesional corticosteroids can prevent the recurrence of keloids, and Dr. Baldwin recommends a 40 mg/cc injection into the base and walls of the excision site immediately postop, with repeat injections every 2 weeks for 2 months regardless of the patient’s clinical appearance. However, appearance determines the dose and concentration during 6 months of monthly follow-up, she said.

Radiation therapy, while not an effective monotherapy for keloids, can be used as an adjunct. A short radiation treatment plan may improve compliance, and no local malignancies linked to radiation therapy for keloids have been reported, she said. Dr. Baldwin also shared details of using an in-office superficial radiation therapy with the SRT-100 device, which she said has shown some ability to reduce recurrence of keloids.

Interferon, which can reduce production of collagen and increase collagenase can be used in an amount of 1.5 million units per linear cm around the base and walls of a keloid excision (maximum is 5 million units a day). Be aware that patients can develop flulike symptoms within a day or so, and warn patients to take it easy and monitor for symptoms, she said.

Studies of imiquimod for keloid recurrence have yielded mixed results, and a 2020 literature review concluded that it is not recommended as a treatment option for keloids, said Dr. Baldwin. Pressure dressings also have not shown effectiveness on existing lesions.

Botulinum toxin A has been studied as a way to prevent hypertrophic scars and keloids and potentially for preventing recurrence by injecting at the wound edges, she said. A meta-analysis showed that botulinum toxin was superior to corticosteroids for treating keloids, but “there were a lot of problems with the studies,” she said.

One other option for postexcision keloid treatment is dextran hydrogel scaffolding, which involves a triple-stranded collagen denatured by heat, with the addition of dextran to form a scaffold for fibroblasts, Dr. Baldwin said. This product, when injected prior to the final closure of surgical excision of keloids, may improve outcomes in certain areas, such as the earlobe, she said.

Dr. Baldwin concluded with comments about preventing other keloids from getting out of hand, which is extraordinarily challenging. However, treatment with dupilumab might provide an answer, although data are limited and more research is needed. She cited a case study of a male patient who had severe atopic dermatitis, with two keloids that improved after 7 months on dupilumab. The Th2 cytokines interleukin (IL)–4 and IL-13 have been implicated as key mediators in the pathogenesis of fibroproliferative disorders, which may respond to dupilumab, which targets Th2, she noted.

Dr. Baldwin had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Most patients who present to a dermatologist with a keloid say they want it gone “by whatever means possible, and yesterday,” although few understand what this process entails, according to Hilary E. Baldwin, MD, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

A key point to keep in mind about keloids is that, while they result from trauma, however slight, trauma alone does not cause them, Dr. Baldwin said in a presentation at the virtual MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

In general, people with darker skin form keloids more easily and consistently than those with lighter skin, but keloids in people with darker skin are often easier to treat, Dr. Baldwin added. Also worth noting is the fact that earlobe keloids recur less frequently, she said.

Most patients with keloids are not surgical candidates, and they need convincing to pursue alternative options, Dr. Baldwin said.

However, successful management of keloids starts with sorting out what the patient wants. Some want “eradication with normal skin,” which is not realistic, versus simply flattening, lightening, or eradication of the keloid and leaving a scar, she noted. “That skin is never going to look normal,” she said. “Very often, they don’t need the whole thing gone, they just want to be better, and not itch or cause them to think about it all the time.”

Quality clinical research on the management of keloids is limited, Dr. Baldwin continued. “If you are holding out for a good randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study with a healthy ‘N,’ adequate follow-up rational conclusions, don’t hold your breath,” she said. The few literature reviews on keloids in recent decades concluded that modalities used to treat keloids are based on anecdotal evidence rather than rigorous research, she noted.
 

Size (and shape) matters

The decision to cut a keloid depends on several factors, including lesion size, shape, age, and location, but especially patient commitment to follow up and postsurgery care, said Dr. Baldwin.

She noted that larger keloids are no more difficult to remove than smaller ones, and patients tend to be more satisfied with the outcome with larger keloids. In terms of shape, pedunculated lesions are most amenable to surgery because of their small footprint. “Often the base does not contain keloidal tissue, and the patient gets the maximum benefit for the least risk,” she said. In addition, the residue from the removal of large keloids is often more acceptable.

Options for adjunctive therapy when excising keloids include corticosteroids, radiation, interferon, pressure dressings, dextran hydrogel scaffolding, and possibly botulinum toxin A, Dr. Baldwin said.
 

Adjunctive treatment alternatives

Intralesional corticosteroids can prevent the recurrence of keloids, and Dr. Baldwin recommends a 40 mg/cc injection into the base and walls of the excision site immediately postop, with repeat injections every 2 weeks for 2 months regardless of the patient’s clinical appearance. However, appearance determines the dose and concentration during 6 months of monthly follow-up, she said.

Radiation therapy, while not an effective monotherapy for keloids, can be used as an adjunct. A short radiation treatment plan may improve compliance, and no local malignancies linked to radiation therapy for keloids have been reported, she said. Dr. Baldwin also shared details of using an in-office superficial radiation therapy with the SRT-100 device, which she said has shown some ability to reduce recurrence of keloids.

Interferon, which can reduce production of collagen and increase collagenase can be used in an amount of 1.5 million units per linear cm around the base and walls of a keloid excision (maximum is 5 million units a day). Be aware that patients can develop flulike symptoms within a day or so, and warn patients to take it easy and monitor for symptoms, she said.

Studies of imiquimod for keloid recurrence have yielded mixed results, and a 2020 literature review concluded that it is not recommended as a treatment option for keloids, said Dr. Baldwin. Pressure dressings also have not shown effectiveness on existing lesions.

Botulinum toxin A has been studied as a way to prevent hypertrophic scars and keloids and potentially for preventing recurrence by injecting at the wound edges, she said. A meta-analysis showed that botulinum toxin was superior to corticosteroids for treating keloids, but “there were a lot of problems with the studies,” she said.

One other option for postexcision keloid treatment is dextran hydrogel scaffolding, which involves a triple-stranded collagen denatured by heat, with the addition of dextran to form a scaffold for fibroblasts, Dr. Baldwin said. This product, when injected prior to the final closure of surgical excision of keloids, may improve outcomes in certain areas, such as the earlobe, she said.

Dr. Baldwin concluded with comments about preventing other keloids from getting out of hand, which is extraordinarily challenging. However, treatment with dupilumab might provide an answer, although data are limited and more research is needed. She cited a case study of a male patient who had severe atopic dermatitis, with two keloids that improved after 7 months on dupilumab. The Th2 cytokines interleukin (IL)–4 and IL-13 have been implicated as key mediators in the pathogenesis of fibroproliferative disorders, which may respond to dupilumab, which targets Th2, she noted.

Dr. Baldwin had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.

It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.  

“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.

“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”

Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.

“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.

The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:

• Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
• Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
• Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
• Data on the manufacturing processes.

According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
 

Vaccine logistics

The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.

The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.

Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.

The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.

Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.

Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.

It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.  

“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.

“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”

Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.

“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.

The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:

• Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
• Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
• Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
• Data on the manufacturing processes.

According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
 

Vaccine logistics

The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.

The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.

Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.

The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.

Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.

Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech have filed an application with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization of its vaccine against COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, according to a company news release.

It is the latest step in what has been an extraordinarily fast-paced development and testing process, with the companies having reported interim results of phase 3 trials on November 9 and final results this past Wednesday, as reported by Medscape Medical News. The vaccine, BNT162b2, which uses a messenger RNA-based platform, was ultimately found to have 95% efficacy and more than 94% efficacy in individuals over age 65.  

“The process of the speed did not compromise at all safety, nor did it compromise scientific integrity,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at a White House press briefing yesterday.

“We need to put to rest any concept that this was rushed in an inappropriate way,” he said. “This is really solid.”

Pfizer and BioNTech said they believe they have met the FDA’s safety data requirements for emergency use authorization (EUA). The agency in October outlined its expectations for safety and efficacy to secure an EUA.

“Filing in the US represents a critical milestone in our journey to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine to the world, and we now have a more complete picture of both the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine, giving us confidence in its potential,” said Albert Bourla, MD, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, in its release.

The FDA is expected to hold a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee sometime in December to review the safety and efficacy data in the companies’ application. The committee will review:

• Efficacy data from a total 170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the phase 3 study.
• Safety data from a randomly assigned subset of 8000 participants 18 years and older.
• Data on 19,000 enrollees who have been followed for a median of 2 months after the second and final dose.
• Data on the manufacturing processes.

According to Pfizer, the companies plan to submit the efficacy and safety data to a peer-reviewed journal once they have completed their analysis.
 

Vaccine logistics

The companies — which funded their own trials — signed an agreement with the US government’s Operation Warp Speed program in July to provide 100 million doses of its vaccine following FDA authorization or approval in exchange for $1.95 billion. The US government has the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses.

Pfizer and BioNTech said they will be able to supply 50 million doses globally in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021. The vaccine must be given in two doses, spaced 21 days apart. Pfizer expects to be ready to distribute the vaccine within hours after FDA authorization.

The US government is still on track to deliver the Pfizer vaccine within 24 hours of an FDA authorization, said Operation Warp Speed’s Chief Operating Officer Gen. Gustave F. Perna at yesterday’s White House briefing.

Vice President Mike Pence emphasized that point at the briefing: “The moment that the FDA concludes that that vaccine is safe and effective, we have a system in place to begin within 24 hours shipping that vaccine to hospitals, healthcare facilities and, 24 hours after that, literally injecting that vaccine into Americans,” he said.

The vaccine will be pushed out through 64 jurisdictions already part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccines for children distribution program, and will likely be divided up according to population, said Perna.

Pfizer’s vaccine must be shipped and stored at –70°C (–94°F), which has presented logistical and storage issues. The company is testing out delivery methods, including a pilot delivery program in New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas that will be active after an FDA authorization. States, hospitals, and pharmacy chains are also buying special freezers.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations in October that healthcare workers, first responders, older Americans living in congregate settings (eg, nursing homes), and people with underlying health conditions be the first to receive a coronavirus vaccine. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will also be issuing recommendations as soon as the FDA authorizes a vaccine.

Pfizer and BioNTech are also seeking approval for the vaccine with several regulatory agencies around the world, including the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Combining the recombinant Flt3 ligand CDX-301 with the dendritic cell–targeted vaccine CDX-1401 enhanced vaccine-induced immune responses in patients with high-risk melanoma, according to results from a phase 2 trial.

“[This] study supports the potential of combining [the] CDX-1401 vaccine and CDX-301 with checkpoint inhibitors, which are standard-of-care therapy,” study author Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

The team described their study in Nature Cancer.

The multicenter, open-label, randomized study included 60 patients with resected stage IIb-IV melanoma, all of whom had not received any prior treatment, including radiotherapy, biologics, and chemotherapy.

Patients randomized to the combination arm (cohort 1; n = 30) received the anti–DEC-205-NY-ESO-1 vaccine CDX-1401 and were pretreated with CDX-301, while those in the comparator arm (cohort 2; n = 30) received CDX-1401 alone.

Serial blood samples were collected to evaluate response to the vaccine antigen (NY-ESO-1) before each cycle, as well as 4 weeks and 12 weeks after the last vaccination. The primary endpoint was immune response prior to the third vaccination.

T-cell responses were detected in 76% of patients who received CDX-301 and 33% of patients who did not (P < .0011). In addition, the magnitude of response was significantly higher with the combination than with CDX-1401 alone (mean of 41 and 17 corrected spots per well, respectively; P = .032).

“All 30 (100%) cohort 1 participants had NY-ESO-1–specific T-cell responses for at least one time point, whereas 8 (27%) cohort 2 participants had no responses at any time point,” the researchers wrote.

Responses were maintained up to 12 weeks after the final vaccination, but there was no statistically significant difference between cohorts 1 and 2 at 12 weeks (54% and 38%, respectively; P = .2).

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this trial was that it was not sized to evaluate relapse or overall survival.

“Given that ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab are approved as adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage III melanoma, vaccines incorporating CDX-301 and suitable antigen-containing platforms merit clinical investigation in the adjuvant setting in combination with immune checkpoint blockade,” the authors wrote.

“I am hopeful that highly immunogenic cancer vaccines can be added to currently approved immunotherapies, thus boosting an individual’s anticancer immune response even further,” Dr. Bhardwaj said in an interview.

This study was supported by grant funding from the National Cancer Institute. Some authors reported financial affiliations with Celldex Therapeutics, NanoString Technologies, and Oncovir. Dr. Bhardwaj disclosed relationships with Celldex and Oncovir.

SOURCE: Bhardwaj N et al. Nat Cancer. 2020 Nov 16. doi: 10.1038/s43018-020-00143-y.

Combining the recombinant Flt3 ligand CDX-301 with the dendritic cell–targeted vaccine CDX-1401 enhanced vaccine-induced immune responses in patients with high-risk melanoma, according to results from a phase 2 trial.

“[This] study supports the potential of combining [the] CDX-1401 vaccine and CDX-301 with checkpoint inhibitors, which are standard-of-care therapy,” study author Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

The team described their study in Nature Cancer.

The multicenter, open-label, randomized study included 60 patients with resected stage IIb-IV melanoma, all of whom had not received any prior treatment, including radiotherapy, biologics, and chemotherapy.

Patients randomized to the combination arm (cohort 1; n = 30) received the anti–DEC-205-NY-ESO-1 vaccine CDX-1401 and were pretreated with CDX-301, while those in the comparator arm (cohort 2; n = 30) received CDX-1401 alone.

Serial blood samples were collected to evaluate response to the vaccine antigen (NY-ESO-1) before each cycle, as well as 4 weeks and 12 weeks after the last vaccination. The primary endpoint was immune response prior to the third vaccination.

T-cell responses were detected in 76% of patients who received CDX-301 and 33% of patients who did not (P < .0011). In addition, the magnitude of response was significantly higher with the combination than with CDX-1401 alone (mean of 41 and 17 corrected spots per well, respectively; P = .032).

“All 30 (100%) cohort 1 participants had NY-ESO-1–specific T-cell responses for at least one time point, whereas 8 (27%) cohort 2 participants had no responses at any time point,” the researchers wrote.

Responses were maintained up to 12 weeks after the final vaccination, but there was no statistically significant difference between cohorts 1 and 2 at 12 weeks (54% and 38%, respectively; P = .2).

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this trial was that it was not sized to evaluate relapse or overall survival.

“Given that ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab are approved as adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage III melanoma, vaccines incorporating CDX-301 and suitable antigen-containing platforms merit clinical investigation in the adjuvant setting in combination with immune checkpoint blockade,” the authors wrote.

“I am hopeful that highly immunogenic cancer vaccines can be added to currently approved immunotherapies, thus boosting an individual’s anticancer immune response even further,” Dr. Bhardwaj said in an interview.

This study was supported by grant funding from the National Cancer Institute. Some authors reported financial affiliations with Celldex Therapeutics, NanoString Technologies, and Oncovir. Dr. Bhardwaj disclosed relationships with Celldex and Oncovir.

SOURCE: Bhardwaj N et al. Nat Cancer. 2020 Nov 16. doi: 10.1038/s43018-020-00143-y.

Combining the recombinant Flt3 ligand CDX-301 with the dendritic cell–targeted vaccine CDX-1401 enhanced vaccine-induced immune responses in patients with high-risk melanoma, according to results from a phase 2 trial.

“[This] study supports the potential of combining [the] CDX-1401 vaccine and CDX-301 with checkpoint inhibitors, which are standard-of-care therapy,” study author Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

The team described their study in Nature Cancer.

The multicenter, open-label, randomized study included 60 patients with resected stage IIb-IV melanoma, all of whom had not received any prior treatment, including radiotherapy, biologics, and chemotherapy.

Patients randomized to the combination arm (cohort 1; n = 30) received the anti–DEC-205-NY-ESO-1 vaccine CDX-1401 and were pretreated with CDX-301, while those in the comparator arm (cohort 2; n = 30) received CDX-1401 alone.

Serial blood samples were collected to evaluate response to the vaccine antigen (NY-ESO-1) before each cycle, as well as 4 weeks and 12 weeks after the last vaccination. The primary endpoint was immune response prior to the third vaccination.

T-cell responses were detected in 76% of patients who received CDX-301 and 33% of patients who did not (P < .0011). In addition, the magnitude of response was significantly higher with the combination than with CDX-1401 alone (mean of 41 and 17 corrected spots per well, respectively; P = .032).

“All 30 (100%) cohort 1 participants had NY-ESO-1–specific T-cell responses for at least one time point, whereas 8 (27%) cohort 2 participants had no responses at any time point,” the researchers wrote.

Responses were maintained up to 12 weeks after the final vaccination, but there was no statistically significant difference between cohorts 1 and 2 at 12 weeks (54% and 38%, respectively; P = .2).

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this trial was that it was not sized to evaluate relapse or overall survival.

“Given that ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab are approved as adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage III melanoma, vaccines incorporating CDX-301 and suitable antigen-containing platforms merit clinical investigation in the adjuvant setting in combination with immune checkpoint blockade,” the authors wrote.

“I am hopeful that highly immunogenic cancer vaccines can be added to currently approved immunotherapies, thus boosting an individual’s anticancer immune response even further,” Dr. Bhardwaj said in an interview.

This study was supported by grant funding from the National Cancer Institute. Some authors reported financial affiliations with Celldex Therapeutics, NanoString Technologies, and Oncovir. Dr. Bhardwaj disclosed relationships with Celldex and Oncovir.

SOURCE: Bhardwaj N et al. Nat Cancer. 2020 Nov 16. doi: 10.1038/s43018-020-00143-y.

Mitotic rate, properly applied, has a prognostic impact in melanoma comparable to that of lesional ulceration, Mohammed Kashani-Sabet, MD, reported at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet, a dermatologist, director of the melanoma research program, and senior scientist at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, was first author of a large recently published study that made a strong case for reincorporation of mitotic index into the American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) melanoma staging system.

Mitotic index was included in the 7th edition of the AJCC classification system, but was dropped from the current 8th edition in part because of concern it could potentially lead to overtreatment of patients with very thin melanomas of less than 0.5-mm thickness.

However, mitotic rate, like tumor thickness, is a continuous variable. And like tumor thickness, mitotic rate has a nonlinear relationship with survival. That’s why the AJCC staging system utilizes unequally spaced tumor thickness cut points of 1, 2, and 4 mm to define T1-T4 disease. But until the study led by Dr. Kashani-Sabet, optimal cut points for mitotic rate hadn’t been defined.

He and his coinvestigators at Melanoma Institute Australia collected a dataset comprising 5,050 patients with primary cutaneous melanoma in Australia and Northern California, all of whom either died of metastatic melanoma or remained distant metastasis–free for at least 8 years of follow-up. Median follow-up of the cohort was 9.5 years.

The investigators developed computer-generated cut points for mitotic rate and its impact on survival for each melanoma T category, then assessed their value in randomly split training and validation sets from their large cohort. For T1 melanoma, the optimal cut point proved to be 2 mitoses/mm²; more than two was independently associated with increased mortality risk. For T2 disease, the optimal cut point was 4, for T3 it was 6, and for T4 it was 7 mitoses/mm².

A key study finding: In a multivariate regression analysis, tumor thickness was associated with survival, with an odds ratio of 1.58, ulceration had an odds ratio of 1.55, and mitotic rate by cut point had an odds ratio of 5.38. Each of these three characteristics was independently associated with survival (P < .00005). Dr. Kashani-Sabet said that, despite the more than threefold greater odds ratio for mitotic rate, compared with ulceration, in a Kaplan-Meier analysis, the survival impact of ulceration being present was “virtually identical” to an elevated mitotic rate in each T category.

He and his coinvestigators proposed a revised T-category system which incorporates this new insight. There is no change in tumor thickness to define T1-T4 melanoma: T1 is less than 1.0 mm, T2 is greater than 1-2.0 mm, T3 is greater than 2.01-4.0 mm, and T4 is greater than 4.0 mm. But now, within each T category the proposal is that the “a” designation indicates neither ulceration nor an elevated mitotic rate is present, while “b” means ulceration and/or an elevated mitotic rate using the optimal cut point for that T category is present. In their Australian/Northern California dataset, these new T categories showed a distinct separation in cumulative survival.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet and coworkers have submitted a proposal to validate their results using the AJCC database. Based upon a first look at the numbers, “We think it’s really very likely that these observations can be reproduced in this most important of datasets,” he predicted.

During a panel discussion, Sancy Leachman, MD, PhD, offered a recent example from her own practice where an elevated mitotic index as defined by Dr. Kashani-Sabet and coworkers served as a red flag.

“I had a patient with a 0.3-mm melanoma with three mitoses. I did a sentinel lymph node biopsy on the patient, and she was positive,” said Dr. Leachman, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet commented that, while an elevated mitotic index is clearly not an absolute requirement for metastasis, when present it’s a prognostically important finding.

Moreover, as adjuvant therapies of proven value in node-positive disease increasingly come under study in node-negative melanoma, it will be critical to identify the high-risk node-negative subgroup for whom such therapies should be targeted.

“While T4 tumors and ulcerated melanomas are clearly high risk, they’re not going to capture every patient who has a very high risk of distant metastases and death. I think mitotic rate is another pathway to identify patients who very well might benefit and should be candidates for inclusion in those adjuvant therapy trials as we’re moving more into node-negative patients,” according to Dr. Kashani-Sabet.

He reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

[email protected]

Mitotic rate, properly applied, has a prognostic impact in melanoma comparable to that of lesional ulceration, Mohammed Kashani-Sabet, MD, reported at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet, a dermatologist, director of the melanoma research program, and senior scientist at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, was first author of a large recently published study that made a strong case for reincorporation of mitotic index into the American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) melanoma staging system.

Mitotic index was included in the 7th edition of the AJCC classification system, but was dropped from the current 8th edition in part because of concern it could potentially lead to overtreatment of patients with very thin melanomas of less than 0.5-mm thickness.

However, mitotic rate, like tumor thickness, is a continuous variable. And like tumor thickness, mitotic rate has a nonlinear relationship with survival. That’s why the AJCC staging system utilizes unequally spaced tumor thickness cut points of 1, 2, and 4 mm to define T1-T4 disease. But until the study led by Dr. Kashani-Sabet, optimal cut points for mitotic rate hadn’t been defined.

He and his coinvestigators at Melanoma Institute Australia collected a dataset comprising 5,050 patients with primary cutaneous melanoma in Australia and Northern California, all of whom either died of metastatic melanoma or remained distant metastasis–free for at least 8 years of follow-up. Median follow-up of the cohort was 9.5 years.

The investigators developed computer-generated cut points for mitotic rate and its impact on survival for each melanoma T category, then assessed their value in randomly split training and validation sets from their large cohort. For T1 melanoma, the optimal cut point proved to be 2 mitoses/mm²; more than two was independently associated with increased mortality risk. For T2 disease, the optimal cut point was 4, for T3 it was 6, and for T4 it was 7 mitoses/mm².

A key study finding: In a multivariate regression analysis, tumor thickness was associated with survival, with an odds ratio of 1.58, ulceration had an odds ratio of 1.55, and mitotic rate by cut point had an odds ratio of 5.38. Each of these three characteristics was independently associated with survival (P < .00005). Dr. Kashani-Sabet said that, despite the more than threefold greater odds ratio for mitotic rate, compared with ulceration, in a Kaplan-Meier analysis, the survival impact of ulceration being present was “virtually identical” to an elevated mitotic rate in each T category.

He and his coinvestigators proposed a revised T-category system which incorporates this new insight. There is no change in tumor thickness to define T1-T4 melanoma: T1 is less than 1.0 mm, T2 is greater than 1-2.0 mm, T3 is greater than 2.01-4.0 mm, and T4 is greater than 4.0 mm. But now, within each T category the proposal is that the “a” designation indicates neither ulceration nor an elevated mitotic rate is present, while “b” means ulceration and/or an elevated mitotic rate using the optimal cut point for that T category is present. In their Australian/Northern California dataset, these new T categories showed a distinct separation in cumulative survival.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet and coworkers have submitted a proposal to validate their results using the AJCC database. Based upon a first look at the numbers, “We think it’s really very likely that these observations can be reproduced in this most important of datasets,” he predicted.

During a panel discussion, Sancy Leachman, MD, PhD, offered a recent example from her own practice where an elevated mitotic index as defined by Dr. Kashani-Sabet and coworkers served as a red flag.

“I had a patient with a 0.3-mm melanoma with three mitoses. I did a sentinel lymph node biopsy on the patient, and she was positive,” said Dr. Leachman, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet commented that, while an elevated mitotic index is clearly not an absolute requirement for metastasis, when present it’s a prognostically important finding.

Moreover, as adjuvant therapies of proven value in node-positive disease increasingly come under study in node-negative melanoma, it will be critical to identify the high-risk node-negative subgroup for whom such therapies should be targeted.

“While T4 tumors and ulcerated melanomas are clearly high risk, they’re not going to capture every patient who has a very high risk of distant metastases and death. I think mitotic rate is another pathway to identify patients who very well might benefit and should be candidates for inclusion in those adjuvant therapy trials as we’re moving more into node-negative patients,” according to Dr. Kashani-Sabet.

He reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

[email protected]

Mitotic rate, properly applied, has a prognostic impact in melanoma comparable to that of lesional ulceration, Mohammed Kashani-Sabet, MD, reported at a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet, a dermatologist, director of the melanoma research program, and senior scientist at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco, was first author of a large recently published study that made a strong case for reincorporation of mitotic index into the American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) melanoma staging system.

Mitotic index was included in the 7th edition of the AJCC classification system, but was dropped from the current 8th edition in part because of concern it could potentially lead to overtreatment of patients with very thin melanomas of less than 0.5-mm thickness.

However, mitotic rate, like tumor thickness, is a continuous variable. And like tumor thickness, mitotic rate has a nonlinear relationship with survival. That’s why the AJCC staging system utilizes unequally spaced tumor thickness cut points of 1, 2, and 4 mm to define T1-T4 disease. But until the study led by Dr. Kashani-Sabet, optimal cut points for mitotic rate hadn’t been defined.

He and his coinvestigators at Melanoma Institute Australia collected a dataset comprising 5,050 patients with primary cutaneous melanoma in Australia and Northern California, all of whom either died of metastatic melanoma or remained distant metastasis–free for at least 8 years of follow-up. Median follow-up of the cohort was 9.5 years.

The investigators developed computer-generated cut points for mitotic rate and its impact on survival for each melanoma T category, then assessed their value in randomly split training and validation sets from their large cohort. For T1 melanoma, the optimal cut point proved to be 2 mitoses/mm²; more than two was independently associated with increased mortality risk. For T2 disease, the optimal cut point was 4, for T3 it was 6, and for T4 it was 7 mitoses/mm².

A key study finding: In a multivariate regression analysis, tumor thickness was associated with survival, with an odds ratio of 1.58, ulceration had an odds ratio of 1.55, and mitotic rate by cut point had an odds ratio of 5.38. Each of these three characteristics was independently associated with survival (P < .00005). Dr. Kashani-Sabet said that, despite the more than threefold greater odds ratio for mitotic rate, compared with ulceration, in a Kaplan-Meier analysis, the survival impact of ulceration being present was “virtually identical” to an elevated mitotic rate in each T category.

He and his coinvestigators proposed a revised T-category system which incorporates this new insight. There is no change in tumor thickness to define T1-T4 melanoma: T1 is less than 1.0 mm, T2 is greater than 1-2.0 mm, T3 is greater than 2.01-4.0 mm, and T4 is greater than 4.0 mm. But now, within each T category the proposal is that the “a” designation indicates neither ulceration nor an elevated mitotic rate is present, while “b” means ulceration and/or an elevated mitotic rate using the optimal cut point for that T category is present. In their Australian/Northern California dataset, these new T categories showed a distinct separation in cumulative survival.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet and coworkers have submitted a proposal to validate their results using the AJCC database. Based upon a first look at the numbers, “We think it’s really very likely that these observations can be reproduced in this most important of datasets,” he predicted.

During a panel discussion, Sancy Leachman, MD, PhD, offered a recent example from her own practice where an elevated mitotic index as defined by Dr. Kashani-Sabet and coworkers served as a red flag.

“I had a patient with a 0.3-mm melanoma with three mitoses. I did a sentinel lymph node biopsy on the patient, and she was positive,” said Dr. Leachman, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

Dr. Kashani-Sabet commented that, while an elevated mitotic index is clearly not an absolute requirement for metastasis, when present it’s a prognostically important finding.

Moreover, as adjuvant therapies of proven value in node-positive disease increasingly come under study in node-negative melanoma, it will be critical to identify the high-risk node-negative subgroup for whom such therapies should be targeted.

“While T4 tumors and ulcerated melanomas are clearly high risk, they’re not going to capture every patient who has a very high risk of distant metastases and death. I think mitotic rate is another pathway to identify patients who very well might benefit and should be candidates for inclusion in those adjuvant therapy trials as we’re moving more into node-negative patients,” according to Dr. Kashani-Sabet.

He reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same company.

[email protected]

Gusacitinib, a novel oral inhibitor of multiple inflammatory pathways, achieved rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in corticosteroid-refractory moderate to severe chronic hand eczema in a phase 2b, randomized trial, Howard Sofen, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The once-daily drug proved effective for this challenging condition, regardless of whether an individual’s chronic hand eczema was driven chiefly by irritant contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, or atopic dermatitis, added Dr. Sofen, medical director of Dermatology Research Associates, Los Angeles, and chief of the dermatology division at LA County/Olive View Medical Center.

Gusacitinib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of Janus kinase 1, 2, and 3, tyrosine kinase 2, and spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK). As such, it targets the Th1, Th2, Th17, and Th22 cytokine pathways, as well as SYK-mediated interleukin-17 signaling of keratinocyte proliferation and differentiation. Thus, its spectrum of activity makes it a candidate for the treatment of a variety of other inflammatory dermatologic diseases, although chronic hand eczema alone affects an estimated 7 million Americans, the dermatologist noted.

The phase 2b, double-blind, 16-week, multicenter, randomized trial included 97 patients who were randomized to oral gusacitinib as monotherapy at 40 or 80 mg once daily or placebo. All participants had chronic hand eczema of more than 6 months duration that was refractory to potent or superpotent topical and/or systemic steroids. Participants were split 60/40 between those with severe chronic hand eczema, defined by a baseline score on the 0-4 Physician’s Global Assessment scale, and moderate disease, with a PGA of 3.

The primary endpoint was the percent improvement in modified total lesion severity score (mTLSS) at week 16 from a mean baseline of 13.2. A clearcut dose response was evident: Gusacitinib at 80 mg/day achieved a 69.5% decrease, while 40 mg brought a 40% reduction, which wasn’t significantly better than the 33.5% decrease in placebo-treated controls.

The rapidity of response was noteworthy in these steroid-refractory patients. The 80-mg group showed significant separation from placebo by 2 weeks, with a mean 40.1% reduction in mTLSS versus 13.6% with placebo.

The secondary endpoint was achievement of a PGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – with a 2-grade improvement over placebo. This was achieved in 31.3% of patients assigned to the higher dose of gusacitinib at week 16, a success rate fivefold higher than the 6.3% rate in controls. The two groups separated on this endpoint at week 2, the first assessment. At week 8 there was an eightfold difference in response: 25% in patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg, 3.1% with placebo.

The other secondary endpoint was improvement in itch as measured by the mTLSS pruritus 0-3 subscore. As for the other outcomes, the improvement in itch was rapid. At week 2, patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg averaged a 43.1% reduction from their baseline pruritus score, compared with 4.6% with placebo. At week 16, the reductions were 65.7% and 29.8%, respectively.

Both doses of gusacitinib were well tolerated, according to Dr. Sofer. No thromboembolic events, major adverse cardiovascular events, or opportunistic infections occurred during the short 16-week study. The drug’s safety profile was consistent with what’s been seen in a collective gusacitinib clinical trial experience totaling more than 350 patients: mild to moderate nasopharyngitis, headache, asymptomatic elevations in creatine phosphokinase, and a slight increase in HDL cholesterol accompanied by a small reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Dr. Sofen reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Asana BioSciences, the study sponsor, as well as more than half a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Gusacitinib, a novel oral inhibitor of multiple inflammatory pathways, achieved rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in corticosteroid-refractory moderate to severe chronic hand eczema in a phase 2b, randomized trial, Howard Sofen, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The once-daily drug proved effective for this challenging condition, regardless of whether an individual’s chronic hand eczema was driven chiefly by irritant contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, or atopic dermatitis, added Dr. Sofen, medical director of Dermatology Research Associates, Los Angeles, and chief of the dermatology division at LA County/Olive View Medical Center.

Gusacitinib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of Janus kinase 1, 2, and 3, tyrosine kinase 2, and spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK). As such, it targets the Th1, Th2, Th17, and Th22 cytokine pathways, as well as SYK-mediated interleukin-17 signaling of keratinocyte proliferation and differentiation. Thus, its spectrum of activity makes it a candidate for the treatment of a variety of other inflammatory dermatologic diseases, although chronic hand eczema alone affects an estimated 7 million Americans, the dermatologist noted.

The phase 2b, double-blind, 16-week, multicenter, randomized trial included 97 patients who were randomized to oral gusacitinib as monotherapy at 40 or 80 mg once daily or placebo. All participants had chronic hand eczema of more than 6 months duration that was refractory to potent or superpotent topical and/or systemic steroids. Participants were split 60/40 between those with severe chronic hand eczema, defined by a baseline score on the 0-4 Physician’s Global Assessment scale, and moderate disease, with a PGA of 3.

The primary endpoint was the percent improvement in modified total lesion severity score (mTLSS) at week 16 from a mean baseline of 13.2. A clearcut dose response was evident: Gusacitinib at 80 mg/day achieved a 69.5% decrease, while 40 mg brought a 40% reduction, which wasn’t significantly better than the 33.5% decrease in placebo-treated controls.

The rapidity of response was noteworthy in these steroid-refractory patients. The 80-mg group showed significant separation from placebo by 2 weeks, with a mean 40.1% reduction in mTLSS versus 13.6% with placebo.

The secondary endpoint was achievement of a PGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – with a 2-grade improvement over placebo. This was achieved in 31.3% of patients assigned to the higher dose of gusacitinib at week 16, a success rate fivefold higher than the 6.3% rate in controls. The two groups separated on this endpoint at week 2, the first assessment. At week 8 there was an eightfold difference in response: 25% in patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg, 3.1% with placebo.

The other secondary endpoint was improvement in itch as measured by the mTLSS pruritus 0-3 subscore. As for the other outcomes, the improvement in itch was rapid. At week 2, patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg averaged a 43.1% reduction from their baseline pruritus score, compared with 4.6% with placebo. At week 16, the reductions were 65.7% and 29.8%, respectively.

Both doses of gusacitinib were well tolerated, according to Dr. Sofer. No thromboembolic events, major adverse cardiovascular events, or opportunistic infections occurred during the short 16-week study. The drug’s safety profile was consistent with what’s been seen in a collective gusacitinib clinical trial experience totaling more than 350 patients: mild to moderate nasopharyngitis, headache, asymptomatic elevations in creatine phosphokinase, and a slight increase in HDL cholesterol accompanied by a small reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Dr. Sofen reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Asana BioSciences, the study sponsor, as well as more than half a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Gusacitinib, a novel oral inhibitor of multiple inflammatory pathways, achieved rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in corticosteroid-refractory moderate to severe chronic hand eczema in a phase 2b, randomized trial, Howard Sofen, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The once-daily drug proved effective for this challenging condition, regardless of whether an individual’s chronic hand eczema was driven chiefly by irritant contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, or atopic dermatitis, added Dr. Sofen, medical director of Dermatology Research Associates, Los Angeles, and chief of the dermatology division at LA County/Olive View Medical Center.

Gusacitinib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of Janus kinase 1, 2, and 3, tyrosine kinase 2, and spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK). As such, it targets the Th1, Th2, Th17, and Th22 cytokine pathways, as well as SYK-mediated interleukin-17 signaling of keratinocyte proliferation and differentiation. Thus, its spectrum of activity makes it a candidate for the treatment of a variety of other inflammatory dermatologic diseases, although chronic hand eczema alone affects an estimated 7 million Americans, the dermatologist noted.

The phase 2b, double-blind, 16-week, multicenter, randomized trial included 97 patients who were randomized to oral gusacitinib as monotherapy at 40 or 80 mg once daily or placebo. All participants had chronic hand eczema of more than 6 months duration that was refractory to potent or superpotent topical and/or systemic steroids. Participants were split 60/40 between those with severe chronic hand eczema, defined by a baseline score on the 0-4 Physician’s Global Assessment scale, and moderate disease, with a PGA of 3.

The primary endpoint was the percent improvement in modified total lesion severity score (mTLSS) at week 16 from a mean baseline of 13.2. A clearcut dose response was evident: Gusacitinib at 80 mg/day achieved a 69.5% decrease, while 40 mg brought a 40% reduction, which wasn’t significantly better than the 33.5% decrease in placebo-treated controls.

The rapidity of response was noteworthy in these steroid-refractory patients. The 80-mg group showed significant separation from placebo by 2 weeks, with a mean 40.1% reduction in mTLSS versus 13.6% with placebo.

The secondary endpoint was achievement of a PGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – with a 2-grade improvement over placebo. This was achieved in 31.3% of patients assigned to the higher dose of gusacitinib at week 16, a success rate fivefold higher than the 6.3% rate in controls. The two groups separated on this endpoint at week 2, the first assessment. At week 8 there was an eightfold difference in response: 25% in patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg, 3.1% with placebo.

The other secondary endpoint was improvement in itch as measured by the mTLSS pruritus 0-3 subscore. As for the other outcomes, the improvement in itch was rapid. At week 2, patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg averaged a 43.1% reduction from their baseline pruritus score, compared with 4.6% with placebo. At week 16, the reductions were 65.7% and 29.8%, respectively.

Both doses of gusacitinib were well tolerated, according to Dr. Sofer. No thromboembolic events, major adverse cardiovascular events, or opportunistic infections occurred during the short 16-week study. The drug’s safety profile was consistent with what’s been seen in a collective gusacitinib clinical trial experience totaling more than 350 patients: mild to moderate nasopharyngitis, headache, asymptomatic elevations in creatine phosphokinase, and a slight increase in HDL cholesterol accompanied by a small reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Dr. Sofen reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Asana BioSciences, the study sponsor, as well as more than half a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

The FDA issued an emergency use authorization Tuesday for the first self-testing COVID-19 kit to use at home, which provides results in about 30 minutes.

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test-Kit is a single-use test that has a nasal swab to collect samples for people ages 14 and older. It’s available only by prescription, which can be given by a doctor who suspects a patient may have contracted the coronavirus.

“While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized for at-home collection, this is the first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in the statement.

The test kit can also be used in doctor’s offices, hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms for all ages, but samples must be collected by a health care professional if the patient is under age 14.

After using the nasal swab, the test works by swirling the sample in a vial and then placing it in the provided test unit, according to the FDA. Within 30 minutes, the results appear on the unit’s light-up display. People who receive a positive result should self-isolate and seek care from their doctor. Those who test negative but have COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their doctor, since a negative result doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the coronavirus.

Testing is still a key part of controlling the spread of the coronavirus, Reuters reports. The United States surpassed 11 million infections Sunday, only 8 days after passing 10 million cases.

With the at-home testing kit, public health officials still need to track and monitor results. As part of the emergency use authorization, the FDA requires doctors who prescribe the tests to report all results to public health authorities based on local, state, and federal requirements. Lucira Health, the test maker, also created box labeling and instructions to help doctors to report results.

“Now, more Americans who may have COVID-19 will be able to take immediate action, based on their results, to protect themselves and those around them,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The FDA issued an emergency use authorization Tuesday for the first self-testing COVID-19 kit to use at home, which provides results in about 30 minutes.

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test-Kit is a single-use test that has a nasal swab to collect samples for people ages 14 and older. It’s available only by prescription, which can be given by a doctor who suspects a patient may have contracted the coronavirus.

“While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized for at-home collection, this is the first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in the statement.

The test kit can also be used in doctor’s offices, hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms for all ages, but samples must be collected by a health care professional if the patient is under age 14.

After using the nasal swab, the test works by swirling the sample in a vial and then placing it in the provided test unit, according to the FDA. Within 30 minutes, the results appear on the unit’s light-up display. People who receive a positive result should self-isolate and seek care from their doctor. Those who test negative but have COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their doctor, since a negative result doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the coronavirus.

Testing is still a key part of controlling the spread of the coronavirus, Reuters reports. The United States surpassed 11 million infections Sunday, only 8 days after passing 10 million cases.

With the at-home testing kit, public health officials still need to track and monitor results. As part of the emergency use authorization, the FDA requires doctors who prescribe the tests to report all results to public health authorities based on local, state, and federal requirements. Lucira Health, the test maker, also created box labeling and instructions to help doctors to report results.

“Now, more Americans who may have COVID-19 will be able to take immediate action, based on their results, to protect themselves and those around them,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The FDA issued an emergency use authorization Tuesday for the first self-testing COVID-19 kit to use at home, which provides results in about 30 minutes.

The Lucira COVID-19 All-In-One Test-Kit is a single-use test that has a nasal swab to collect samples for people ages 14 and older. It’s available only by prescription, which can be given by a doctor who suspects a patient may have contracted the coronavirus.

“While COVID-19 diagnostic tests have been authorized for at-home collection, this is the first that can be fully self-administered and provide results at home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in the statement.

The test kit can also be used in doctor’s offices, hospitals, urgent care centers, and emergency rooms for all ages, but samples must be collected by a health care professional if the patient is under age 14.

After using the nasal swab, the test works by swirling the sample in a vial and then placing it in the provided test unit, according to the FDA. Within 30 minutes, the results appear on the unit’s light-up display. People who receive a positive result should self-isolate and seek care from their doctor. Those who test negative but have COVID-like symptoms should follow up with their doctor, since a negative result doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the coronavirus.

Testing is still a key part of controlling the spread of the coronavirus, Reuters reports. The United States surpassed 11 million infections Sunday, only 8 days after passing 10 million cases.

With the at-home testing kit, public health officials still need to track and monitor results. As part of the emergency use authorization, the FDA requires doctors who prescribe the tests to report all results to public health authorities based on local, state, and federal requirements. Lucira Health, the test maker, also created box labeling and instructions to help doctors to report results.

“Now, more Americans who may have COVID-19 will be able to take immediate action, based on their results, to protect themselves and those around them,” Jeff Shuren, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the statement.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The full 5-year results of a long-term extension study of tildrakizumab for psoriasis show a high rate of sustained disease control coupled with a favorable safety profile during more than 5,400 patient-years of prospective follow-up, Diamont Thaçi, MD, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

For example, 89% of patients who had a PASI-75 response on the 100-mg dose of tildrakizumab (Ilumya) – the dose approved in the United States – at week 28 in the parent reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2 trials maintained their PASI-75 response throughout the next 4½ years in the long-term extension study, as did 93% of those with a week 28 PASI-75 response on 200 mg, a dose approved elsewhere, said Dr. Thaçi, professor of dermatology and director of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine at Lübeck (Germany) University.

The same held true for PASI-90, a response achieved by 71% of participants on 100 mg of tildrakizumab at week 28 and 66% at week 244, and by 73% of those on the 200-mg dose at week 28 and 70% at 5 years. A PASI-100 response was documented at week 28 in 29% of patients on the lower dose and 37% of those on 200 mg, with week 244 PASI-100 rates of 33% and 41%, respectively.

The long-term extension study enrolled 622 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis with at least a PASI-75 response to 100 mg or 200 mg of the humanized monoclonal antibody interleukin-23p19 inhibitor at week 28 in reSURFACE 1 or 2, or who were partial or nonresponders to etanercept in reSURFACE 2 and were then switched to tildrakizumab at 200 mg. Five hundred and forty-five of the 622 patients (88%) completed the full 5 years of the extension study.

Very few patients left the study because of loss of efficacy or adverse events. Indeed, the exposure-adjusted rate of drug-related serious adverse events was 0.8 cases per 100 patient-years at tildrakizumab 100 mg and 0.5 per 100 patient-years at 200 mg. Moreover, the rates of drug-related serious adverse events leading to treatment continuation were 0.3 and 0.2 per 100 patient-years at the 100-mg and 200-mg doses. Rates of treatment-emergent severe infection were 1.2 and 1.3 per 100 patient-years on the lower and higher doses. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred at rates of 0.5 and 0.7 cases per 100 patient-years.

“I think the adverse events are generally similar to what has been seen with other biologics, but slightly less with tildrakizumab. Registries will provide a clearer picture. What’s interesting is that even if you double the dosage you don’t see an increase in side effects,” Dr. Thaçi said.

Asked what happens when a tildrakizumab responder stops taking the monoclonal antibody, he replied, “This is something very interesting we see with the IL-23 inhibitors: The disease comes back very slowly. It takes months, and sometimes years, for the patient to lose the PASI-75 or even the PASI-90 response. But we still consider that continuous treatment is probably the better way to go because we cannot be sure who will lose or regain response. At the moment we don’t have a biomarker to tell us what we should do in our daily practice.”

Dr. Thaçi reported serving as an adviser to and paid investigator for Almirall, the study sponsor, and approximately 20 other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

The full 5-year results of a long-term extension study of tildrakizumab for psoriasis show a high rate of sustained disease control coupled with a favorable safety profile during more than 5,400 patient-years of prospective follow-up, Diamont Thaçi, MD, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

For example, 89% of patients who had a PASI-75 response on the 100-mg dose of tildrakizumab (Ilumya) – the dose approved in the United States – at week 28 in the parent reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2 trials maintained their PASI-75 response throughout the next 4½ years in the long-term extension study, as did 93% of those with a week 28 PASI-75 response on 200 mg, a dose approved elsewhere, said Dr. Thaçi, professor of dermatology and director of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine at Lübeck (Germany) University.

The same held true for PASI-90, a response achieved by 71% of participants on 100 mg of tildrakizumab at week 28 and 66% at week 244, and by 73% of those on the 200-mg dose at week 28 and 70% at 5 years. A PASI-100 response was documented at week 28 in 29% of patients on the lower dose and 37% of those on 200 mg, with week 244 PASI-100 rates of 33% and 41%, respectively.

The long-term extension study enrolled 622 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis with at least a PASI-75 response to 100 mg or 200 mg of the humanized monoclonal antibody interleukin-23p19 inhibitor at week 28 in reSURFACE 1 or 2, or who were partial or nonresponders to etanercept in reSURFACE 2 and were then switched to tildrakizumab at 200 mg. Five hundred and forty-five of the 622 patients (88%) completed the full 5 years of the extension study.

Very few patients left the study because of loss of efficacy or adverse events. Indeed, the exposure-adjusted rate of drug-related serious adverse events was 0.8 cases per 100 patient-years at tildrakizumab 100 mg and 0.5 per 100 patient-years at 200 mg. Moreover, the rates of drug-related serious adverse events leading to treatment continuation were 0.3 and 0.2 per 100 patient-years at the 100-mg and 200-mg doses. Rates of treatment-emergent severe infection were 1.2 and 1.3 per 100 patient-years on the lower and higher doses. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred at rates of 0.5 and 0.7 cases per 100 patient-years.

“I think the adverse events are generally similar to what has been seen with other biologics, but slightly less with tildrakizumab. Registries will provide a clearer picture. What’s interesting is that even if you double the dosage you don’t see an increase in side effects,” Dr. Thaçi said.

Asked what happens when a tildrakizumab responder stops taking the monoclonal antibody, he replied, “This is something very interesting we see with the IL-23 inhibitors: The disease comes back very slowly. It takes months, and sometimes years, for the patient to lose the PASI-75 or even the PASI-90 response. But we still consider that continuous treatment is probably the better way to go because we cannot be sure who will lose or regain response. At the moment we don’t have a biomarker to tell us what we should do in our daily practice.”

Dr. Thaçi reported serving as an adviser to and paid investigator for Almirall, the study sponsor, and approximately 20 other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

The full 5-year results of a long-term extension study of tildrakizumab for psoriasis show a high rate of sustained disease control coupled with a favorable safety profile during more than 5,400 patient-years of prospective follow-up, Diamont Thaçi, MD, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

For example, 89% of patients who had a PASI-75 response on the 100-mg dose of tildrakizumab (Ilumya) – the dose approved in the United States – at week 28 in the parent reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2 trials maintained their PASI-75 response throughout the next 4½ years in the long-term extension study, as did 93% of those with a week 28 PASI-75 response on 200 mg, a dose approved elsewhere, said Dr. Thaçi, professor of dermatology and director of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine at Lübeck (Germany) University.

The same held true for PASI-90, a response achieved by 71% of participants on 100 mg of tildrakizumab at week 28 and 66% at week 244, and by 73% of those on the 200-mg dose at week 28 and 70% at 5 years. A PASI-100 response was documented at week 28 in 29% of patients on the lower dose and 37% of those on 200 mg, with week 244 PASI-100 rates of 33% and 41%, respectively.

The long-term extension study enrolled 622 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis with at least a PASI-75 response to 100 mg or 200 mg of the humanized monoclonal antibody interleukin-23p19 inhibitor at week 28 in reSURFACE 1 or 2, or who were partial or nonresponders to etanercept in reSURFACE 2 and were then switched to tildrakizumab at 200 mg. Five hundred and forty-five of the 622 patients (88%) completed the full 5 years of the extension study.

Very few patients left the study because of loss of efficacy or adverse events. Indeed, the exposure-adjusted rate of drug-related serious adverse events was 0.8 cases per 100 patient-years at tildrakizumab 100 mg and 0.5 per 100 patient-years at 200 mg. Moreover, the rates of drug-related serious adverse events leading to treatment continuation were 0.3 and 0.2 per 100 patient-years at the 100-mg and 200-mg doses. Rates of treatment-emergent severe infection were 1.2 and 1.3 per 100 patient-years on the lower and higher doses. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred at rates of 0.5 and 0.7 cases per 100 patient-years.

“I think the adverse events are generally similar to what has been seen with other biologics, but slightly less with tildrakizumab. Registries will provide a clearer picture. What’s interesting is that even if you double the dosage you don’t see an increase in side effects,” Dr. Thaçi said.

Asked what happens when a tildrakizumab responder stops taking the monoclonal antibody, he replied, “This is something very interesting we see with the IL-23 inhibitors: The disease comes back very slowly. It takes months, and sometimes years, for the patient to lose the PASI-75 or even the PASI-90 response. But we still consider that continuous treatment is probably the better way to go because we cannot be sure who will lose or regain response. At the moment we don’t have a biomarker to tell us what we should do in our daily practice.”

Dr. Thaçi reported serving as an adviser to and paid investigator for Almirall, the study sponsor, and approximately 20 other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

The first nationwide study of severe immune-related adverse events among cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors helps identify those at elevated risk. The findings were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Immune-related adverse events are a very serious side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and as this therapy has become more common for treating advanced cancers, the incidence of immune-related adverse events has increased as well,” said presenting author William Murphy, a dual MD and MBA student at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Business School, both in Boston.

“However, because there is no ICD code for immune-related adverse events, it’s very difficult to study them at a population level. Most of the current literature around the incidence of immune-related adverse events and factors that are predictive of incidence are based on clinical trials and small studies,” Mr. Murphy noted.

He and his colleagues analyzed claims data from a U.S. nationwide health insurance plan for 14,378 patients who had a primary cancer and received at least one administration of an immune checkpoint inhibitor – an inhibitor of PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA4 – during 2011-2019.

Over 19,117 patient-years of follow-up, 504 patients (3.5%) developed a severe immune-related adverse event (irAE), defined as one occurring within 2 years of their treatment and requiring inpatient hospitalization and new immunosuppression.

The incidence of severe irAEs per patient treatment year was 2.6% overall, rising from 0% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2016.

In multivariate analysis, patients had an elevated risk of severe irAEs if they received combination immunotherapy as compared with monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.44; P < .001).

On the other hand, risk fell with advancing age (OR, 0.98 per additional year; P < .001). And risk was lower for patients with melanoma (OR, 0.70; P = .01), renal cell carcinoma (OR, 0.71; P = .03), and other cancers (OR, 0.50; P < .001), compared with lung cancer.

Sex, geographic region, income, employment status, and comorbidity were not significantly associated with the risk of severe irAEs.

“We hope that patients and providers can use this evidence from a nationwide study of severe irAEs to guide treatment and management decisions,” Mr. Murphy concluded.
 

Real-world evidence

“As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors increases for patients with a variety of different tumor types, there is increasing need for population-level evidence for patients treated outside of clinical trials,” said Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, an assistant attending physician with the melanoma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“This is a well-conducted study with an innovative approach to using real-world evidence to examine immune-related adverse events,” she added.

To her knowledge, it is the first study to look at multiple cancers for which immunotherapy is approved, Dr. Betof Warner said. This approach resulted in a large patient sample, giving power to detect differences between groups.

“The authors’ finding that combination immunotherapy is associated with more severe irAEs is in line with our clinical experience and other data sets, and the data regarding increased odds of severe irAEs in younger patients and those with lung cancer raise interesting biological questions about the etiology of irAEs,” Dr. Betof Warner noted.

However, certain factors complicate interpretation of the study’s findings, she cautioned. One such factor is requiring hospitalization to define an irAE.

“Practice patterns regarding hospitalization vary quite widely from center to center. For example, in some centers, all patients with immune-mediated colitis are hospitalized, whereas in others, these patients are managed predominantly in the outpatient setting, even in cases of high-grade toxicity,” she explained. “Practice patterns have also changed drastically over time as oncologists have grown more comfortable managing immune-related adverse events.”

Another factor is potential confounding. For example, patients with melanoma are more likely to receive combination immunotherapy given its longstanding approval for this cancer, whereas it is comparatively new for other cancers. Also, age may differ across cancers.

“The data the authors have provided are a great starting point, but I think further analysis is needed before these observations can be validated and integrated into practice,” Dr. Betof Warner concluded.

This study did not receive any specific funding. Mr. Murphy and Dr. Betof Warner disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Murphy W et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 854.

The first nationwide study of severe immune-related adverse events among cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors helps identify those at elevated risk. The findings were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Immune-related adverse events are a very serious side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and as this therapy has become more common for treating advanced cancers, the incidence of immune-related adverse events has increased as well,” said presenting author William Murphy, a dual MD and MBA student at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Business School, both in Boston.

“However, because there is no ICD code for immune-related adverse events, it’s very difficult to study them at a population level. Most of the current literature around the incidence of immune-related adverse events and factors that are predictive of incidence are based on clinical trials and small studies,” Mr. Murphy noted.

He and his colleagues analyzed claims data from a U.S. nationwide health insurance plan for 14,378 patients who had a primary cancer and received at least one administration of an immune checkpoint inhibitor – an inhibitor of PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA4 – during 2011-2019.

Over 19,117 patient-years of follow-up, 504 patients (3.5%) developed a severe immune-related adverse event (irAE), defined as one occurring within 2 years of their treatment and requiring inpatient hospitalization and new immunosuppression.

The incidence of severe irAEs per patient treatment year was 2.6% overall, rising from 0% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2016.

In multivariate analysis, patients had an elevated risk of severe irAEs if they received combination immunotherapy as compared with monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.44; P < .001).

On the other hand, risk fell with advancing age (OR, 0.98 per additional year; P < .001). And risk was lower for patients with melanoma (OR, 0.70; P = .01), renal cell carcinoma (OR, 0.71; P = .03), and other cancers (OR, 0.50; P < .001), compared with lung cancer.

Sex, geographic region, income, employment status, and comorbidity were not significantly associated with the risk of severe irAEs.

“We hope that patients and providers can use this evidence from a nationwide study of severe irAEs to guide treatment and management decisions,” Mr. Murphy concluded.
 

Real-world evidence

“As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors increases for patients with a variety of different tumor types, there is increasing need for population-level evidence for patients treated outside of clinical trials,” said Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, an assistant attending physician with the melanoma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“This is a well-conducted study with an innovative approach to using real-world evidence to examine immune-related adverse events,” she added.

To her knowledge, it is the first study to look at multiple cancers for which immunotherapy is approved, Dr. Betof Warner said. This approach resulted in a large patient sample, giving power to detect differences between groups.

“The authors’ finding that combination immunotherapy is associated with more severe irAEs is in line with our clinical experience and other data sets, and the data regarding increased odds of severe irAEs in younger patients and those with lung cancer raise interesting biological questions about the etiology of irAEs,” Dr. Betof Warner noted.

However, certain factors complicate interpretation of the study’s findings, she cautioned. One such factor is requiring hospitalization to define an irAE.

“Practice patterns regarding hospitalization vary quite widely from center to center. For example, in some centers, all patients with immune-mediated colitis are hospitalized, whereas in others, these patients are managed predominantly in the outpatient setting, even in cases of high-grade toxicity,” she explained. “Practice patterns have also changed drastically over time as oncologists have grown more comfortable managing immune-related adverse events.”

Another factor is potential confounding. For example, patients with melanoma are more likely to receive combination immunotherapy given its longstanding approval for this cancer, whereas it is comparatively new for other cancers. Also, age may differ across cancers.

“The data the authors have provided are a great starting point, but I think further analysis is needed before these observations can be validated and integrated into practice,” Dr. Betof Warner concluded.

This study did not receive any specific funding. Mr. Murphy and Dr. Betof Warner disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Murphy W et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 854.

The first nationwide study of severe immune-related adverse events among cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors helps identify those at elevated risk. The findings were reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

“Immune-related adverse events are a very serious side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and as this therapy has become more common for treating advanced cancers, the incidence of immune-related adverse events has increased as well,” said presenting author William Murphy, a dual MD and MBA student at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Business School, both in Boston.

“However, because there is no ICD code for immune-related adverse events, it’s very difficult to study them at a population level. Most of the current literature around the incidence of immune-related adverse events and factors that are predictive of incidence are based on clinical trials and small studies,” Mr. Murphy noted.

He and his colleagues analyzed claims data from a U.S. nationwide health insurance plan for 14,378 patients who had a primary cancer and received at least one administration of an immune checkpoint inhibitor – an inhibitor of PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA4 – during 2011-2019.

Over 19,117 patient-years of follow-up, 504 patients (3.5%) developed a severe immune-related adverse event (irAE), defined as one occurring within 2 years of their treatment and requiring inpatient hospitalization and new immunosuppression.

The incidence of severe irAEs per patient treatment year was 2.6% overall, rising from 0% in 2011 to 3.7% in 2016.

In multivariate analysis, patients had an elevated risk of severe irAEs if they received combination immunotherapy as compared with monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.44; P < .001).

On the other hand, risk fell with advancing age (OR, 0.98 per additional year; P < .001). And risk was lower for patients with melanoma (OR, 0.70; P = .01), renal cell carcinoma (OR, 0.71; P = .03), and other cancers (OR, 0.50; P < .001), compared with lung cancer.

Sex, geographic region, income, employment status, and comorbidity were not significantly associated with the risk of severe irAEs.

“We hope that patients and providers can use this evidence from a nationwide study of severe irAEs to guide treatment and management decisions,” Mr. Murphy concluded.
 

Real-world evidence

“As the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors increases for patients with a variety of different tumor types, there is increasing need for population-level evidence for patients treated outside of clinical trials,” said Allison Betof Warner, MD, PhD, an assistant attending physician with the melanoma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“This is a well-conducted study with an innovative approach to using real-world evidence to examine immune-related adverse events,” she added.

To her knowledge, it is the first study to look at multiple cancers for which immunotherapy is approved, Dr. Betof Warner said. This approach resulted in a large patient sample, giving power to detect differences between groups.

“The authors’ finding that combination immunotherapy is associated with more severe irAEs is in line with our clinical experience and other data sets, and the data regarding increased odds of severe irAEs in younger patients and those with lung cancer raise interesting biological questions about the etiology of irAEs,” Dr. Betof Warner noted.

However, certain factors complicate interpretation of the study’s findings, she cautioned. One such factor is requiring hospitalization to define an irAE.

“Practice patterns regarding hospitalization vary quite widely from center to center. For example, in some centers, all patients with immune-mediated colitis are hospitalized, whereas in others, these patients are managed predominantly in the outpatient setting, even in cases of high-grade toxicity,” she explained. “Practice patterns have also changed drastically over time as oncologists have grown more comfortable managing immune-related adverse events.”

Another factor is potential confounding. For example, patients with melanoma are more likely to receive combination immunotherapy given its longstanding approval for this cancer, whereas it is comparatively new for other cancers. Also, age may differ across cancers.

“The data the authors have provided are a great starting point, but I think further analysis is needed before these observations can be validated and integrated into practice,” Dr. Betof Warner concluded.

This study did not receive any specific funding. Mr. Murphy and Dr. Betof Warner disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Murphy W et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 854.

Researchers are testing whether a probiotic called Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG can prevent COVID-19 in household contacts of COVID patients.

On the Nov. 12 episode of the Blood & Cancer podcast, Anthony D. Sung, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., joined host David H. Henry, MD, of Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, to discuss the trial of LGG as well as other research. The following transcript of that discussion has been edited for length and clarity.
 

David Henry, MD: Here we are in COVID. We’re recording this the first week in November. Sadly, cases are spiking in the country. And I understand you’ve got some information that you might share about how manipulating ... the microbiome that we all exist with inside our gut might somehow play into doing better or worse with COVID.

Anthony Sung, MD: Absolutely. So, as associate director of the Duke Microbiome Center, I was approached by one of my colleagues, Paul Wischmeyer, who is a professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at Duke. Paul had previously done some very nice murine studies with the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, or LGG.

He showed, in a murine model of pseudomonas pneumonia, that giving LGG to mice would help modulate their microbiome and, in turn, their immune system, leading to decreased inflammation, decreased TNF-alpha, IL [interleukin]-2, and IL-6, [and] increased Treg cells [Clin Nutr. 2017;36[6]:1549-57]. This also helped prevent lung injury, and it actually significantly improved survival in mice receiving LGG [Shock. 2013;40[6]:496-503].

In addition, there has been a randomized clinical trial of LGG showing that its administration would help prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia, or VAP [Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Oct 15;182[8]:1058-64].

And a few years ago, there was another RCT [randomized, controlled trial], published in Nature, showing that another Lactobacillus product significantly decreased the combined endpoint of sepsis and mortality, primarily by reducing lower respiratory tract infection [Nature. 2017 Aug 24;548[7668]:407-12].
 

Dr. Henry: And how is that working? What is the bacillus doing to help us?

Dr. Sung: We think it’s through modulating the immune system. As mentioned in Paul’s studies, we saw significantly decreased amounts of TNF-alpha, IL-2, and IL-6, which are the same cytokines that have been implicated in COVID-19 and associated with increased lung injury in patients during this pandemic.

And we believe that by giving individuals this probiotic, LGG, we may help modulate the immune system, decrease lung injury and symptoms, and maybe even prevent COVID-19.

So with support from the Duke Microbiome Center, as well as private donations and philanthropy, we are conducting a randomized clinical trial of LGG to prevent COVID-19 in household contacts who’ve been exposed to the disease. In other words, if someone in the house gets COVID-19, we want to try to prophylax everybody else living in that house and prevent them from coming down with the same infection.
 

Dr. Henry: And this is an oral administration?

Dr. Sung: Correct. This is an oral pill, two pills once a day.

Dr. Henry: And it’s an ongoing study, of course, in COVID right now?

Dr. Sung: Correct. So we have an IND [investigational new drug application] from the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], and we are actively recruiting subjects both at Duke University, but also due to the unique study design, we can enroll patients anywhere across the country. Because of the importance of social distancing, everything is done remotely.

So a household contact can hear about us, either through your podcast or one of our Facebook ads or through other media. They can reach out to our study website, which is https://sites.duke.edu/protectehc, or reach out to us at our study email, [email protected].

And we can go ahead and screen them for eligibility in our trial. And if they are eligible and they consent to participate, we will mail them a package basically overnight, FedEx, containing either LGG or placebo, as well as kits so that they can self-collect their stool and nasal swabs so we can test it for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR [polymerase chain reaction] and look at the microbiome.

Dr. Sung and Dr. Henry have no relevant disclosures. Funding for the trial is provided by the Duke Microbiome Center and philanthropic giving. The LGG and placebo used in the trial are provided by DSM.

Researchers are testing whether a probiotic called Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG can prevent COVID-19 in household contacts of COVID patients.

On the Nov. 12 episode of the Blood & Cancer podcast, Anthony D. Sung, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., joined host David H. Henry, MD, of Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, to discuss the trial of LGG as well as other research. The following transcript of that discussion has been edited for length and clarity.
 

David Henry, MD: Here we are in COVID. We’re recording this the first week in November. Sadly, cases are spiking in the country. And I understand you’ve got some information that you might share about how manipulating ... the microbiome that we all exist with inside our gut might somehow play into doing better or worse with COVID.

Anthony Sung, MD: Absolutely. So, as associate director of the Duke Microbiome Center, I was approached by one of my colleagues, Paul Wischmeyer, who is a professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at Duke. Paul had previously done some very nice murine studies with the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, or LGG.

He showed, in a murine model of pseudomonas pneumonia, that giving LGG to mice would help modulate their microbiome and, in turn, their immune system, leading to decreased inflammation, decreased TNF-alpha, IL [interleukin]-2, and IL-6, [and] increased Treg cells [Clin Nutr. 2017;36[6]:1549-57]. This also helped prevent lung injury, and it actually significantly improved survival in mice receiving LGG [Shock. 2013;40[6]:496-503].

In addition, there has been a randomized clinical trial of LGG showing that its administration would help prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia, or VAP [Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Oct 15;182[8]:1058-64].

And a few years ago, there was another RCT [randomized, controlled trial], published in Nature, showing that another Lactobacillus product significantly decreased the combined endpoint of sepsis and mortality, primarily by reducing lower respiratory tract infection [Nature. 2017 Aug 24;548[7668]:407-12].
 

Dr. Henry: And how is that working? What is the bacillus doing to help us?

Dr. Sung: We think it’s through modulating the immune system. As mentioned in Paul’s studies, we saw significantly decreased amounts of TNF-alpha, IL-2, and IL-6, which are the same cytokines that have been implicated in COVID-19 and associated with increased lung injury in patients during this pandemic.

And we believe that by giving individuals this probiotic, LGG, we may help modulate the immune system, decrease lung injury and symptoms, and maybe even prevent COVID-19.

So with support from the Duke Microbiome Center, as well as private donations and philanthropy, we are conducting a randomized clinical trial of LGG to prevent COVID-19 in household contacts who’ve been exposed to the disease. In other words, if someone in the house gets COVID-19, we want to try to prophylax everybody else living in that house and prevent them from coming down with the same infection.
 

Dr. Henry: And this is an oral administration?

Dr. Sung: Correct. This is an oral pill, two pills once a day.

Dr. Henry: And it’s an ongoing study, of course, in COVID right now?

Dr. Sung: Correct. So we have an IND [investigational new drug application] from the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], and we are actively recruiting subjects both at Duke University, but also due to the unique study design, we can enroll patients anywhere across the country. Because of the importance of social distancing, everything is done remotely.

So a household contact can hear about us, either through your podcast or one of our Facebook ads or through other media. They can reach out to our study website, which is https://sites.duke.edu/protectehc, or reach out to us at our study email, [email protected].

And we can go ahead and screen them for eligibility in our trial. And if they are eligible and they consent to participate, we will mail them a package basically overnight, FedEx, containing either LGG or placebo, as well as kits so that they can self-collect their stool and nasal swabs so we can test it for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR [polymerase chain reaction] and look at the microbiome.

Dr. Sung and Dr. Henry have no relevant disclosures. Funding for the trial is provided by the Duke Microbiome Center and philanthropic giving. The LGG and placebo used in the trial are provided by DSM.

Researchers are testing whether a probiotic called Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG can prevent COVID-19 in household contacts of COVID patients.

On the Nov. 12 episode of the Blood & Cancer podcast, Anthony D. Sung, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., joined host David H. Henry, MD, of Penn Medicine in Philadelphia, to discuss the trial of LGG as well as other research. The following transcript of that discussion has been edited for length and clarity.
 

David Henry, MD: Here we are in COVID. We’re recording this the first week in November. Sadly, cases are spiking in the country. And I understand you’ve got some information that you might share about how manipulating ... the microbiome that we all exist with inside our gut might somehow play into doing better or worse with COVID.

Anthony Sung, MD: Absolutely. So, as associate director of the Duke Microbiome Center, I was approached by one of my colleagues, Paul Wischmeyer, who is a professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at Duke. Paul had previously done some very nice murine studies with the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, or LGG.

He showed, in a murine model of pseudomonas pneumonia, that giving LGG to mice would help modulate their microbiome and, in turn, their immune system, leading to decreased inflammation, decreased TNF-alpha, IL [interleukin]-2, and IL-6, [and] increased Treg cells [Clin Nutr. 2017;36[6]:1549-57]. This also helped prevent lung injury, and it actually significantly improved survival in mice receiving LGG [Shock. 2013;40[6]:496-503].

In addition, there has been a randomized clinical trial of LGG showing that its administration would help prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia, or VAP [Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Oct 15;182[8]:1058-64].

And a few years ago, there was another RCT [randomized, controlled trial], published in Nature, showing that another Lactobacillus product significantly decreased the combined endpoint of sepsis and mortality, primarily by reducing lower respiratory tract infection [Nature. 2017 Aug 24;548[7668]:407-12].
 

Dr. Henry: And how is that working? What is the bacillus doing to help us?

Dr. Sung: We think it’s through modulating the immune system. As mentioned in Paul’s studies, we saw significantly decreased amounts of TNF-alpha, IL-2, and IL-6, which are the same cytokines that have been implicated in COVID-19 and associated with increased lung injury in patients during this pandemic.

And we believe that by giving individuals this probiotic, LGG, we may help modulate the immune system, decrease lung injury and symptoms, and maybe even prevent COVID-19.

So with support from the Duke Microbiome Center, as well as private donations and philanthropy, we are conducting a randomized clinical trial of LGG to prevent COVID-19 in household contacts who’ve been exposed to the disease. In other words, if someone in the house gets COVID-19, we want to try to prophylax everybody else living in that house and prevent them from coming down with the same infection.
 

Dr. Henry: And this is an oral administration?

Dr. Sung: Correct. This is an oral pill, two pills once a day.

Dr. Henry: And it’s an ongoing study, of course, in COVID right now?

Dr. Sung: Correct. So we have an IND [investigational new drug application] from the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], and we are actively recruiting subjects both at Duke University, but also due to the unique study design, we can enroll patients anywhere across the country. Because of the importance of social distancing, everything is done remotely.

So a household contact can hear about us, either through your podcast or one of our Facebook ads or through other media. They can reach out to our study website, which is https://sites.duke.edu/protectehc, or reach out to us at our study email, [email protected].

And we can go ahead and screen them for eligibility in our trial. And if they are eligible and they consent to participate, we will mail them a package basically overnight, FedEx, containing either LGG or placebo, as well as kits so that they can self-collect their stool and nasal swabs so we can test it for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR [polymerase chain reaction] and look at the microbiome.

Dr. Sung and Dr. Henry have no relevant disclosures. Funding for the trial is provided by the Duke Microbiome Center and philanthropic giving. The LGG and placebo used in the trial are provided by DSM.