Vertex Pharmaceuticals has acquired ViaCyte, bringing together two of the leading biotechnology companies developing stem cell–derived islet cell replacement therapies for type 1 diabetes.

The $320 million cash purchase “will accelerate our goal of transforming, if not curing, type 1 diabetes by expanding our capabilities and bringing additional tools, technologies, and assets to our current stem cell-based programs,” said Vertex Chief Executive Officer and President Reshma Kewalramani, MD, in a company statement.

Last month, Vertex reported on a phase 1/2 multicenter clinical trial for two patients with type 1 diabetes who experienced improved blood glucose control with half doses of the company’s investigational allogeneic stem cell-derived islets (VX-880).

The first person to receive the product remained completely insulin-independent at 9 months post-transplant. A third patient has received the full targeted dose, but the data for this participant have yet to be reported.

For Viacyte’s part, last week the company announced that a clinical hold placed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the trial has been lifted, allowing it to move forward with a planned total enrollment of 17 patients.

“The FDA requested additional information on the program, which we provided expeditiously. We are pleased that the hold has been lifted and look forward to continuing the Phase 1/2 trial in the U.S.,” a Vertex spokesperson told this news organization.

And a company official for ViaCyte presented results for three patients who received pancreatic precursor (PEC-01) cells derived from the company’s proprietary pluripotent stem cell line at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society held in June. The cells are housed in an open delivery device implanted into a patient’s forearm. All three participants experienced improved blood glucose levels.

That presentation followed ViaCyte’s announcement in February that the first patient with type 1 diabetes had been dosed in a Phase 1 clinical trial of its investigational allogeneic, gene-edited, stem cell-derived product, VCTX210, developed in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics’ gene-editing technology. The aim is to generate islet cells that will produce insulin while avoiding recognition by the immune system, thus rendering immunosuppressive drugs unnecessary.

According to Vertex’s announcement, “The acquisition of ViaCyte provides Vertex with complementary assets, capabilities, and technologies, including additional human stem cell lines, intellectual property around stem cell differentiation, and Good Manufacturing Practice ... facilities for cell-based therapies that could accelerate Vertex’s ongoing type 1 diabetes programs. The acquisition also provides access to novel hypoimmune stem cell assets via the ViaCyte collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics.”

In response to the announcement, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, which has funded the work of both companies, said in a statement that the acquisition “represents a significant stride in cures research for the type 1 diabetes community.”

“The coming together of two leaders in the cell-derived therapies field will undoubtedly accelerate the development of VX-880 by combining their resources, technologies, intellectual property, and more,” it added.

A third company developing stem cell–derived islet cell therapies, Sernova, said in a statement provided to this news organization: “We are very confident that bringing important game-changing technologies together, as we are seeing across the industry, will result in several viable technologies for the millions of people with type 1 diabetes ... We are thrilled that there are several technologies under development using different approaches that have the potential to provide a ‘functional cure’ for this disease.”

Vertex anticipates the acquisition will close later in 2022.

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

Vertex Pharmaceuticals has acquired ViaCyte, bringing together two of the leading biotechnology companies developing stem cell–derived islet cell replacement therapies for type 1 diabetes.

The $320 million cash purchase “will accelerate our goal of transforming, if not curing, type 1 diabetes by expanding our capabilities and bringing additional tools, technologies, and assets to our current stem cell-based programs,” said Vertex Chief Executive Officer and President Reshma Kewalramani, MD, in a company statement.

Last month, Vertex reported on a phase 1/2 multicenter clinical trial for two patients with type 1 diabetes who experienced improved blood glucose control with half doses of the company’s investigational allogeneic stem cell-derived islets (VX-880).

The first person to receive the product remained completely insulin-independent at 9 months post-transplant. A third patient has received the full targeted dose, but the data for this participant have yet to be reported.

For Viacyte’s part, last week the company announced that a clinical hold placed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the trial has been lifted, allowing it to move forward with a planned total enrollment of 17 patients.

“The FDA requested additional information on the program, which we provided expeditiously. We are pleased that the hold has been lifted and look forward to continuing the Phase 1/2 trial in the U.S.,” a Vertex spokesperson told this news organization.

And a company official for ViaCyte presented results for three patients who received pancreatic precursor (PEC-01) cells derived from the company’s proprietary pluripotent stem cell line at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society held in June. The cells are housed in an open delivery device implanted into a patient’s forearm. All three participants experienced improved blood glucose levels.

That presentation followed ViaCyte’s announcement in February that the first patient with type 1 diabetes had been dosed in a Phase 1 clinical trial of its investigational allogeneic, gene-edited, stem cell-derived product, VCTX210, developed in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics’ gene-editing technology. The aim is to generate islet cells that will produce insulin while avoiding recognition by the immune system, thus rendering immunosuppressive drugs unnecessary.

According to Vertex’s announcement, “The acquisition of ViaCyte provides Vertex with complementary assets, capabilities, and technologies, including additional human stem cell lines, intellectual property around stem cell differentiation, and Good Manufacturing Practice ... facilities for cell-based therapies that could accelerate Vertex’s ongoing type 1 diabetes programs. The acquisition also provides access to novel hypoimmune stem cell assets via the ViaCyte collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics.”

In response to the announcement, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, which has funded the work of both companies, said in a statement that the acquisition “represents a significant stride in cures research for the type 1 diabetes community.”

“The coming together of two leaders in the cell-derived therapies field will undoubtedly accelerate the development of VX-880 by combining their resources, technologies, intellectual property, and more,” it added.

A third company developing stem cell–derived islet cell therapies, Sernova, said in a statement provided to this news organization: “We are very confident that bringing important game-changing technologies together, as we are seeing across the industry, will result in several viable technologies for the millions of people with type 1 diabetes ... We are thrilled that there are several technologies under development using different approaches that have the potential to provide a ‘functional cure’ for this disease.”

Vertex anticipates the acquisition will close later in 2022.

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

Vertex Pharmaceuticals has acquired ViaCyte, bringing together two of the leading biotechnology companies developing stem cell–derived islet cell replacement therapies for type 1 diabetes.

The $320 million cash purchase “will accelerate our goal of transforming, if not curing, type 1 diabetes by expanding our capabilities and bringing additional tools, technologies, and assets to our current stem cell-based programs,” said Vertex Chief Executive Officer and President Reshma Kewalramani, MD, in a company statement.

Last month, Vertex reported on a phase 1/2 multicenter clinical trial for two patients with type 1 diabetes who experienced improved blood glucose control with half doses of the company’s investigational allogeneic stem cell-derived islets (VX-880).

The first person to receive the product remained completely insulin-independent at 9 months post-transplant. A third patient has received the full targeted dose, but the data for this participant have yet to be reported.

For Viacyte’s part, last week the company announced that a clinical hold placed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the trial has been lifted, allowing it to move forward with a planned total enrollment of 17 patients.

“The FDA requested additional information on the program, which we provided expeditiously. We are pleased that the hold has been lifted and look forward to continuing the Phase 1/2 trial in the U.S.,” a Vertex spokesperson told this news organization.

And a company official for ViaCyte presented results for three patients who received pancreatic precursor (PEC-01) cells derived from the company’s proprietary pluripotent stem cell line at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society held in June. The cells are housed in an open delivery device implanted into a patient’s forearm. All three participants experienced improved blood glucose levels.

That presentation followed ViaCyte’s announcement in February that the first patient with type 1 diabetes had been dosed in a Phase 1 clinical trial of its investigational allogeneic, gene-edited, stem cell-derived product, VCTX210, developed in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics’ gene-editing technology. The aim is to generate islet cells that will produce insulin while avoiding recognition by the immune system, thus rendering immunosuppressive drugs unnecessary.

According to Vertex’s announcement, “The acquisition of ViaCyte provides Vertex with complementary assets, capabilities, and technologies, including additional human stem cell lines, intellectual property around stem cell differentiation, and Good Manufacturing Practice ... facilities for cell-based therapies that could accelerate Vertex’s ongoing type 1 diabetes programs. The acquisition also provides access to novel hypoimmune stem cell assets via the ViaCyte collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics.”

In response to the announcement, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, which has funded the work of both companies, said in a statement that the acquisition “represents a significant stride in cures research for the type 1 diabetes community.”

“The coming together of two leaders in the cell-derived therapies field will undoubtedly accelerate the development of VX-880 by combining their resources, technologies, intellectual property, and more,” it added.

A third company developing stem cell–derived islet cell therapies, Sernova, said in a statement provided to this news organization: “We are very confident that bringing important game-changing technologies together, as we are seeing across the industry, will result in several viable technologies for the millions of people with type 1 diabetes ... We are thrilled that there are several technologies under development using different approaches that have the potential to provide a ‘functional cure’ for this disease.”

Vertex anticipates the acquisition will close later in 2022.

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

When anti–tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) treatment fails to achieve remission for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), tofacitinib (Xeljanz) appears more effect sooner than vedolizumab (Entyvio), suggests a Dutch registry study.

Data on nearly 150 patients with UC who had already undergone treatment with anti-TNF drugs showed that combined clinical and biochemical remission was about five times more likely with tofacitinib versus vedolizumab within 12 weeks of starting therapy.

However, the differences tailed off over subsequent weeks, such that there was no significant difference in combined remission rates at 52 weeks. There were also no notable differences in safety between the two drugs.

“These results may help in guiding clinical decisionmaking after anti-TNF failure in patients with UC,” the authors write.

The research was published online by Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Real-world evidence

“This study offers more real-world evidence than a standard randomized controlled trial, since there was no randomization between the two study groups and no strict inclusion and exclusion criteria,” co–senior authors Tessa Straatmijer, MD, PhD candidate, and Marjolijn Duijvestein, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

They continued: “It is known that tofacitinib is more rapid of action compared to vedolizumab. We therefore expected that the odds ratio of remission rates between the two groups would be higher at weeks 12 and 24, compared to week 52.”

“We will continue with collecting data in our prospective cohort up to 10 years after initiating tofacitinib or vedolizumab,” Dr. Straatmijer and Dr. Duijvestein added. “Hopefully we can provide long-term outcomes after a couple of years.”

The authors highlight that for a “considerable proportion” of patients with UC, their condition does not respond to anti-TNF drugs, they experience adverse effects, or the response diminishes over time. Alternatives, such as vedolizumab and tofacitinib, are typically “prescribed after failure of the anti-TNF,” owing to their price and clinician experience.

While vedolizumab (an α4β7 integrin blocker) and tofacitinib (a Janus kinase inhibitor) have different mechanisms of action, head-to-head randomized controlled trials comparing their efficacy among patients with UC whose condition is refractory to anti-TNF are “lacking,” they add. “However, to guide physician decisionmaking on the most suitable drug choice after anti-TNF failure, effectiveness data comparing tofacitinib with vedolizumab is pivotal.”

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of the next therapeutic options, the team examined data from the Dutch Initiative on Crohn and Colitis registry.

They identified nearly 300 adult patients with clinical or biochemical disease activity who had initiated treatment with vedolizumab or tofacitinib. They excluded patients without prior anti-TNF treatment, those who had previously been treated with vedolizumab or tofacitinib, and those who did not have clinical and biochemical or endoscopic disease activity at baseline. The final analysis included 83 patients given vedolizumab and 65 treated with tofacitinib.

Patients given tofacitinib received 10 mg twice daily for the first 8 weeks, followed by maintenance treatment of 5 mg twice daily, with optional dose optimization in case of insufficient response. Vedolizumab was administered intravenously in line with the label; 300 mg was administered at weeks 0, 2, and 6, followed by 300 mg every 8 weeks, with a shortened infusion interval in cases of inadequate response.

There were few differences between the two groups at baseline, although patients given vedolizumab had been treated longer than those in the tofacitinib group (12 years vs. 7 years). Vedolizumab patients were also more likely to be receiving concomitant oral prednisone at baseline (50.6% vs. 30.8%).
 

Early difference fades

Corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 12 was observed in 27.7% of patients in the vedolizumab group, rising to 38.6% at week 24 and 37.3% at week 52. Among those given tofacitinib, the rates of clinical remission were 56.9% at week 12, 60.0% at week 24, and 55.4% at week 52.

Propensity score-weight analysis revealed that tofacitinib patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission at weeks 12, 24, and 52, compared with those given vedolizumab, at odds ratio of 6.33, 3.02, and 1.86, respectively.

Biochemical remission rates among patients treated with vedolizumab were 25.3% at week 12, 28.9% at week 24, and 22.9% at week 52. For the tofacitinib group, the rates were 40.0%, 36.9%, and 27.7%, respectively. Biochemical remission was defined by C-reactive protein or fecal calprotectin levels.

The likelihood of biochemical remission was again greater with tofacitinib than with vedolizumab, at an odds ratio of 3.27 at week 12, 1.87 at week 24, and 1.81 at week 52.

Combined clinical and biochemical remission was more likely among patients given tofacitinib versus vedolizumab at week 12, at an odds ratio of 5.05, and at week 24, at an odds ratio of 2.11. However, at week 52, the difference was no longer significant, at an odds ratio of 1.17.

The authors note that there was no difference in the rate of infection between the two treatment groups, and the rate of severe adverse events was similar. However, three patients receiving tofacitinib experienced herpes simplex infections, compared with none of those given vedolizumab.

But, compared with the tofacitinib group, patients taking vedolizumab were more likely to discontinue treatment before 52 weeks, primarily because of a lack of response to treatment.

“The present study underlines that both vedolizumab and tofacitinib are relatively safe treatment options in patients with UC in a 12-month period,” the team writes.
 

‘Interesting’ efficacy data

Approached for comment, Alan C. Moss, MD, a professor of gastroenterology at Boston University School of Medicine, said that the findings are “interesting” for clinicians.

“We have so many treatment options right now, picking one over the other, particularly in patients like this who fail anti-TNF, is very important,” he told this news organization.

While he noted that registry data such as these are usually powered for “one outcome” (either efficacy or safety), “the immediate conclusions that come to mind are that certainly the efficacy of the two drugs in this patient population looks impressive.

“What we do note, though, is over time, as you get longer into the study, they start to become closer in terms of overall remission,” which Dr. Moss said fits with the current understanding that vedolizumab “takes longer to work.”

The take-away lesson from the study is that the short-term efficacy of tofacitinib is “superior,” Dr. Moss said, but, over the medium to long term, vedolizumab “may turn out to be more equivalent.”

Dr. Moss also pointed out that approximately 40% of patients given tofacitinib in the study began with the higher 10-mg twice-daily dose, “which is not the FDA-approved maintenance dose,” and over time about a quarter stayed on the higher dose.

“What that tells us is that, yes, it works faster if you’re using the higher dose, and over time, a certain proportion of these patients needed a higher dose to get these results,” he said.

Consequently, Dr. Moss said that the two treatment groups were not “equivalent” in terms of the doses given relative to normal maintenance dose.

The Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Fellowship is sponsored by AbbVie, Pfizer, Takeda, Celgene, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Cablon Medical, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Mundipharma, Dr. Falk Pharma, Sandoz, and Tramedico. Dr. Duijvestein has relationships with Echo Pharma, Robarts Clinical Trials, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda, Tillotts Pharma, and Dr. Falk Pharma. Other authors have numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Moss has relationships with Pfizer and Janssen.

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

When anti–tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) treatment fails to achieve remission for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), tofacitinib (Xeljanz) appears more effect sooner than vedolizumab (Entyvio), suggests a Dutch registry study.

Data on nearly 150 patients with UC who had already undergone treatment with anti-TNF drugs showed that combined clinical and biochemical remission was about five times more likely with tofacitinib versus vedolizumab within 12 weeks of starting therapy.

However, the differences tailed off over subsequent weeks, such that there was no significant difference in combined remission rates at 52 weeks. There were also no notable differences in safety between the two drugs.

“These results may help in guiding clinical decisionmaking after anti-TNF failure in patients with UC,” the authors write.

The research was published online by Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Real-world evidence

“This study offers more real-world evidence than a standard randomized controlled trial, since there was no randomization between the two study groups and no strict inclusion and exclusion criteria,” co–senior authors Tessa Straatmijer, MD, PhD candidate, and Marjolijn Duijvestein, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

They continued: “It is known that tofacitinib is more rapid of action compared to vedolizumab. We therefore expected that the odds ratio of remission rates between the two groups would be higher at weeks 12 and 24, compared to week 52.”

“We will continue with collecting data in our prospective cohort up to 10 years after initiating tofacitinib or vedolizumab,” Dr. Straatmijer and Dr. Duijvestein added. “Hopefully we can provide long-term outcomes after a couple of years.”

The authors highlight that for a “considerable proportion” of patients with UC, their condition does not respond to anti-TNF drugs, they experience adverse effects, or the response diminishes over time. Alternatives, such as vedolizumab and tofacitinib, are typically “prescribed after failure of the anti-TNF,” owing to their price and clinician experience.

While vedolizumab (an α4β7 integrin blocker) and tofacitinib (a Janus kinase inhibitor) have different mechanisms of action, head-to-head randomized controlled trials comparing their efficacy among patients with UC whose condition is refractory to anti-TNF are “lacking,” they add. “However, to guide physician decisionmaking on the most suitable drug choice after anti-TNF failure, effectiveness data comparing tofacitinib with vedolizumab is pivotal.”

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of the next therapeutic options, the team examined data from the Dutch Initiative on Crohn and Colitis registry.

They identified nearly 300 adult patients with clinical or biochemical disease activity who had initiated treatment with vedolizumab or tofacitinib. They excluded patients without prior anti-TNF treatment, those who had previously been treated with vedolizumab or tofacitinib, and those who did not have clinical and biochemical or endoscopic disease activity at baseline. The final analysis included 83 patients given vedolizumab and 65 treated with tofacitinib.

Patients given tofacitinib received 10 mg twice daily for the first 8 weeks, followed by maintenance treatment of 5 mg twice daily, with optional dose optimization in case of insufficient response. Vedolizumab was administered intravenously in line with the label; 300 mg was administered at weeks 0, 2, and 6, followed by 300 mg every 8 weeks, with a shortened infusion interval in cases of inadequate response.

There were few differences between the two groups at baseline, although patients given vedolizumab had been treated longer than those in the tofacitinib group (12 years vs. 7 years). Vedolizumab patients were also more likely to be receiving concomitant oral prednisone at baseline (50.6% vs. 30.8%).
 

Early difference fades

Corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 12 was observed in 27.7% of patients in the vedolizumab group, rising to 38.6% at week 24 and 37.3% at week 52. Among those given tofacitinib, the rates of clinical remission were 56.9% at week 12, 60.0% at week 24, and 55.4% at week 52.

Propensity score-weight analysis revealed that tofacitinib patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission at weeks 12, 24, and 52, compared with those given vedolizumab, at odds ratio of 6.33, 3.02, and 1.86, respectively.

Biochemical remission rates among patients treated with vedolizumab were 25.3% at week 12, 28.9% at week 24, and 22.9% at week 52. For the tofacitinib group, the rates were 40.0%, 36.9%, and 27.7%, respectively. Biochemical remission was defined by C-reactive protein or fecal calprotectin levels.

The likelihood of biochemical remission was again greater with tofacitinib than with vedolizumab, at an odds ratio of 3.27 at week 12, 1.87 at week 24, and 1.81 at week 52.

Combined clinical and biochemical remission was more likely among patients given tofacitinib versus vedolizumab at week 12, at an odds ratio of 5.05, and at week 24, at an odds ratio of 2.11. However, at week 52, the difference was no longer significant, at an odds ratio of 1.17.

The authors note that there was no difference in the rate of infection between the two treatment groups, and the rate of severe adverse events was similar. However, three patients receiving tofacitinib experienced herpes simplex infections, compared with none of those given vedolizumab.

But, compared with the tofacitinib group, patients taking vedolizumab were more likely to discontinue treatment before 52 weeks, primarily because of a lack of response to treatment.

“The present study underlines that both vedolizumab and tofacitinib are relatively safe treatment options in patients with UC in a 12-month period,” the team writes.
 

‘Interesting’ efficacy data

Approached for comment, Alan C. Moss, MD, a professor of gastroenterology at Boston University School of Medicine, said that the findings are “interesting” for clinicians.

“We have so many treatment options right now, picking one over the other, particularly in patients like this who fail anti-TNF, is very important,” he told this news organization.

While he noted that registry data such as these are usually powered for “one outcome” (either efficacy or safety), “the immediate conclusions that come to mind are that certainly the efficacy of the two drugs in this patient population looks impressive.

“What we do note, though, is over time, as you get longer into the study, they start to become closer in terms of overall remission,” which Dr. Moss said fits with the current understanding that vedolizumab “takes longer to work.”

The take-away lesson from the study is that the short-term efficacy of tofacitinib is “superior,” Dr. Moss said, but, over the medium to long term, vedolizumab “may turn out to be more equivalent.”

Dr. Moss also pointed out that approximately 40% of patients given tofacitinib in the study began with the higher 10-mg twice-daily dose, “which is not the FDA-approved maintenance dose,” and over time about a quarter stayed on the higher dose.

“What that tells us is that, yes, it works faster if you’re using the higher dose, and over time, a certain proportion of these patients needed a higher dose to get these results,” he said.

Consequently, Dr. Moss said that the two treatment groups were not “equivalent” in terms of the doses given relative to normal maintenance dose.

The Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Fellowship is sponsored by AbbVie, Pfizer, Takeda, Celgene, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Cablon Medical, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Mundipharma, Dr. Falk Pharma, Sandoz, and Tramedico. Dr. Duijvestein has relationships with Echo Pharma, Robarts Clinical Trials, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda, Tillotts Pharma, and Dr. Falk Pharma. Other authors have numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Moss has relationships with Pfizer and Janssen.

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

When anti–tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) treatment fails to achieve remission for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), tofacitinib (Xeljanz) appears more effect sooner than vedolizumab (Entyvio), suggests a Dutch registry study.

Data on nearly 150 patients with UC who had already undergone treatment with anti-TNF drugs showed that combined clinical and biochemical remission was about five times more likely with tofacitinib versus vedolizumab within 12 weeks of starting therapy.

However, the differences tailed off over subsequent weeks, such that there was no significant difference in combined remission rates at 52 weeks. There were also no notable differences in safety between the two drugs.

“These results may help in guiding clinical decisionmaking after anti-TNF failure in patients with UC,” the authors write.

The research was published online by Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Real-world evidence

“This study offers more real-world evidence than a standard randomized controlled trial, since there was no randomization between the two study groups and no strict inclusion and exclusion criteria,” co–senior authors Tessa Straatmijer, MD, PhD candidate, and Marjolijn Duijvestein, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

They continued: “It is known that tofacitinib is more rapid of action compared to vedolizumab. We therefore expected that the odds ratio of remission rates between the two groups would be higher at weeks 12 and 24, compared to week 52.”

“We will continue with collecting data in our prospective cohort up to 10 years after initiating tofacitinib or vedolizumab,” Dr. Straatmijer and Dr. Duijvestein added. “Hopefully we can provide long-term outcomes after a couple of years.”

The authors highlight that for a “considerable proportion” of patients with UC, their condition does not respond to anti-TNF drugs, they experience adverse effects, or the response diminishes over time. Alternatives, such as vedolizumab and tofacitinib, are typically “prescribed after failure of the anti-TNF,” owing to their price and clinician experience.

While vedolizumab (an α4β7 integrin blocker) and tofacitinib (a Janus kinase inhibitor) have different mechanisms of action, head-to-head randomized controlled trials comparing their efficacy among patients with UC whose condition is refractory to anti-TNF are “lacking,” they add. “However, to guide physician decisionmaking on the most suitable drug choice after anti-TNF failure, effectiveness data comparing tofacitinib with vedolizumab is pivotal.”

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of the next therapeutic options, the team examined data from the Dutch Initiative on Crohn and Colitis registry.

They identified nearly 300 adult patients with clinical or biochemical disease activity who had initiated treatment with vedolizumab or tofacitinib. They excluded patients without prior anti-TNF treatment, those who had previously been treated with vedolizumab or tofacitinib, and those who did not have clinical and biochemical or endoscopic disease activity at baseline. The final analysis included 83 patients given vedolizumab and 65 treated with tofacitinib.

Patients given tofacitinib received 10 mg twice daily for the first 8 weeks, followed by maintenance treatment of 5 mg twice daily, with optional dose optimization in case of insufficient response. Vedolizumab was administered intravenously in line with the label; 300 mg was administered at weeks 0, 2, and 6, followed by 300 mg every 8 weeks, with a shortened infusion interval in cases of inadequate response.

There were few differences between the two groups at baseline, although patients given vedolizumab had been treated longer than those in the tofacitinib group (12 years vs. 7 years). Vedolizumab patients were also more likely to be receiving concomitant oral prednisone at baseline (50.6% vs. 30.8%).
 

Early difference fades

Corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 12 was observed in 27.7% of patients in the vedolizumab group, rising to 38.6% at week 24 and 37.3% at week 52. Among those given tofacitinib, the rates of clinical remission were 56.9% at week 12, 60.0% at week 24, and 55.4% at week 52.

Propensity score-weight analysis revealed that tofacitinib patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission at weeks 12, 24, and 52, compared with those given vedolizumab, at odds ratio of 6.33, 3.02, and 1.86, respectively.

Biochemical remission rates among patients treated with vedolizumab were 25.3% at week 12, 28.9% at week 24, and 22.9% at week 52. For the tofacitinib group, the rates were 40.0%, 36.9%, and 27.7%, respectively. Biochemical remission was defined by C-reactive protein or fecal calprotectin levels.

The likelihood of biochemical remission was again greater with tofacitinib than with vedolizumab, at an odds ratio of 3.27 at week 12, 1.87 at week 24, and 1.81 at week 52.

Combined clinical and biochemical remission was more likely among patients given tofacitinib versus vedolizumab at week 12, at an odds ratio of 5.05, and at week 24, at an odds ratio of 2.11. However, at week 52, the difference was no longer significant, at an odds ratio of 1.17.

The authors note that there was no difference in the rate of infection between the two treatment groups, and the rate of severe adverse events was similar. However, three patients receiving tofacitinib experienced herpes simplex infections, compared with none of those given vedolizumab.

But, compared with the tofacitinib group, patients taking vedolizumab were more likely to discontinue treatment before 52 weeks, primarily because of a lack of response to treatment.

“The present study underlines that both vedolizumab and tofacitinib are relatively safe treatment options in patients with UC in a 12-month period,” the team writes.
 

‘Interesting’ efficacy data

Approached for comment, Alan C. Moss, MD, a professor of gastroenterology at Boston University School of Medicine, said that the findings are “interesting” for clinicians.

“We have so many treatment options right now, picking one over the other, particularly in patients like this who fail anti-TNF, is very important,” he told this news organization.

While he noted that registry data such as these are usually powered for “one outcome” (either efficacy or safety), “the immediate conclusions that come to mind are that certainly the efficacy of the two drugs in this patient population looks impressive.

“What we do note, though, is over time, as you get longer into the study, they start to become closer in terms of overall remission,” which Dr. Moss said fits with the current understanding that vedolizumab “takes longer to work.”

The take-away lesson from the study is that the short-term efficacy of tofacitinib is “superior,” Dr. Moss said, but, over the medium to long term, vedolizumab “may turn out to be more equivalent.”

Dr. Moss also pointed out that approximately 40% of patients given tofacitinib in the study began with the higher 10-mg twice-daily dose, “which is not the FDA-approved maintenance dose,” and over time about a quarter stayed on the higher dose.

“What that tells us is that, yes, it works faster if you’re using the higher dose, and over time, a certain proportion of these patients needed a higher dose to get these results,” he said.

Consequently, Dr. Moss said that the two treatment groups were not “equivalent” in terms of the doses given relative to normal maintenance dose.

The Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Fellowship is sponsored by AbbVie, Pfizer, Takeda, Celgene, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Cablon Medical, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Mundipharma, Dr. Falk Pharma, Sandoz, and Tramedico. Dr. Duijvestein has relationships with Echo Pharma, Robarts Clinical Trials, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda, Tillotts Pharma, and Dr. Falk Pharma. Other authors have numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Moss has relationships with Pfizer and Janssen.

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

The Justice Department is launching a Reproductive Rights Task Force to prevent state and local governments from overreach if they impose new abortion bans.

Department officials announced July 12 that the task force formalizes an existing work group and recent efforts to protect access to reproductive health care considering the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The task force will monitor state and local legislation and consider legal action against states that ban abortion medication, out-of-state travel for an abortion, and other measures that try to prevent reproductive health services that are authorized by federal law.

“The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision is a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States,” Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, the task force chair, said in a statement.

“The Court abandoned 50 years of precedent and took away the constitutional right to abortion, preventing women all over the country from being able to make critical decisions about our bodies, our health, and our futures,” she said. “The Justice Department is committed to protecting access to reproductive services.”

The task force includes representatives from the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Civil Rights Division, U.S. attorneys’ offices, Office of the Solicitor General, Office for Access to Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of the Associate Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and Office of the Attorney General.

The task force is charged with coordinating federal government responses, including proactive and defensive legal action, the department said. Task force members will work with agencies across the federal government to support their work on issues related to reproductive rights and access to reproductive health care.

The Justice Department will also continue to work with external groups, such as reproductive services providers, advocates, and state attorneys general offices. It will also work with the Office of Counsel to the President to hold a meeting with private pro bono attorneys, bar associations, and public interest groups to encourage lawyers to represent patients, providers, and others in reproductive health services cases.

“Recognizing that the best way to protect reproductive freedom is through congressional action, the task force will also coordinate providing technical assistance to Congress in connection with federal legislation to codify reproductive rights and ensure access to comprehensive reproductive services,” the department wrote. “It will also coordinate the provision of technical assistance concerning federal constitutional protections to states seeking to afford legal protection to out-of-state patients and providers who offer legal reproductive health care.”

The announcement comes as some activists and lawmakers have expressed frustration about the White House’s response to changes in abortion law in recent weeks, according to The Washington Post. They’ve called on the Biden administration to do more in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling.

On July 8, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to direct his administration to pursue a variety of measures aimed at protecting abortion access, reproductive health care services, and patient privacy.

On July 11, the Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance to remind hospitals of their duty to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which stands “irrespective of any state laws or mandates that apply to specific procedures.” The law requires health care personnel to provide medical screening and stabilizing treatment to patients in emergency medical situations. In the case of pregnancy, emergencies may include ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or severe hypertensive disorders. Doctors must terminate a pregnancy if it’s necessary to stabilize the patient.

“When a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life and health of the pregnant person – or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition – that state law is preempted,” the department wrote.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Roe, more than a dozen states have moved to ban or severely restrict abortions, according to a state tracker by The Washington Post. Some of the laws have been temporarily blocked by courts in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Utah.

At the same time, some Republican-led states have moved to ban other reproductive health care services, such as abortion medication and telehealth visits, the newspaper reported. The Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone in 2000, saying the pill is safe and effective for use during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.

The Justice Department task force said it will monitor legislation that seeks to ban mifepristone, as well as block people’s ability to inform each other about reproductive care available across the country.

“We’re seeing the intimidation already in states that are making people afraid to share information about legal abortion services in other states,” Nancy Northup, president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the newspaper.

The center served as the legal counsel for the Jackson Women’s Health Organization in the case that overturned Roe. Ms. Northup said the group is already involved in more than three dozen lawsuits and has filed several more since the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“It is a really frightening time,” she said.

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

The Justice Department is launching a Reproductive Rights Task Force to prevent state and local governments from overreach if they impose new abortion bans.

Department officials announced July 12 that the task force formalizes an existing work group and recent efforts to protect access to reproductive health care considering the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The task force will monitor state and local legislation and consider legal action against states that ban abortion medication, out-of-state travel for an abortion, and other measures that try to prevent reproductive health services that are authorized by federal law.

“The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision is a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States,” Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, the task force chair, said in a statement.

“The Court abandoned 50 years of precedent and took away the constitutional right to abortion, preventing women all over the country from being able to make critical decisions about our bodies, our health, and our futures,” she said. “The Justice Department is committed to protecting access to reproductive services.”

The task force includes representatives from the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Civil Rights Division, U.S. attorneys’ offices, Office of the Solicitor General, Office for Access to Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of the Associate Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and Office of the Attorney General.

The task force is charged with coordinating federal government responses, including proactive and defensive legal action, the department said. Task force members will work with agencies across the federal government to support their work on issues related to reproductive rights and access to reproductive health care.

The Justice Department will also continue to work with external groups, such as reproductive services providers, advocates, and state attorneys general offices. It will also work with the Office of Counsel to the President to hold a meeting with private pro bono attorneys, bar associations, and public interest groups to encourage lawyers to represent patients, providers, and others in reproductive health services cases.

“Recognizing that the best way to protect reproductive freedom is through congressional action, the task force will also coordinate providing technical assistance to Congress in connection with federal legislation to codify reproductive rights and ensure access to comprehensive reproductive services,” the department wrote. “It will also coordinate the provision of technical assistance concerning federal constitutional protections to states seeking to afford legal protection to out-of-state patients and providers who offer legal reproductive health care.”

The announcement comes as some activists and lawmakers have expressed frustration about the White House’s response to changes in abortion law in recent weeks, according to The Washington Post. They’ve called on the Biden administration to do more in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling.

On July 8, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to direct his administration to pursue a variety of measures aimed at protecting abortion access, reproductive health care services, and patient privacy.

On July 11, the Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance to remind hospitals of their duty to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which stands “irrespective of any state laws or mandates that apply to specific procedures.” The law requires health care personnel to provide medical screening and stabilizing treatment to patients in emergency medical situations. In the case of pregnancy, emergencies may include ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or severe hypertensive disorders. Doctors must terminate a pregnancy if it’s necessary to stabilize the patient.

“When a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life and health of the pregnant person – or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition – that state law is preempted,” the department wrote.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Roe, more than a dozen states have moved to ban or severely restrict abortions, according to a state tracker by The Washington Post. Some of the laws have been temporarily blocked by courts in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Utah.

At the same time, some Republican-led states have moved to ban other reproductive health care services, such as abortion medication and telehealth visits, the newspaper reported. The Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone in 2000, saying the pill is safe and effective for use during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.

The Justice Department task force said it will monitor legislation that seeks to ban mifepristone, as well as block people’s ability to inform each other about reproductive care available across the country.

“We’re seeing the intimidation already in states that are making people afraid to share information about legal abortion services in other states,” Nancy Northup, president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the newspaper.

The center served as the legal counsel for the Jackson Women’s Health Organization in the case that overturned Roe. Ms. Northup said the group is already involved in more than three dozen lawsuits and has filed several more since the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“It is a really frightening time,” she said.

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

The Justice Department is launching a Reproductive Rights Task Force to prevent state and local governments from overreach if they impose new abortion bans.

Department officials announced July 12 that the task force formalizes an existing work group and recent efforts to protect access to reproductive health care considering the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The task force will monitor state and local legislation and consider legal action against states that ban abortion medication, out-of-state travel for an abortion, and other measures that try to prevent reproductive health services that are authorized by federal law.

“The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision is a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States,” Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, the task force chair, said in a statement.

“The Court abandoned 50 years of precedent and took away the constitutional right to abortion, preventing women all over the country from being able to make critical decisions about our bodies, our health, and our futures,” she said. “The Justice Department is committed to protecting access to reproductive services.”

The task force includes representatives from the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Civil Rights Division, U.S. attorneys’ offices, Office of the Solicitor General, Office for Access to Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of the Associate Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and Office of the Attorney General.

The task force is charged with coordinating federal government responses, including proactive and defensive legal action, the department said. Task force members will work with agencies across the federal government to support their work on issues related to reproductive rights and access to reproductive health care.

The Justice Department will also continue to work with external groups, such as reproductive services providers, advocates, and state attorneys general offices. It will also work with the Office of Counsel to the President to hold a meeting with private pro bono attorneys, bar associations, and public interest groups to encourage lawyers to represent patients, providers, and others in reproductive health services cases.

“Recognizing that the best way to protect reproductive freedom is through congressional action, the task force will also coordinate providing technical assistance to Congress in connection with federal legislation to codify reproductive rights and ensure access to comprehensive reproductive services,” the department wrote. “It will also coordinate the provision of technical assistance concerning federal constitutional protections to states seeking to afford legal protection to out-of-state patients and providers who offer legal reproductive health care.”

The announcement comes as some activists and lawmakers have expressed frustration about the White House’s response to changes in abortion law in recent weeks, according to The Washington Post. They’ve called on the Biden administration to do more in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling.

On July 8, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to direct his administration to pursue a variety of measures aimed at protecting abortion access, reproductive health care services, and patient privacy.

On July 11, the Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance to remind hospitals of their duty to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which stands “irrespective of any state laws or mandates that apply to specific procedures.” The law requires health care personnel to provide medical screening and stabilizing treatment to patients in emergency medical situations. In the case of pregnancy, emergencies may include ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or severe hypertensive disorders. Doctors must terminate a pregnancy if it’s necessary to stabilize the patient.

“When a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life and health of the pregnant person – or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition – that state law is preempted,” the department wrote.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Roe, more than a dozen states have moved to ban or severely restrict abortions, according to a state tracker by The Washington Post. Some of the laws have been temporarily blocked by courts in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Utah.

At the same time, some Republican-led states have moved to ban other reproductive health care services, such as abortion medication and telehealth visits, the newspaper reported. The Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone in 2000, saying the pill is safe and effective for use during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.

The Justice Department task force said it will monitor legislation that seeks to ban mifepristone, as well as block people’s ability to inform each other about reproductive care available across the country.

“We’re seeing the intimidation already in states that are making people afraid to share information about legal abortion services in other states,” Nancy Northup, president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the newspaper.

The center served as the legal counsel for the Jackson Women’s Health Organization in the case that overturned Roe. Ms. Northup said the group is already involved in more than three dozen lawsuits and has filed several more since the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“It is a really frightening time,” she said.

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

Differences in the safety and efficacy between the biologics approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are so minimal as to not meet clinically important thresholds, a network meta-analysis shows.

“We know relatively little of the comparative effectiveness or safety of biologics approved for the treatment of asthma [but since] the number of these biologics continue to rise and their indications are increasing, the opportunities to use these biologics will only continue to increase, and we need to know more about their comparative effectiveness to optimize their use,” Ayobami Akenroye, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“But the decision to use one biologic or not is complex and goes beyond comparative effectiveness, and factors such as insurance coverage, convenience of self-administration, and comorbidities all play a role in the choice of biologics,” she said, adding that all the outcomes assessed in the study contribute to or reflect a patient’s underlying asthma control.

The study was published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
 

Interleukin pathways

Drugs that target various interleukin signaling pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma include mepolizumab (Nucala), benralizumab (Fasenra), and dupilumab (Dupixent), all of which have been shown to decrease exacerbation rates, improve lung function, and enhance quality of life for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In a Bayesian network meta-analysis that allows for simultaneous comparisons of these three treatments, investigators analyzed eight randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared each of the drugs with placebo. In total, the trials involved 6,461 patients; the duration of follow-up was between 24 and 56 weeks.

“In the subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics were significantly better than placebo in reducing exacerbations,” Dr. Akenroye and colleagues reported. For example, dupilumab reduced the exacerbation risk by 68% at a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.45), while mepolizumab reduced it by almost as much at 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45).

Benralizumab was slightly less effective than the other two biologics, reducing exacerbation risk by 51% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). “In patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics had a probability of 1 in improving the exacerbation rate by 20% or more ... in comparison to placebo,” the authors wrote.

Regarding each drug’s effect in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), the mean difference in milliliters with dupilumab before and after treatment was 230 (95% CI, 160-300), while for benralizumab, the MD was 150 (95% CI, 100-220) before and after treatment. With mepolizumab, the MD in FEV₁ before and after treatment was also 150. In the same subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of at least300 cells/mcL, all three biologics again had a probability of 1 in improving FEV₁ by 50 mL or more above the placebo effect. A third endpoint that was analyzed was the potential reduction in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores. With mepolizumab, the MD before and after treatment was –0.65 (95% CI, –0.81 to –0.45); with dupilumab, it was –0.48 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.14); and with dupilumab, it was –0.32 (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.21).

“Dupilumab was significantly better than benralizumab in improving exacerbations,” the authors noted (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94), while mepolizumab was also better than benralizumab (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95). On the other hand, both dupilumab and benralizumab led to greater improvements in FEV₁ than mepolizumab, although the effects of dupilumab and benralizumab on ACQ scores were not significantly different for patients whose lower eosinophil counts were between 150 and 299 cells/mcL.

As for safety outcomes, both mepolizumab and benralizumab were associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events, but dupilumab was not different from placebo in terms of overall safety, according to the authors. “The ultimate choice of biologic for each patient would ... depend on multiple factors including cost considerations and timing of administration.

“[However], these results may be helpful to clinicians as they optimize patient care,” they concluded. Limitations to the analysis include the fact that indirect comparisons cannot replace randomized trials that compare the three drugs directly.

It’s estimated that 5%-10% of the 26 million individuals with asthma in the United States have severe disease.

Dr. Akenroye disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Differences in the safety and efficacy between the biologics approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are so minimal as to not meet clinically important thresholds, a network meta-analysis shows.

“We know relatively little of the comparative effectiveness or safety of biologics approved for the treatment of asthma [but since] the number of these biologics continue to rise and their indications are increasing, the opportunities to use these biologics will only continue to increase, and we need to know more about their comparative effectiveness to optimize their use,” Ayobami Akenroye, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“But the decision to use one biologic or not is complex and goes beyond comparative effectiveness, and factors such as insurance coverage, convenience of self-administration, and comorbidities all play a role in the choice of biologics,” she said, adding that all the outcomes assessed in the study contribute to or reflect a patient’s underlying asthma control.

The study was published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
 

Interleukin pathways

Drugs that target various interleukin signaling pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma include mepolizumab (Nucala), benralizumab (Fasenra), and dupilumab (Dupixent), all of which have been shown to decrease exacerbation rates, improve lung function, and enhance quality of life for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In a Bayesian network meta-analysis that allows for simultaneous comparisons of these three treatments, investigators analyzed eight randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared each of the drugs with placebo. In total, the trials involved 6,461 patients; the duration of follow-up was between 24 and 56 weeks.

“In the subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics were significantly better than placebo in reducing exacerbations,” Dr. Akenroye and colleagues reported. For example, dupilumab reduced the exacerbation risk by 68% at a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.45), while mepolizumab reduced it by almost as much at 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45).

Benralizumab was slightly less effective than the other two biologics, reducing exacerbation risk by 51% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). “In patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics had a probability of 1 in improving the exacerbation rate by 20% or more ... in comparison to placebo,” the authors wrote.

Regarding each drug’s effect in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), the mean difference in milliliters with dupilumab before and after treatment was 230 (95% CI, 160-300), while for benralizumab, the MD was 150 (95% CI, 100-220) before and after treatment. With mepolizumab, the MD in FEV₁ before and after treatment was also 150. In the same subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of at least300 cells/mcL, all three biologics again had a probability of 1 in improving FEV₁ by 50 mL or more above the placebo effect. A third endpoint that was analyzed was the potential reduction in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores. With mepolizumab, the MD before and after treatment was –0.65 (95% CI, –0.81 to –0.45); with dupilumab, it was –0.48 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.14); and with dupilumab, it was –0.32 (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.21).

“Dupilumab was significantly better than benralizumab in improving exacerbations,” the authors noted (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94), while mepolizumab was also better than benralizumab (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95). On the other hand, both dupilumab and benralizumab led to greater improvements in FEV₁ than mepolizumab, although the effects of dupilumab and benralizumab on ACQ scores were not significantly different for patients whose lower eosinophil counts were between 150 and 299 cells/mcL.

As for safety outcomes, both mepolizumab and benralizumab were associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events, but dupilumab was not different from placebo in terms of overall safety, according to the authors. “The ultimate choice of biologic for each patient would ... depend on multiple factors including cost considerations and timing of administration.

“[However], these results may be helpful to clinicians as they optimize patient care,” they concluded. Limitations to the analysis include the fact that indirect comparisons cannot replace randomized trials that compare the three drugs directly.

It’s estimated that 5%-10% of the 26 million individuals with asthma in the United States have severe disease.

Dr. Akenroye disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Differences in the safety and efficacy between the biologics approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are so minimal as to not meet clinically important thresholds, a network meta-analysis shows.

“We know relatively little of the comparative effectiveness or safety of biologics approved for the treatment of asthma [but since] the number of these biologics continue to rise and their indications are increasing, the opportunities to use these biologics will only continue to increase, and we need to know more about their comparative effectiveness to optimize their use,” Ayobami Akenroye, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“But the decision to use one biologic or not is complex and goes beyond comparative effectiveness, and factors such as insurance coverage, convenience of self-administration, and comorbidities all play a role in the choice of biologics,” she said, adding that all the outcomes assessed in the study contribute to or reflect a patient’s underlying asthma control.

The study was published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
 

Interleukin pathways

Drugs that target various interleukin signaling pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma include mepolizumab (Nucala), benralizumab (Fasenra), and dupilumab (Dupixent), all of which have been shown to decrease exacerbation rates, improve lung function, and enhance quality of life for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In a Bayesian network meta-analysis that allows for simultaneous comparisons of these three treatments, investigators analyzed eight randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared each of the drugs with placebo. In total, the trials involved 6,461 patients; the duration of follow-up was between 24 and 56 weeks.

“In the subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics were significantly better than placebo in reducing exacerbations,” Dr. Akenroye and colleagues reported. For example, dupilumab reduced the exacerbation risk by 68% at a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.45), while mepolizumab reduced it by almost as much at 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45).

Benralizumab was slightly less effective than the other two biologics, reducing exacerbation risk by 51% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). “In patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics had a probability of 1 in improving the exacerbation rate by 20% or more ... in comparison to placebo,” the authors wrote.

Regarding each drug’s effect in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), the mean difference in milliliters with dupilumab before and after treatment was 230 (95% CI, 160-300), while for benralizumab, the MD was 150 (95% CI, 100-220) before and after treatment. With mepolizumab, the MD in FEV₁ before and after treatment was also 150. In the same subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of at least300 cells/mcL, all three biologics again had a probability of 1 in improving FEV₁ by 50 mL or more above the placebo effect. A third endpoint that was analyzed was the potential reduction in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores. With mepolizumab, the MD before and after treatment was –0.65 (95% CI, –0.81 to –0.45); with dupilumab, it was –0.48 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.14); and with dupilumab, it was –0.32 (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.21).

“Dupilumab was significantly better than benralizumab in improving exacerbations,” the authors noted (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94), while mepolizumab was also better than benralizumab (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95). On the other hand, both dupilumab and benralizumab led to greater improvements in FEV₁ than mepolizumab, although the effects of dupilumab and benralizumab on ACQ scores were not significantly different for patients whose lower eosinophil counts were between 150 and 299 cells/mcL.

As for safety outcomes, both mepolizumab and benralizumab were associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events, but dupilumab was not different from placebo in terms of overall safety, according to the authors. “The ultimate choice of biologic for each patient would ... depend on multiple factors including cost considerations and timing of administration.

“[However], these results may be helpful to clinicians as they optimize patient care,” they concluded. Limitations to the analysis include the fact that indirect comparisons cannot replace randomized trials that compare the three drugs directly.

It’s estimated that 5%-10% of the 26 million individuals with asthma in the United States have severe disease.

Dr. Akenroye disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Americans could soon have a fourth option for COVID-19 vaccines after the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization to a two-shot vaccine from Novavax on July 13.

The vaccine is authorized for adults only. Should the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention follow suit and approve its use, Novavax would join Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson on the U.S. market. A CDC panel of advisors is expected to consider the new entry on July 19.

The Novavax vaccine is only for those who have not yet been vaccinated at all.

“Today’s authorization offers adults in the United States who have not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine another option that meets the FDA’s rigorous standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality needed to support emergency use authorization,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement. “COVID-19 vaccines remain the best preventive measure against severe disease caused by COVID-19 and I encourage anyone who is eligible for, but has not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine, to consider doing so.”

The Novavax vaccine is protein-based, making it different than mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. It contains harmless elements of actual coronavirus spike protein and an ingredient known as a adjuvant that enhances the patient’s immune response.

Clinical trials found the vaccine to be 90.4% effective in preventing mild, moderate or severe COVID-19. Only 17 patients out of 17,200 developed COVID-19 after receiving both doses.

The FDA said, however, that Novavax’s vaccine did show evidence of increased risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart – and pericarditis, inflammation of tissue surrounding the heart. In most people both disorders began within 10 days.

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

Americans could soon have a fourth option for COVID-19 vaccines after the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization to a two-shot vaccine from Novavax on July 13.

The vaccine is authorized for adults only. Should the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention follow suit and approve its use, Novavax would join Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson on the U.S. market. A CDC panel of advisors is expected to consider the new entry on July 19.

The Novavax vaccine is only for those who have not yet been vaccinated at all.

“Today’s authorization offers adults in the United States who have not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine another option that meets the FDA’s rigorous standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality needed to support emergency use authorization,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement. “COVID-19 vaccines remain the best preventive measure against severe disease caused by COVID-19 and I encourage anyone who is eligible for, but has not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine, to consider doing so.”

The Novavax vaccine is protein-based, making it different than mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. It contains harmless elements of actual coronavirus spike protein and an ingredient known as a adjuvant that enhances the patient’s immune response.

Clinical trials found the vaccine to be 90.4% effective in preventing mild, moderate or severe COVID-19. Only 17 patients out of 17,200 developed COVID-19 after receiving both doses.

The FDA said, however, that Novavax’s vaccine did show evidence of increased risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart – and pericarditis, inflammation of tissue surrounding the heart. In most people both disorders began within 10 days.

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

Americans could soon have a fourth option for COVID-19 vaccines after the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization to a two-shot vaccine from Novavax on July 13.

The vaccine is authorized for adults only. Should the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention follow suit and approve its use, Novavax would join Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson on the U.S. market. A CDC panel of advisors is expected to consider the new entry on July 19.

The Novavax vaccine is only for those who have not yet been vaccinated at all.

“Today’s authorization offers adults in the United States who have not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine another option that meets the FDA’s rigorous standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality needed to support emergency use authorization,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement. “COVID-19 vaccines remain the best preventive measure against severe disease caused by COVID-19 and I encourage anyone who is eligible for, but has not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine, to consider doing so.”

The Novavax vaccine is protein-based, making it different than mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. It contains harmless elements of actual coronavirus spike protein and an ingredient known as a adjuvant that enhances the patient’s immune response.

Clinical trials found the vaccine to be 90.4% effective in preventing mild, moderate or severe COVID-19. Only 17 patients out of 17,200 developed COVID-19 after receiving both doses.

The FDA said, however, that Novavax’s vaccine did show evidence of increased risk of myocarditis – inflammation of the heart – and pericarditis, inflammation of tissue surrounding the heart. In most people both disorders began within 10 days.

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

CHICAGO – Pembrolizumab has shown promise as adjuvant therapy for stage IIB and IIC melanoma, shows the first interim analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 study recently published in The Lancet.

The findings meet an unmet need as the recurrence risk in stage IIB and IIC melanoma is “underrecognized,” said author Georgina Long, MD, comedical director of the Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney.

In fact, their risk of recurrence is similar to patients with stage IIIB disease, wrote David Killock, PhD, in a related commentary published in Nature Reviews.

The adjuvant treatment resulted in an 89% recurrence-free survival in patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 83% of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .0066). These findings were used as the basis for Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) for this patient population in December 2021.

Despite the positive findings, Dr. Killock called for more research on distant metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and quality of life data to “establish the true clinical benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab.”

At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Long presented the third interim analysis which showed pembrolizumab reduced recurrence and distant metastases at 24 months, although the clinical benefit was relatively small at an approximately 8% improvement in recurrence-free survival and about a 6% improvement in distant metastasis-free survival. About 83% in the pembrolizumab group had treatment-related toxicities versus 64% in the placebo group. There were no deaths caused by treatment. About 90% of pembrolizumab-related endocrinopathies led to long-term hormone replacement.

In a discussion that followed the presentation at ASCO, Charlotte Eielson Ariyan, MD, PhD, said the results are bittersweet. Higher-risk stage IIC patients have a risk of recurrence of about 40%. “It’s high, but the absolute risk reduction is about 8%. This is a very personalized discussion with the patient and the physician in understanding their risk of toxicity is about 17% and higher than their absolute risk reduction with the treatment. For me, this is a bitter pill to swallow because you’re treating people longer and you’re not sure if you’re really helping them. Until we can further define who the highest-risk patients are, I think it’s hard to give it to everyone,” said Dr. Ariyan, who is a surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

In addition to weighing short-term benefits and toxicity, there are longer-term concerns. Toxicity experienced from PD-1 inhibitors in the adjuvant setting could impact future treatment decisions. “We’re very lucky here in melanoma to know that systemic therapies are effective and we can cure people who recur. I would argue this is why we probably will never really see a difference in the survival benefit in this group because people who cross over will probably do well,” Dr. Ariyan said.

During the Q&A session, Vernon Sondek, MD, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, encouraged physician colleagues to have an open mind about treatments. “Beware of dogma. We thought that adjuvant immunotherapy works much better in patients with ulcerated primary tumors. That’s a dogma in some parts of the world. Yet the T4a patients in KEYNOTE-716 dramatically outperformed the ulcerated T3b and T4b [patients]. We still don’t know what we don’t know.”
 

The study details

KEYNOTE-716 included 976 patients 12 years or older with newly diagnosed completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma with a negative sentinel lymph node. Patients were randomized to placebo or 200 mg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, or 2 mg/kg in pediatric patients, over 17 cycles. Almost 40% of patients were age 65 or older. T3b and T4b were the most common melanoma subcategories at 41% and 35%, respectively.

The planned third interim analysis occurred after the occurrence of 146 distant metastases. After a median follow-up of 27.4 months, distant metastasis-free survival favored the pembrolizumab group (HR, 0.64; P = .0029). At 24 months, the pembrolizumab group had a higher distant metastasis-free survival at 88.1% versus 82.2% and a lower recurrence rate at 81.2% versus 72.8% (HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.84).

At 24 months, only the T4a patients had a statistically significant reduction in distant metastases at 58% (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.96), although there were numerical reductions in T3a (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.41-1.22) and T4b (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44-1.33) patients. Of patients experiencing a distant metastasis, 73% of the placebo group had a first distant metastasis to the lung compared with 49% of the pembrolizumab group.

Dr. Long has held consulting or advisory roles for Merck Sharpe & Dohme, which funded this study.

CHICAGO – Pembrolizumab has shown promise as adjuvant therapy for stage IIB and IIC melanoma, shows the first interim analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 study recently published in The Lancet.

The findings meet an unmet need as the recurrence risk in stage IIB and IIC melanoma is “underrecognized,” said author Georgina Long, MD, comedical director of the Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney.

In fact, their risk of recurrence is similar to patients with stage IIIB disease, wrote David Killock, PhD, in a related commentary published in Nature Reviews.

The adjuvant treatment resulted in an 89% recurrence-free survival in patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 83% of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .0066). These findings were used as the basis for Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) for this patient population in December 2021.

Despite the positive findings, Dr. Killock called for more research on distant metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and quality of life data to “establish the true clinical benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab.”

At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Long presented the third interim analysis which showed pembrolizumab reduced recurrence and distant metastases at 24 months, although the clinical benefit was relatively small at an approximately 8% improvement in recurrence-free survival and about a 6% improvement in distant metastasis-free survival. About 83% in the pembrolizumab group had treatment-related toxicities versus 64% in the placebo group. There were no deaths caused by treatment. About 90% of pembrolizumab-related endocrinopathies led to long-term hormone replacement.

In a discussion that followed the presentation at ASCO, Charlotte Eielson Ariyan, MD, PhD, said the results are bittersweet. Higher-risk stage IIC patients have a risk of recurrence of about 40%. “It’s high, but the absolute risk reduction is about 8%. This is a very personalized discussion with the patient and the physician in understanding their risk of toxicity is about 17% and higher than their absolute risk reduction with the treatment. For me, this is a bitter pill to swallow because you’re treating people longer and you’re not sure if you’re really helping them. Until we can further define who the highest-risk patients are, I think it’s hard to give it to everyone,” said Dr. Ariyan, who is a surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

In addition to weighing short-term benefits and toxicity, there are longer-term concerns. Toxicity experienced from PD-1 inhibitors in the adjuvant setting could impact future treatment decisions. “We’re very lucky here in melanoma to know that systemic therapies are effective and we can cure people who recur. I would argue this is why we probably will never really see a difference in the survival benefit in this group because people who cross over will probably do well,” Dr. Ariyan said.

During the Q&A session, Vernon Sondek, MD, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, encouraged physician colleagues to have an open mind about treatments. “Beware of dogma. We thought that adjuvant immunotherapy works much better in patients with ulcerated primary tumors. That’s a dogma in some parts of the world. Yet the T4a patients in KEYNOTE-716 dramatically outperformed the ulcerated T3b and T4b [patients]. We still don’t know what we don’t know.”
 

The study details

KEYNOTE-716 included 976 patients 12 years or older with newly diagnosed completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma with a negative sentinel lymph node. Patients were randomized to placebo or 200 mg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, or 2 mg/kg in pediatric patients, over 17 cycles. Almost 40% of patients were age 65 or older. T3b and T4b were the most common melanoma subcategories at 41% and 35%, respectively.

The planned third interim analysis occurred after the occurrence of 146 distant metastases. After a median follow-up of 27.4 months, distant metastasis-free survival favored the pembrolizumab group (HR, 0.64; P = .0029). At 24 months, the pembrolizumab group had a higher distant metastasis-free survival at 88.1% versus 82.2% and a lower recurrence rate at 81.2% versus 72.8% (HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.84).

At 24 months, only the T4a patients had a statistically significant reduction in distant metastases at 58% (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.96), although there were numerical reductions in T3a (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.41-1.22) and T4b (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44-1.33) patients. Of patients experiencing a distant metastasis, 73% of the placebo group had a first distant metastasis to the lung compared with 49% of the pembrolizumab group.

Dr. Long has held consulting or advisory roles for Merck Sharpe & Dohme, which funded this study.

CHICAGO – Pembrolizumab has shown promise as adjuvant therapy for stage IIB and IIC melanoma, shows the first interim analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 study recently published in The Lancet.

The findings meet an unmet need as the recurrence risk in stage IIB and IIC melanoma is “underrecognized,” said author Georgina Long, MD, comedical director of the Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney.

In fact, their risk of recurrence is similar to patients with stage IIIB disease, wrote David Killock, PhD, in a related commentary published in Nature Reviews.

The adjuvant treatment resulted in an 89% recurrence-free survival in patients who received pembrolizumab, compared with 83% of patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .0066). These findings were used as the basis for Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) for this patient population in December 2021.

Despite the positive findings, Dr. Killock called for more research on distant metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and quality of life data to “establish the true clinical benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab.”

At the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Long presented the third interim analysis which showed pembrolizumab reduced recurrence and distant metastases at 24 months, although the clinical benefit was relatively small at an approximately 8% improvement in recurrence-free survival and about a 6% improvement in distant metastasis-free survival. About 83% in the pembrolizumab group had treatment-related toxicities versus 64% in the placebo group. There were no deaths caused by treatment. About 90% of pembrolizumab-related endocrinopathies led to long-term hormone replacement.

In a discussion that followed the presentation at ASCO, Charlotte Eielson Ariyan, MD, PhD, said the results are bittersweet. Higher-risk stage IIC patients have a risk of recurrence of about 40%. “It’s high, but the absolute risk reduction is about 8%. This is a very personalized discussion with the patient and the physician in understanding their risk of toxicity is about 17% and higher than their absolute risk reduction with the treatment. For me, this is a bitter pill to swallow because you’re treating people longer and you’re not sure if you’re really helping them. Until we can further define who the highest-risk patients are, I think it’s hard to give it to everyone,” said Dr. Ariyan, who is a surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

In addition to weighing short-term benefits and toxicity, there are longer-term concerns. Toxicity experienced from PD-1 inhibitors in the adjuvant setting could impact future treatment decisions. “We’re very lucky here in melanoma to know that systemic therapies are effective and we can cure people who recur. I would argue this is why we probably will never really see a difference in the survival benefit in this group because people who cross over will probably do well,” Dr. Ariyan said.

During the Q&A session, Vernon Sondek, MD, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, encouraged physician colleagues to have an open mind about treatments. “Beware of dogma. We thought that adjuvant immunotherapy works much better in patients with ulcerated primary tumors. That’s a dogma in some parts of the world. Yet the T4a patients in KEYNOTE-716 dramatically outperformed the ulcerated T3b and T4b [patients]. We still don’t know what we don’t know.”
 

The study details

KEYNOTE-716 included 976 patients 12 years or older with newly diagnosed completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma with a negative sentinel lymph node. Patients were randomized to placebo or 200 mg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, or 2 mg/kg in pediatric patients, over 17 cycles. Almost 40% of patients were age 65 or older. T3b and T4b were the most common melanoma subcategories at 41% and 35%, respectively.

The planned third interim analysis occurred after the occurrence of 146 distant metastases. After a median follow-up of 27.4 months, distant metastasis-free survival favored the pembrolizumab group (HR, 0.64; P = .0029). At 24 months, the pembrolizumab group had a higher distant metastasis-free survival at 88.1% versus 82.2% and a lower recurrence rate at 81.2% versus 72.8% (HR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.84).

At 24 months, only the T4a patients had a statistically significant reduction in distant metastases at 58% (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.96), although there were numerical reductions in T3a (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.41-1.22) and T4b (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44-1.33) patients. Of patients experiencing a distant metastasis, 73% of the placebo group had a first distant metastasis to the lung compared with 49% of the pembrolizumab group.

Dr. Long has held consulting or advisory roles for Merck Sharpe & Dohme, which funded this study.

INDIANAPOLIS – Three factors that may encourage trainees to pursue a career in pediatric dermatology include early exposure to the subspecialty during medical school, mentorship by a board-certified pediatric dermatologist at the trainee’s home institution, and increased salary benefits during and after fellowship.

Those are key findings from a survey of current and prior pediatric dermatology fellows, which sought to investigate what factors influence their career decisions.

According to the study’s principal investigator, Lucia Z. Diaz, MD, pediatric dermatology suffers from workforce shortages and geographic maldistribution as a subspecialty in the United States. She also noted that, from 2016 to 2021, 100% of pediatric dermatology applicants matched, yet about 15 of every 31 positions remained unfilled during each of those years. This suggests that there may be a lack of trainee mentorship secondary to a lack of available pediatric dermatologists.

“Somewhere along the way, we lose trainees to general dermatology, or they may go through a pediatric dermatology fellowship but not actually see children upon completion of their training,” Dr. Diaz, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “We wanted to find out factors influencing this.”

For the study, Dr. Diaz, Courtney N. Haller, MD, a first-year dermatology resident at the University of Texas at Austin, and their colleagues emailed a 37-item survey to 59 current and prior pediatric dermatology fellows who trained in the United States in the past 4 years (classes of 2019-2022). Current fellows were asked to share their future plans, and past fellows were asked to share details about their current practice situation including practice type (such as academics, private practice, and a mix of adult and pediatrics), and the researchers used descriptive statistics and chi-square analyses to evaluate qualitative data.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In all, 41 survey participants gave complete responses, and 3 gave partial responses. Of these, 8 were current fellows, 36 were past fellows, and 38 were female. The researchers found that 67% of survey respondents first became interested in pediatric dermatology in medical school, while the decision to pursue a fellowship occurred then (33%) or during their third year of dermatology residency (33%). Early exposure to pediatric dermatology, from medical school through dermatology PGY-2, was significantly associated with an early decision to pursue a pediatric dermatology career (P = .004).

In addition, respondents at institutions with two or more pediatric dermatology faculty were significantly more likely to cite home institution mentorship as an influencing factor in their career decision (P = .035).

“I thought that the interest in pediatric dermatology would peak early on during dermatology residency, but it primarily happens during medical school,” said Dr. Diaz, who is also associate director of the dermatology residency program at the medical school. “Mentorship and early exposure to pediatric dermatology during medical school are really important.”

The top three factors that discouraged respondents from pursuing a pediatric dermatology fellowship included a lack of salary benefit with additional training (83%), additional time required to complete training (73%), and geographic relocation (20%). After fellowship, 51% of respondents said they plan to or currently work in academic settings, while 88% said they plan to work full time or currently were working full time.

Interestingly, fellows with additional pediatric training such as an internship or residency were not more likely to see a greater percentage of pediatric patients in practice than those without this training (P = .14). The top 3 reasons for not seeing pediatric patients 100% of the clinical time were interest in seeing adult patients (67%), financial factors (56%), and interest in performing more procedures (56%).

In other findings, the top three factors in deciding practice location were proximity to extended family (63%), practice type (59%), and income (51%).

INDIANAPOLIS – Three factors that may encourage trainees to pursue a career in pediatric dermatology include early exposure to the subspecialty during medical school, mentorship by a board-certified pediatric dermatologist at the trainee’s home institution, and increased salary benefits during and after fellowship.

Those are key findings from a survey of current and prior pediatric dermatology fellows, which sought to investigate what factors influence their career decisions.

According to the study’s principal investigator, Lucia Z. Diaz, MD, pediatric dermatology suffers from workforce shortages and geographic maldistribution as a subspecialty in the United States. She also noted that, from 2016 to 2021, 100% of pediatric dermatology applicants matched, yet about 15 of every 31 positions remained unfilled during each of those years. This suggests that there may be a lack of trainee mentorship secondary to a lack of available pediatric dermatologists.

“Somewhere along the way, we lose trainees to general dermatology, or they may go through a pediatric dermatology fellowship but not actually see children upon completion of their training,” Dr. Diaz, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “We wanted to find out factors influencing this.”

For the study, Dr. Diaz, Courtney N. Haller, MD, a first-year dermatology resident at the University of Texas at Austin, and their colleagues emailed a 37-item survey to 59 current and prior pediatric dermatology fellows who trained in the United States in the past 4 years (classes of 2019-2022). Current fellows were asked to share their future plans, and past fellows were asked to share details about their current practice situation including practice type (such as academics, private practice, and a mix of adult and pediatrics), and the researchers used descriptive statistics and chi-square analyses to evaluate qualitative data.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In all, 41 survey participants gave complete responses, and 3 gave partial responses. Of these, 8 were current fellows, 36 were past fellows, and 38 were female. The researchers found that 67% of survey respondents first became interested in pediatric dermatology in medical school, while the decision to pursue a fellowship occurred then (33%) or during their third year of dermatology residency (33%). Early exposure to pediatric dermatology, from medical school through dermatology PGY-2, was significantly associated with an early decision to pursue a pediatric dermatology career (P = .004).

In addition, respondents at institutions with two or more pediatric dermatology faculty were significantly more likely to cite home institution mentorship as an influencing factor in their career decision (P = .035).

“I thought that the interest in pediatric dermatology would peak early on during dermatology residency, but it primarily happens during medical school,” said Dr. Diaz, who is also associate director of the dermatology residency program at the medical school. “Mentorship and early exposure to pediatric dermatology during medical school are really important.”

The top three factors that discouraged respondents from pursuing a pediatric dermatology fellowship included a lack of salary benefit with additional training (83%), additional time required to complete training (73%), and geographic relocation (20%). After fellowship, 51% of respondents said they plan to or currently work in academic settings, while 88% said they plan to work full time or currently were working full time.

Interestingly, fellows with additional pediatric training such as an internship or residency were not more likely to see a greater percentage of pediatric patients in practice than those without this training (P = .14). The top 3 reasons for not seeing pediatric patients 100% of the clinical time were interest in seeing adult patients (67%), financial factors (56%), and interest in performing more procedures (56%).

In other findings, the top three factors in deciding practice location were proximity to extended family (63%), practice type (59%), and income (51%).

INDIANAPOLIS – Three factors that may encourage trainees to pursue a career in pediatric dermatology include early exposure to the subspecialty during medical school, mentorship by a board-certified pediatric dermatologist at the trainee’s home institution, and increased salary benefits during and after fellowship.

Those are key findings from a survey of current and prior pediatric dermatology fellows, which sought to investigate what factors influence their career decisions.

According to the study’s principal investigator, Lucia Z. Diaz, MD, pediatric dermatology suffers from workforce shortages and geographic maldistribution as a subspecialty in the United States. She also noted that, from 2016 to 2021, 100% of pediatric dermatology applicants matched, yet about 15 of every 31 positions remained unfilled during each of those years. This suggests that there may be a lack of trainee mentorship secondary to a lack of available pediatric dermatologists.

“Somewhere along the way, we lose trainees to general dermatology, or they may go through a pediatric dermatology fellowship but not actually see children upon completion of their training,” Dr. Diaz, chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “We wanted to find out factors influencing this.”

For the study, Dr. Diaz, Courtney N. Haller, MD, a first-year dermatology resident at the University of Texas at Austin, and their colleagues emailed a 37-item survey to 59 current and prior pediatric dermatology fellows who trained in the United States in the past 4 years (classes of 2019-2022). Current fellows were asked to share their future plans, and past fellows were asked to share details about their current practice situation including practice type (such as academics, private practice, and a mix of adult and pediatrics), and the researchers used descriptive statistics and chi-square analyses to evaluate qualitative data.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In all, 41 survey participants gave complete responses, and 3 gave partial responses. Of these, 8 were current fellows, 36 were past fellows, and 38 were female. The researchers found that 67% of survey respondents first became interested in pediatric dermatology in medical school, while the decision to pursue a fellowship occurred then (33%) or during their third year of dermatology residency (33%). Early exposure to pediatric dermatology, from medical school through dermatology PGY-2, was significantly associated with an early decision to pursue a pediatric dermatology career (P = .004).

In addition, respondents at institutions with two or more pediatric dermatology faculty were significantly more likely to cite home institution mentorship as an influencing factor in their career decision (P = .035).

“I thought that the interest in pediatric dermatology would peak early on during dermatology residency, but it primarily happens during medical school,” said Dr. Diaz, who is also associate director of the dermatology residency program at the medical school. “Mentorship and early exposure to pediatric dermatology during medical school are really important.”

The top three factors that discouraged respondents from pursuing a pediatric dermatology fellowship included a lack of salary benefit with additional training (83%), additional time required to complete training (73%), and geographic relocation (20%). After fellowship, 51% of respondents said they plan to or currently work in academic settings, while 88% said they plan to work full time or currently were working full time.

Interestingly, fellows with additional pediatric training such as an internship or residency were not more likely to see a greater percentage of pediatric patients in practice than those without this training (P = .14). The top 3 reasons for not seeing pediatric patients 100% of the clinical time were interest in seeing adult patients (67%), financial factors (56%), and interest in performing more procedures (56%).

In other findings, the top three factors in deciding practice location were proximity to extended family (63%), practice type (59%), and income (51%).

The posteroanterior (PA) and lateral view CXRs, as well as the CT scan, revealed the presence of retrosternal air and confirmed the patient’s diagnosis of pneumomediastinum.

Pneumomediastinum—the presence of free air in the mediastinum—can develop spontaneously (as was the case with our patient) or in response to trauma. Common causes include respiratory diseases such as asthma, and trauma to the esophagus secondary to mechanical ventilation, endoscopy, and excessive vomiting.¹ Other possible causes include respiratory infections, foreign body aspiration, recent dental extraction, diabetic ketoacidosis, esophageal perforation, barotrauma (due to activities such as flying or scuba diving), and use of illicit drugs.¹

Patients with pneumomediastinum often complain of retrosternal, pleuritic pain that radiates to their back, shoulders, and arms. They may also have difficulty swallowing (globus pharyngeus), a nasal voice, and/or dyspnea. Physical findings can include subcutaneous emphysema in the neck and supraclavicular fossa as manifested by the Hamman sign (a precordial “crunching” sound heard during systole), a fever, and distended neck veins.¹

Diagnosis is made by CXR and/or chest CT. On a CXR, retrosternal air is best seen in the lateral projection. Small amounts of air can appear as linear lucencies outlining mediastinal contours. This air can be seen under the skin, surrounding the pericardium, around the pulmonary and/or aortic vasculature, and/or between the parietal pleura and diaphragm.² A pleural effusion—particularly on the patient’s left side—should raise concern for esophageal perforation.

Pneumomediastinum is generally a self-limiting condition. Thus, patients who don’t have severe symptoms, such as respiratory distress or signs of inflammation, should be observed for 2 days, managed with rest and pain control, and discharged home. If severe symptoms or inflammatory signs are present, a Gastrografin swallow study is recommended to rule out esophageal perforation.³ If the result of this test is abnormal, a follow-up study with barium is recommended.³

The patient underwent both swallow studies, and they were negative. This patient received subsequent serial CXRs that showed improvement in the pneumomediastinum. Once the patient’s pain was well controlled with oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, she was discharged (after a 3-day hospitalization) with close follow-up. One week later, her pain had almost entirely resolved.

‌

This case was adapted from: Gawrys B, Shaha D. Pleuritic chest pain and globus pharyngeus. J Fam Pract. 2015;64:305-307.

The posteroanterior (PA) and lateral view CXRs, as well as the CT scan, revealed the presence of retrosternal air and confirmed the patient’s diagnosis of pneumomediastinum.

Pneumomediastinum—the presence of free air in the mediastinum—can develop spontaneously (as was the case with our patient) or in response to trauma. Common causes include respiratory diseases such as asthma, and trauma to the esophagus secondary to mechanical ventilation, endoscopy, and excessive vomiting.¹ Other possible causes include respiratory infections, foreign body aspiration, recent dental extraction, diabetic ketoacidosis, esophageal perforation, barotrauma (due to activities such as flying or scuba diving), and use of illicit drugs.¹

Patients with pneumomediastinum often complain of retrosternal, pleuritic pain that radiates to their back, shoulders, and arms. They may also have difficulty swallowing (globus pharyngeus), a nasal voice, and/or dyspnea. Physical findings can include subcutaneous emphysema in the neck and supraclavicular fossa as manifested by the Hamman sign (a precordial “crunching” sound heard during systole), a fever, and distended neck veins.¹

Diagnosis is made by CXR and/or chest CT. On a CXR, retrosternal air is best seen in the lateral projection. Small amounts of air can appear as linear lucencies outlining mediastinal contours. This air can be seen under the skin, surrounding the pericardium, around the pulmonary and/or aortic vasculature, and/or between the parietal pleura and diaphragm.² A pleural effusion—particularly on the patient’s left side—should raise concern for esophageal perforation.

Pneumomediastinum is generally a self-limiting condition. Thus, patients who don’t have severe symptoms, such as respiratory distress or signs of inflammation, should be observed for 2 days, managed with rest and pain control, and discharged home. If severe symptoms or inflammatory signs are present, a Gastrografin swallow study is recommended to rule out esophageal perforation.³ If the result of this test is abnormal, a follow-up study with barium is recommended.³

The patient underwent both swallow studies, and they were negative. This patient received subsequent serial CXRs that showed improvement in the pneumomediastinum. Once the patient’s pain was well controlled with oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, she was discharged (after a 3-day hospitalization) with close follow-up. One week later, her pain had almost entirely resolved.

‌

This case was adapted from: Gawrys B, Shaha D. Pleuritic chest pain and globus pharyngeus. J Fam Pract. 2015;64:305-307.

The posteroanterior (PA) and lateral view CXRs, as well as the CT scan, revealed the presence of retrosternal air and confirmed the patient’s diagnosis of pneumomediastinum.

Pneumomediastinum—the presence of free air in the mediastinum—can develop spontaneously (as was the case with our patient) or in response to trauma. Common causes include respiratory diseases such as asthma, and trauma to the esophagus secondary to mechanical ventilation, endoscopy, and excessive vomiting.¹ Other possible causes include respiratory infections, foreign body aspiration, recent dental extraction, diabetic ketoacidosis, esophageal perforation, barotrauma (due to activities such as flying or scuba diving), and use of illicit drugs.¹

Patients with pneumomediastinum often complain of retrosternal, pleuritic pain that radiates to their back, shoulders, and arms. They may also have difficulty swallowing (globus pharyngeus), a nasal voice, and/or dyspnea. Physical findings can include subcutaneous emphysema in the neck and supraclavicular fossa as manifested by the Hamman sign (a precordial “crunching” sound heard during systole), a fever, and distended neck veins.¹

Diagnosis is made by CXR and/or chest CT. On a CXR, retrosternal air is best seen in the lateral projection. Small amounts of air can appear as linear lucencies outlining mediastinal contours. This air can be seen under the skin, surrounding the pericardium, around the pulmonary and/or aortic vasculature, and/or between the parietal pleura and diaphragm.² A pleural effusion—particularly on the patient’s left side—should raise concern for esophageal perforation.

Pneumomediastinum is generally a self-limiting condition. Thus, patients who don’t have severe symptoms, such as respiratory distress or signs of inflammation, should be observed for 2 days, managed with rest and pain control, and discharged home. If severe symptoms or inflammatory signs are present, a Gastrografin swallow study is recommended to rule out esophageal perforation.³ If the result of this test is abnormal, a follow-up study with barium is recommended.³

The patient underwent both swallow studies, and they were negative. This patient received subsequent serial CXRs that showed improvement in the pneumomediastinum. Once the patient’s pain was well controlled with oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, she was discharged (after a 3-day hospitalization) with close follow-up. One week later, her pain had almost entirely resolved.

‌

This case was adapted from: Gawrys B, Shaha D. Pleuritic chest pain and globus pharyngeus. J Fam Pract. 2015;64:305-307.

Early onset of disease in patients with major depressive disorder may be linked to a specific inflammatory profile, based on data from 234 individuals.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) remains common, and evidence suggests that it is increasing among younger individuals, but data on early-onset MDD in adults are limited, Ana Paula Anzolin, a graduate student at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and colleagues wrote.

Although previous studies have shown abnormal cytokine production in patients with MDD, the impact of inflammation on MDD and disease onset and progression remains unclear, they said.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research, the authors identified outpatients aged 18-85 years with confirmed MDD and scores of at least 8 on the HAM-D scale who were undergoing treatment at a single center. Early onset was defined as a diagnosis of MDD before age 30 years (99 patients) and late onset was defined as a diagnosis at age 30 years and older (135 patients). The researchers measured levels of interleukin-6, IL-1 beta, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha).

Overall, the level of cytokine profiles in early- versus late-onset disease was significantly higher for IL-1B and TNF-alpha (P < .001 for both). The significant difference between early- and late-onset disease remained regardless of comorbidity with autoimmune diseases, the researchers noted.

IL-6 levels were higher in the early-onset group and IL-10 levels were higher in the late-onset group, but these differences were not significant.

“We believe these findings provide a hint that early-onset MDD may be a particular subtype in which the proinflammatory state plays a greater role than in late-onset MDD,” the researchers wrote.

The results also support findings from previous studies that suggest a divergence between early- and late adult–onset depression, they said. More research on early-onset MDD in adults is needed, as these patients tend to have more severe symptoms, more medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and an increased risk of depressive episodes and suicide attempts.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of a control group, the retrospective assessment of disease onset, and the limited cytokines studied, which do not reflect changes in the entire immune network response, the researchers noted.

However, the study is the first known to examine the association of serum cytokines and early- and late-onset MDD in adults, and the results support the use of IL-1B and TNF-alpha as potential treatment targets in the development of new therapies for MDD, they concluded.

The study was supported by the Fundo de Incentivo à Pesquisa – Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Early onset of disease in patients with major depressive disorder may be linked to a specific inflammatory profile, based on data from 234 individuals.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) remains common, and evidence suggests that it is increasing among younger individuals, but data on early-onset MDD in adults are limited, Ana Paula Anzolin, a graduate student at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and colleagues wrote.

Although previous studies have shown abnormal cytokine production in patients with MDD, the impact of inflammation on MDD and disease onset and progression remains unclear, they said.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research, the authors identified outpatients aged 18-85 years with confirmed MDD and scores of at least 8 on the HAM-D scale who were undergoing treatment at a single center. Early onset was defined as a diagnosis of MDD before age 30 years (99 patients) and late onset was defined as a diagnosis at age 30 years and older (135 patients). The researchers measured levels of interleukin-6, IL-1 beta, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha).

Overall, the level of cytokine profiles in early- versus late-onset disease was significantly higher for IL-1B and TNF-alpha (P < .001 for both). The significant difference between early- and late-onset disease remained regardless of comorbidity with autoimmune diseases, the researchers noted.

IL-6 levels were higher in the early-onset group and IL-10 levels were higher in the late-onset group, but these differences were not significant.

“We believe these findings provide a hint that early-onset MDD may be a particular subtype in which the proinflammatory state plays a greater role than in late-onset MDD,” the researchers wrote.

The results also support findings from previous studies that suggest a divergence between early- and late adult–onset depression, they said. More research on early-onset MDD in adults is needed, as these patients tend to have more severe symptoms, more medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and an increased risk of depressive episodes and suicide attempts.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of a control group, the retrospective assessment of disease onset, and the limited cytokines studied, which do not reflect changes in the entire immune network response, the researchers noted.

However, the study is the first known to examine the association of serum cytokines and early- and late-onset MDD in adults, and the results support the use of IL-1B and TNF-alpha as potential treatment targets in the development of new therapies for MDD, they concluded.

The study was supported by the Fundo de Incentivo à Pesquisa – Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Early onset of disease in patients with major depressive disorder may be linked to a specific inflammatory profile, based on data from 234 individuals.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) remains common, and evidence suggests that it is increasing among younger individuals, but data on early-onset MDD in adults are limited, Ana Paula Anzolin, a graduate student at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and colleagues wrote.

Although previous studies have shown abnormal cytokine production in patients with MDD, the impact of inflammation on MDD and disease onset and progression remains unclear, they said.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research, the authors identified outpatients aged 18-85 years with confirmed MDD and scores of at least 8 on the HAM-D scale who were undergoing treatment at a single center. Early onset was defined as a diagnosis of MDD before age 30 years (99 patients) and late onset was defined as a diagnosis at age 30 years and older (135 patients). The researchers measured levels of interleukin-6, IL-1 beta, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha).

Overall, the level of cytokine profiles in early- versus late-onset disease was significantly higher for IL-1B and TNF-alpha (P < .001 for both). The significant difference between early- and late-onset disease remained regardless of comorbidity with autoimmune diseases, the researchers noted.

IL-6 levels were higher in the early-onset group and IL-10 levels were higher in the late-onset group, but these differences were not significant.

“We believe these findings provide a hint that early-onset MDD may be a particular subtype in which the proinflammatory state plays a greater role than in late-onset MDD,” the researchers wrote.

The results also support findings from previous studies that suggest a divergence between early- and late adult–onset depression, they said. More research on early-onset MDD in adults is needed, as these patients tend to have more severe symptoms, more medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and an increased risk of depressive episodes and suicide attempts.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of a control group, the retrospective assessment of disease onset, and the limited cytokines studied, which do not reflect changes in the entire immune network response, the researchers noted.

However, the study is the first known to examine the association of serum cytokines and early- and late-onset MDD in adults, and the results support the use of IL-1B and TNF-alpha as potential treatment targets in the development of new therapies for MDD, they concluded.

The study was supported by the Fundo de Incentivo à Pesquisa – Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.