A 21-year-old man presented to the emergency department (ED) with a 2-month history of joint pain, swelling, and difficulty walking that began with swelling of his right knee (FIGURE 1A). The patient said that over the course of several weeks, the swelling and joint pain spread to his left knee, followed by bilateral elbows and ankles. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin produced only modest improvement.

Two weeks prior to presentation, the patient also experienced widespread pruritus and conjunctivitis. His past medical history was significant for a sexual encounter that resulted in urinary tract infection (UTI)–like symptoms approximately 1 month prior to the onset of his joint symptoms. He did not seek care for the UTI-like symptoms.

In the ED, the patient was febrile (102.1 °F) and tachycardic. Skin examination revealed erythematous papules, intact vesicles, and pustules with background hyperkeratosis and desquamation on his right foot (FIGURE 1B). The patient had spotty erythema on his palate and a 4-mm superficial erosion on the right penile shaft. Swelling and tenderness were noted over the elbows, knees, hands, and ankles. No inguinal lymphadenopathy was noted.

An arthrocentesis was performed on the right knee that demonstrated no organisms on Gram stain and a normal joint fluid cell count. A complete blood count (CBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and urinalysis were ordered. A punch biopsy was performed on a scaly patch on the right elbow.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The patient’s history, clinical findings, and lab results, including a positive Chlamydia trachomatis polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test from a urethral swab, pointed to a diagnosis of keratoderma blenorrhagicum in association with reactive arthritis (following infection with C trachomatis).

Reactive arthritis features a triad of conjunctivitis, urethritis, and arthritis that follows either gastrointestinal or urogenital infection.

Relevant diagnostic findings included an elevated CRP of 26.5 mg/L (normal range, < 10 mg/L), an elevated ESR of 116 mm/h (normal range, < 15 mm/h) and as noted, a positive C trachomatis PCR test. The patient’s white blood cell count was 9.7/μL (normal range, 4.5-11 μL) and the rest of the CBC was within normal limits. Urinalysis was positive for leukocytes and rare bacteria. A treponemal antibody test was negative.

Additionally, the punch biopsy from the right elbow revealed acanthosis, intercellular spongiosis, and subcorneal pustules consistent with localized pustular psoriasis or keratoderma blenorrhagicum. After the diagnosis was made, human leukocyte antigen B27 allele (HLA-B27) testing was conducted and was positive.

A predisposition exacerbates the infection

Reactive arthritis, a type of spondyloarthropathy, features a triad of conjunctivitis, urethritis, and arthritis that follows either gastrointestinal or urogenital infection.¹ Reactive arthritis occurs with a male predominance of 3:1, and the worldwide prevalence is 1 in 3000.¹ Causative bacteria include C trachomatis, Yersinia, Salmonella, ­Shigella, and Campylobacter, Escherichia coli, Clostridioides (formerly Clostridium) difficile, and C pneumoniae.² Patients with the HLA-B27 allele are 50 times more likely to develop reactive arthritis following infection with the aforementioned bacteria.¹

Findings consistent with a diagnosis of reactive arthritis include a recent history of gastrointestinal or urogenital illness, joint pain, conjunctivitis, oral lesions, cutaneous changes, and genital lesions.³ Diagnostic tests should include arthrocentesis with cultures or PCR and cell count, ESR, CRP, CBC, and urinalysis. HLA-B27 can be used to support the diagnosis but is not routinely recommended.²

Pustules and psoriasiform scaling characterize this diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for the signs and symptoms seen in this patient include disseminated gonococcal arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and secondary syphilis.

Gonococcal arthritis manifests with painful, sterile joints as well as pustules on the palms and soles, but not with the psoriasiform scaling and desquamation that was seen in this case. A culture or PCR from urethral discharge or pustules on the palms and soles could be used to confirm this diagnosis.³

Continue to: Psoriasis in association with psoriatic arthritis

Psoriasis in association with psoriatic arthritis and the psoriasiform rashing of reactive arthritis (keratoderma blenorrhagicum) show similar histopathology; however, patients with psoriatic arthritis generally exhibit fewer constitutional symptoms.⁴

Rheumatoid arthritis also manifests with joint pain and swelling, especially in the hands, wrists, and knees. This diagnosis was unlikely in this patient, where small joints were largely uninvolved.⁴

Secondary syphilis also manifests with papular, scaly, erythematous lesions on the palms and soles along with pityriasis rosea–like rashing on the trunk. However, it rarely produces pustules or hyperkeratotic keratoderma.⁵ As noted earlier, a treponemal antibody test in this patient was negative.

Drug therapy is the best option

First-line therapy for reactive arthritis consists of NSAIDs. If the patient exhibits an inadequate response after a 2-week trial, intra-­articular or systemic glucocorticoids may be considered.³ If the patient fails to respond to the steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) may be considered. Reactive arthritis is considered chronic if the disease lasts longer than 6 months, at which point, DMARDs or tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors may be utilized.³ For cutaneous manifestations, such as keratoderma blenorrhagicum, topical glucocorticoids twice daily may be used along with keratolytic agents.

Our patient received 2 doses of azithromycin (500 mg IV) and 1 dose of ceftriaxone (2 g IV) to treat his infection while in the ED. Over the course of his hospital stay, he received ceftriaxone (1 g IV daily) for 6 days and naproxen (500 mg tid po) which was tapered. Additionally, he received a week of methylprednisolone (60 mg IM daily) before tapering to oral prednisone. His taper consisted of 40 mg po for 1 week and was decreased by 10 mg each week. Augmented betamethasone dipropionate 0.05% cream and urea 20% cream were prescribed for twice-daily application for the hyperkeratotic scale on both of his feet.

A 21-year-old man presented to the emergency department (ED) with a 2-month history of joint pain, swelling, and difficulty walking that began with swelling of his right knee (FIGURE 1A). The patient said that over the course of several weeks, the swelling and joint pain spread to his left knee, followed by bilateral elbows and ankles. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin produced only modest improvement.

Two weeks prior to presentation, the patient also experienced widespread pruritus and conjunctivitis. His past medical history was significant for a sexual encounter that resulted in urinary tract infection (UTI)–like symptoms approximately 1 month prior to the onset of his joint symptoms. He did not seek care for the UTI-like symptoms.

In the ED, the patient was febrile (102.1 °F) and tachycardic. Skin examination revealed erythematous papules, intact vesicles, and pustules with background hyperkeratosis and desquamation on his right foot (FIGURE 1B). The patient had spotty erythema on his palate and a 4-mm superficial erosion on the right penile shaft. Swelling and tenderness were noted over the elbows, knees, hands, and ankles. No inguinal lymphadenopathy was noted.

An arthrocentesis was performed on the right knee that demonstrated no organisms on Gram stain and a normal joint fluid cell count. A complete blood count (CBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and urinalysis were ordered. A punch biopsy was performed on a scaly patch on the right elbow.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The patient’s history, clinical findings, and lab results, including a positive Chlamydia trachomatis polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test from a urethral swab, pointed to a diagnosis of keratoderma blenorrhagicum in association with reactive arthritis (following infection with C trachomatis).

Reactive arthritis features a triad of conjunctivitis, urethritis, and arthritis that follows either gastrointestinal or urogenital infection.

Relevant diagnostic findings included an elevated CRP of 26.5 mg/L (normal range, < 10 mg/L), an elevated ESR of 116 mm/h (normal range, < 15 mm/h) and as noted, a positive C trachomatis PCR test. The patient’s white blood cell count was 9.7/μL (normal range, 4.5-11 μL) and the rest of the CBC was within normal limits. Urinalysis was positive for leukocytes and rare bacteria. A treponemal antibody test was negative.

Additionally, the punch biopsy from the right elbow revealed acanthosis, intercellular spongiosis, and subcorneal pustules consistent with localized pustular psoriasis or keratoderma blenorrhagicum. After the diagnosis was made, human leukocyte antigen B27 allele (HLA-B27) testing was conducted and was positive.

A predisposition exacerbates the infection

Reactive arthritis, a type of spondyloarthropathy, features a triad of conjunctivitis, urethritis, and arthritis that follows either gastrointestinal or urogenital infection.¹ Reactive arthritis occurs with a male predominance of 3:1, and the worldwide prevalence is 1 in 3000.¹ Causative bacteria include C trachomatis, Yersinia, Salmonella, ­Shigella, and Campylobacter, Escherichia coli, Clostridioides (formerly Clostridium) difficile, and C pneumoniae.² Patients with the HLA-B27 allele are 50 times more likely to develop reactive arthritis following infection with the aforementioned bacteria.¹

Findings consistent with a diagnosis of reactive arthritis include a recent history of gastrointestinal or urogenital illness, joint pain, conjunctivitis, oral lesions, cutaneous changes, and genital lesions.³ Diagnostic tests should include arthrocentesis with cultures or PCR and cell count, ESR, CRP, CBC, and urinalysis. HLA-B27 can be used to support the diagnosis but is not routinely recommended.²

Pustules and psoriasiform scaling characterize this diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for the signs and symptoms seen in this patient include disseminated gonococcal arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and secondary syphilis.

Gonococcal arthritis manifests with painful, sterile joints as well as pustules on the palms and soles, but not with the psoriasiform scaling and desquamation that was seen in this case. A culture or PCR from urethral discharge or pustules on the palms and soles could be used to confirm this diagnosis.³

Continue to: Psoriasis in association with psoriatic arthritis

Psoriasis in association with psoriatic arthritis and the psoriasiform rashing of reactive arthritis (keratoderma blenorrhagicum) show similar histopathology; however, patients with psoriatic arthritis generally exhibit fewer constitutional symptoms.⁴

Rheumatoid arthritis also manifests with joint pain and swelling, especially in the hands, wrists, and knees. This diagnosis was unlikely in this patient, where small joints were largely uninvolved.⁴

Secondary syphilis also manifests with papular, scaly, erythematous lesions on the palms and soles along with pityriasis rosea–like rashing on the trunk. However, it rarely produces pustules or hyperkeratotic keratoderma.⁵ As noted earlier, a treponemal antibody test in this patient was negative.

Drug therapy is the best option

First-line therapy for reactive arthritis consists of NSAIDs. If the patient exhibits an inadequate response after a 2-week trial, intra-­articular or systemic glucocorticoids may be considered.³ If the patient fails to respond to the steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) may be considered. Reactive arthritis is considered chronic if the disease lasts longer than 6 months, at which point, DMARDs or tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors may be utilized.³ For cutaneous manifestations, such as keratoderma blenorrhagicum, topical glucocorticoids twice daily may be used along with keratolytic agents.

Our patient received 2 doses of azithromycin (500 mg IV) and 1 dose of ceftriaxone (2 g IV) to treat his infection while in the ED. Over the course of his hospital stay, he received ceftriaxone (1 g IV daily) for 6 days and naproxen (500 mg tid po) which was tapered. Additionally, he received a week of methylprednisolone (60 mg IM daily) before tapering to oral prednisone. His taper consisted of 40 mg po for 1 week and was decreased by 10 mg each week. Augmented betamethasone dipropionate 0.05% cream and urea 20% cream were prescribed for twice-daily application for the hyperkeratotic scale on both of his feet.

A 21-year-old man presented to the emergency department (ED) with a 2-month history of joint pain, swelling, and difficulty walking that began with swelling of his right knee (FIGURE 1A). The patient said that over the course of several weeks, the swelling and joint pain spread to his left knee, followed by bilateral elbows and ankles. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin produced only modest improvement.

Two weeks prior to presentation, the patient also experienced widespread pruritus and conjunctivitis. His past medical history was significant for a sexual encounter that resulted in urinary tract infection (UTI)–like symptoms approximately 1 month prior to the onset of his joint symptoms. He did not seek care for the UTI-like symptoms.

In the ED, the patient was febrile (102.1 °F) and tachycardic. Skin examination revealed erythematous papules, intact vesicles, and pustules with background hyperkeratosis and desquamation on his right foot (FIGURE 1B). The patient had spotty erythema on his palate and a 4-mm superficial erosion on the right penile shaft. Swelling and tenderness were noted over the elbows, knees, hands, and ankles. No inguinal lymphadenopathy was noted.

An arthrocentesis was performed on the right knee that demonstrated no organisms on Gram stain and a normal joint fluid cell count. A complete blood count (CBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and urinalysis were ordered. A punch biopsy was performed on a scaly patch on the right elbow.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The patient’s history, clinical findings, and lab results, including a positive Chlamydia trachomatis polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test from a urethral swab, pointed to a diagnosis of keratoderma blenorrhagicum in association with reactive arthritis (following infection with C trachomatis).

Reactive arthritis features a triad of conjunctivitis, urethritis, and arthritis that follows either gastrointestinal or urogenital infection.

Relevant diagnostic findings included an elevated CRP of 26.5 mg/L (normal range, < 10 mg/L), an elevated ESR of 116 mm/h (normal range, < 15 mm/h) and as noted, a positive C trachomatis PCR test. The patient’s white blood cell count was 9.7/μL (normal range, 4.5-11 μL) and the rest of the CBC was within normal limits. Urinalysis was positive for leukocytes and rare bacteria. A treponemal antibody test was negative.

Additionally, the punch biopsy from the right elbow revealed acanthosis, intercellular spongiosis, and subcorneal pustules consistent with localized pustular psoriasis or keratoderma blenorrhagicum. After the diagnosis was made, human leukocyte antigen B27 allele (HLA-B27) testing was conducted and was positive.

A predisposition exacerbates the infection

Reactive arthritis, a type of spondyloarthropathy, features a triad of conjunctivitis, urethritis, and arthritis that follows either gastrointestinal or urogenital infection.¹ Reactive arthritis occurs with a male predominance of 3:1, and the worldwide prevalence is 1 in 3000.¹ Causative bacteria include C trachomatis, Yersinia, Salmonella, ­Shigella, and Campylobacter, Escherichia coli, Clostridioides (formerly Clostridium) difficile, and C pneumoniae.² Patients with the HLA-B27 allele are 50 times more likely to develop reactive arthritis following infection with the aforementioned bacteria.¹

Findings consistent with a diagnosis of reactive arthritis include a recent history of gastrointestinal or urogenital illness, joint pain, conjunctivitis, oral lesions, cutaneous changes, and genital lesions.³ Diagnostic tests should include arthrocentesis with cultures or PCR and cell count, ESR, CRP, CBC, and urinalysis. HLA-B27 can be used to support the diagnosis but is not routinely recommended.²

Pustules and psoriasiform scaling characterize this diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for the signs and symptoms seen in this patient include disseminated gonococcal arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and secondary syphilis.

Gonococcal arthritis manifests with painful, sterile joints as well as pustules on the palms and soles, but not with the psoriasiform scaling and desquamation that was seen in this case. A culture or PCR from urethral discharge or pustules on the palms and soles could be used to confirm this diagnosis.³

Continue to: Psoriasis in association with psoriatic arthritis

Psoriasis in association with psoriatic arthritis and the psoriasiform rashing of reactive arthritis (keratoderma blenorrhagicum) show similar histopathology; however, patients with psoriatic arthritis generally exhibit fewer constitutional symptoms.⁴

Rheumatoid arthritis also manifests with joint pain and swelling, especially in the hands, wrists, and knees. This diagnosis was unlikely in this patient, where small joints were largely uninvolved.⁴

Secondary syphilis also manifests with papular, scaly, erythematous lesions on the palms and soles along with pityriasis rosea–like rashing on the trunk. However, it rarely produces pustules or hyperkeratotic keratoderma.⁵ As noted earlier, a treponemal antibody test in this patient was negative.

Drug therapy is the best option

First-line therapy for reactive arthritis consists of NSAIDs. If the patient exhibits an inadequate response after a 2-week trial, intra-­articular or systemic glucocorticoids may be considered.³ If the patient fails to respond to the steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) may be considered. Reactive arthritis is considered chronic if the disease lasts longer than 6 months, at which point, DMARDs or tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors may be utilized.³ For cutaneous manifestations, such as keratoderma blenorrhagicum, topical glucocorticoids twice daily may be used along with keratolytic agents.

Our patient received 2 doses of azithromycin (500 mg IV) and 1 dose of ceftriaxone (2 g IV) to treat his infection while in the ED. Over the course of his hospital stay, he received ceftriaxone (1 g IV daily) for 6 days and naproxen (500 mg tid po) which was tapered. Additionally, he received a week of methylprednisolone (60 mg IM daily) before tapering to oral prednisone. His taper consisted of 40 mg po for 1 week and was decreased by 10 mg each week. Augmented betamethasone dipropionate 0.05% cream and urea 20% cream were prescribed for twice-daily application for the hyperkeratotic scale on both of his feet.

One in 15 patients who start dupilumab treatment may develop conjunctivitis during the first 6 months, most of which is manageable with ophthalmic treatments, results from large study of U.S. claims data showed.

“About 4 years after dupilumab’s approval, we’re interested in how conjunctivitis has played out in our daily clinical practice,” lead study investigator Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Drawing from two nationwide U.S. databases, MarketScan and Optum, Dr. Schneeweiss, of the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues sought to characterize the incidence of bacterial and nonbacterial conjunctivitis among 6,730 patients with AD who started treatment with either dupilumab, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or cyclosporine between March 2017 and January 2020. They also wanted to identify patient subgroups at increased or decreased risk of dupilumab-related conjunctivitis in clinical practice.

Of the 6,730 patients, 3,755 started treatment with dupilumab, while 2,010 started with methotrexate, 536 started with mycophenolate, and 429 started with cyclosporine. Using a new-user, active-comparator study design, the researchers identified patients with AD from both databases and selected three dupilumab cohorts: dupilumab versus methotrexate (MTX), dupilumab versus mycophenolate (MMF), and dupilumab versus cyclosporine (CsA). Follow-up lasted 6 months and 1:1 propensity score matching was used to account for conjunctivitis risk factor differences. Patients with a history of conjunctivitis were excluded from the study, except one subgroup limited to those with prior conjunctivitis.

Dr. Schneeweiss reported that the overall incidence rate of conjunctivitis within 6 months of treatment initiation was 6.6% in dupilumab users, or 1 in 15 patients, compared with 3.3% in MTX users, 4.2% in MMF users, and 2.8% in CsA users. The incidence rates for the different types of conjunctivitis were as follows:

• Bacterial conjunctivitis: 1.5% in dupilumab users versus 0.95% in MTX, 0.4% in MMF, and 0.7% in CsA users.
• Allergic conjunctivitis: 2.2% in dupilumab users versus 0.8% in MTX, 0.2% in MMF, and 1.6% in CsA users.
• Keratoconjunctivitis: 0.8% in dupilumab users versus 1.1% in MTX, 1.5% in MMF, and 0.5% in CsA users.

In addition, the rate of conjunctivitis requiring ophthalmic medication was 2.6% in dupilumab users versus 0.7% in MTX, 1% in MMF, and 0.5% in CsA users.

After the researchers applied 1:1 propensity score matching, they observed that the risk of conjunctivitis within 6 months of starting treatment was increased in dupilumab users versus MTX users (relative risk, 2.12), dupilumab versus MMF users (RR, 2.43), and dupilumab versus CsA users (RR, 1.83). Among dupilumab users, the risk of conjunctivitis requiring ophthalmic medication was increased six to eightfold, compared with those who used MTX, MMF or CsA. In addition, bacterial conjunctivitis was increased 1.6- to 4.0-fold, compared with those who used MTX, MMF or CsA, but the confidence intervals were wide and included the null, while allergic conjunctivitis was increased 2.7- to 7-fold when compared with those who used MTX and MMF.

In other findings, the risk of allergic conjunctivitis was similar between dupilumab and CsA users (RR, 1.14), and there was no increased risk of keratoconjunctivitis in dupilumab users, compared with those who used MTX, MMF, or CsA. The relative risk of conjunctivitis in those who used dupilumab was further increased when the analysis was limited to AD patients with comorbid asthma (RR, 2.86), those who used systemic glucocorticoids fewer than 30 days prior (RR, 2.88), and those age 65 and older (RR, 2.57), compared with those who used methotrexate.

“Compared to AD patients who received treatment with other systemic agents, dupilumab treatment doubled the risk of conjunctivitis in clinical practice,” Dr. Schneeweiss concluded. “Risk factors that further increase the risk include comorbid asthma, use of systemic corticosteroids, and older age. It should be noted that conjunctivitis does not require treatment discontinuation and is manageable with ophthalmic medications.”

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the work “verifies what we see clinically: that conjunctivitis is increased among dupilumab users even when it is compared to immunosuppressive agents used to treat other conditions. Because the study is retrospective, one cannot assume all diagnosis of types of conjunctivitis or even of skin disease is entirely accurate. But, with the large numbers of claims looked at and compared, one would think its conclusions are accurate.”

Dr. Schneeweiss reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for Amgen, AbbVie, Arcutis, Brickell, Candescent, Cassiopeia, Dermavant, Galderma, Janssen, Forte, Incyte, MC-2, Lilly, Novartis, Novan, Ortho Dermatologics, Revance, Sun Pharma, UCB, and Vyne.

[email protected]

One in 15 patients who start dupilumab treatment may develop conjunctivitis during the first 6 months, most of which is manageable with ophthalmic treatments, results from large study of U.S. claims data showed.

“About 4 years after dupilumab’s approval, we’re interested in how conjunctivitis has played out in our daily clinical practice,” lead study investigator Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Drawing from two nationwide U.S. databases, MarketScan and Optum, Dr. Schneeweiss, of the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues sought to characterize the incidence of bacterial and nonbacterial conjunctivitis among 6,730 patients with AD who started treatment with either dupilumab, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or cyclosporine between March 2017 and January 2020. They also wanted to identify patient subgroups at increased or decreased risk of dupilumab-related conjunctivitis in clinical practice.

Of the 6,730 patients, 3,755 started treatment with dupilumab, while 2,010 started with methotrexate, 536 started with mycophenolate, and 429 started with cyclosporine. Using a new-user, active-comparator study design, the researchers identified patients with AD from both databases and selected three dupilumab cohorts: dupilumab versus methotrexate (MTX), dupilumab versus mycophenolate (MMF), and dupilumab versus cyclosporine (CsA). Follow-up lasted 6 months and 1:1 propensity score matching was used to account for conjunctivitis risk factor differences. Patients with a history of conjunctivitis were excluded from the study, except one subgroup limited to those with prior conjunctivitis.

Dr. Schneeweiss reported that the overall incidence rate of conjunctivitis within 6 months of treatment initiation was 6.6% in dupilumab users, or 1 in 15 patients, compared with 3.3% in MTX users, 4.2% in MMF users, and 2.8% in CsA users. The incidence rates for the different types of conjunctivitis were as follows:

• Bacterial conjunctivitis: 1.5% in dupilumab users versus 0.95% in MTX, 0.4% in MMF, and 0.7% in CsA users.
• Allergic conjunctivitis: 2.2% in dupilumab users versus 0.8% in MTX, 0.2% in MMF, and 1.6% in CsA users.
• Keratoconjunctivitis: 0.8% in dupilumab users versus 1.1% in MTX, 1.5% in MMF, and 0.5% in CsA users.

In addition, the rate of conjunctivitis requiring ophthalmic medication was 2.6% in dupilumab users versus 0.7% in MTX, 1% in MMF, and 0.5% in CsA users.

After the researchers applied 1:1 propensity score matching, they observed that the risk of conjunctivitis within 6 months of starting treatment was increased in dupilumab users versus MTX users (relative risk, 2.12), dupilumab versus MMF users (RR, 2.43), and dupilumab versus CsA users (RR, 1.83). Among dupilumab users, the risk of conjunctivitis requiring ophthalmic medication was increased six to eightfold, compared with those who used MTX, MMF or CsA. In addition, bacterial conjunctivitis was increased 1.6- to 4.0-fold, compared with those who used MTX, MMF or CsA, but the confidence intervals were wide and included the null, while allergic conjunctivitis was increased 2.7- to 7-fold when compared with those who used MTX and MMF.

In other findings, the risk of allergic conjunctivitis was similar between dupilumab and CsA users (RR, 1.14), and there was no increased risk of keratoconjunctivitis in dupilumab users, compared with those who used MTX, MMF, or CsA. The relative risk of conjunctivitis in those who used dupilumab was further increased when the analysis was limited to AD patients with comorbid asthma (RR, 2.86), those who used systemic glucocorticoids fewer than 30 days prior (RR, 2.88), and those age 65 and older (RR, 2.57), compared with those who used methotrexate.

“Compared to AD patients who received treatment with other systemic agents, dupilumab treatment doubled the risk of conjunctivitis in clinical practice,” Dr. Schneeweiss concluded. “Risk factors that further increase the risk include comorbid asthma, use of systemic corticosteroids, and older age. It should be noted that conjunctivitis does not require treatment discontinuation and is manageable with ophthalmic medications.”

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the work “verifies what we see clinically: that conjunctivitis is increased among dupilumab users even when it is compared to immunosuppressive agents used to treat other conditions. Because the study is retrospective, one cannot assume all diagnosis of types of conjunctivitis or even of skin disease is entirely accurate. But, with the large numbers of claims looked at and compared, one would think its conclusions are accurate.”

Dr. Schneeweiss reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for Amgen, AbbVie, Arcutis, Brickell, Candescent, Cassiopeia, Dermavant, Galderma, Janssen, Forte, Incyte, MC-2, Lilly, Novartis, Novan, Ortho Dermatologics, Revance, Sun Pharma, UCB, and Vyne.

[email protected]

One in 15 patients who start dupilumab treatment may develop conjunctivitis during the first 6 months, most of which is manageable with ophthalmic treatments, results from large study of U.S. claims data showed.

“About 4 years after dupilumab’s approval, we’re interested in how conjunctivitis has played out in our daily clinical practice,” lead study investigator Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Drawing from two nationwide U.S. databases, MarketScan and Optum, Dr. Schneeweiss, of the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues sought to characterize the incidence of bacterial and nonbacterial conjunctivitis among 6,730 patients with AD who started treatment with either dupilumab, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or cyclosporine between March 2017 and January 2020. They also wanted to identify patient subgroups at increased or decreased risk of dupilumab-related conjunctivitis in clinical practice.

Of the 6,730 patients, 3,755 started treatment with dupilumab, while 2,010 started with methotrexate, 536 started with mycophenolate, and 429 started with cyclosporine. Using a new-user, active-comparator study design, the researchers identified patients with AD from both databases and selected three dupilumab cohorts: dupilumab versus methotrexate (MTX), dupilumab versus mycophenolate (MMF), and dupilumab versus cyclosporine (CsA). Follow-up lasted 6 months and 1:1 propensity score matching was used to account for conjunctivitis risk factor differences. Patients with a history of conjunctivitis were excluded from the study, except one subgroup limited to those with prior conjunctivitis.

Dr. Schneeweiss reported that the overall incidence rate of conjunctivitis within 6 months of treatment initiation was 6.6% in dupilumab users, or 1 in 15 patients, compared with 3.3% in MTX users, 4.2% in MMF users, and 2.8% in CsA users. The incidence rates for the different types of conjunctivitis were as follows:

• Bacterial conjunctivitis: 1.5% in dupilumab users versus 0.95% in MTX, 0.4% in MMF, and 0.7% in CsA users.
• Allergic conjunctivitis: 2.2% in dupilumab users versus 0.8% in MTX, 0.2% in MMF, and 1.6% in CsA users.
• Keratoconjunctivitis: 0.8% in dupilumab users versus 1.1% in MTX, 1.5% in MMF, and 0.5% in CsA users.

In addition, the rate of conjunctivitis requiring ophthalmic medication was 2.6% in dupilumab users versus 0.7% in MTX, 1% in MMF, and 0.5% in CsA users.

After the researchers applied 1:1 propensity score matching, they observed that the risk of conjunctivitis within 6 months of starting treatment was increased in dupilumab users versus MTX users (relative risk, 2.12), dupilumab versus MMF users (RR, 2.43), and dupilumab versus CsA users (RR, 1.83). Among dupilumab users, the risk of conjunctivitis requiring ophthalmic medication was increased six to eightfold, compared with those who used MTX, MMF or CsA. In addition, bacterial conjunctivitis was increased 1.6- to 4.0-fold, compared with those who used MTX, MMF or CsA, but the confidence intervals were wide and included the null, while allergic conjunctivitis was increased 2.7- to 7-fold when compared with those who used MTX and MMF.

In other findings, the risk of allergic conjunctivitis was similar between dupilumab and CsA users (RR, 1.14), and there was no increased risk of keratoconjunctivitis in dupilumab users, compared with those who used MTX, MMF, or CsA. The relative risk of conjunctivitis in those who used dupilumab was further increased when the analysis was limited to AD patients with comorbid asthma (RR, 2.86), those who used systemic glucocorticoids fewer than 30 days prior (RR, 2.88), and those age 65 and older (RR, 2.57), compared with those who used methotrexate.

“Compared to AD patients who received treatment with other systemic agents, dupilumab treatment doubled the risk of conjunctivitis in clinical practice,” Dr. Schneeweiss concluded. “Risk factors that further increase the risk include comorbid asthma, use of systemic corticosteroids, and older age. It should be noted that conjunctivitis does not require treatment discontinuation and is manageable with ophthalmic medications.”

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the work “verifies what we see clinically: that conjunctivitis is increased among dupilumab users even when it is compared to immunosuppressive agents used to treat other conditions. Because the study is retrospective, one cannot assume all diagnosis of types of conjunctivitis or even of skin disease is entirely accurate. But, with the large numbers of claims looked at and compared, one would think its conclusions are accurate.”

Dr. Schneeweiss reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for Amgen, AbbVie, Arcutis, Brickell, Candescent, Cassiopeia, Dermavant, Galderma, Janssen, Forte, Incyte, MC-2, Lilly, Novartis, Novan, Ortho Dermatologics, Revance, Sun Pharma, UCB, and Vyne.

[email protected]

Among the 51 patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who developed COVID-19 while participating in an open-label clinical trial of tralokinumab, 96% of cases were mild or moderate and all patients continued tralokinumab treatment following their diagnosis.

“This is a great first look at COVID-19 outcomes in this population,” lead study investigator Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “This suggests that tralokinumab does not significantly impact the ability to respond to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. It’s encouraging and promising.”

Tralokinumab is a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to interleukin-13, which is a key driver of underlying inflammation in AD. An ongoing, open-label extension trial called ECZTEND is investigating the long-term safety and efficacy of tralokinumab in patients with AD who participated in previous tralokinumab trials. The purpose of the current case series is to describe the outcomes of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 while participating in ECZTEND, which is a 5-year study.

“Patients are receiving tralokinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks,” said Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist who is president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland. “They’re allowed to use topical steroids, but they’re not allowed to use other AD treatments. We do regular clinical and safety assessments throughout the study.”

As of Feb. 26, 2021, there were 51 adults with moderate to severe AD who had confirmed COVID-19 infection during treatment with tralokinumab every 2 weeks. “Patients were not required to discontinue tralokinumab treatment following a COVID-19 diagnosis, if continuation was deemed appropriate by the investigator,” Dr. Blauvelt said. Of the 51 patients, 22 were male, 29 were female, their mean age was 38 years, and their baseline body mass index was 27.6 kg/m². Most of the patients (36, or 71%) were from Europe, 15 (29%) were from North America, and 30 (59%) had a history of asthma.

The average duration of COVID-19 infection was 15 days and severity of disease was mild in 35 patients (69%), moderate in 14 (27%), and severe in 2 (4%). According to the study abstract, those two patients had multiple risk factors and comorbidities, including obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cardiovascular disease. They were hospitalized for a mean of 7 days, but subsequently recovered – one with sequelae. None of the patients died.

Of the 51 COVID-19 cases, 2 were deemed to be possibly related to tralokinumab treatment by the investigator, Dr. Blauvelt said. Both were mild or moderate cases that occurred in patients younger than age 30. “Interestingly, 75% of the COVID-19 patients had no dose interruption; they continued dosing their tralokinumab every 2 weeks during and around the time they had COVID-19,” he said. “However, 25% of patients did interrupt their dosing during COVID-19 infection. That means that they either delayed or stopped dosing while they were sick.”

Of the 51 patients, 19 (37%) had received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and 6 (12%) had received their second dose. “So, 12% of patients were fully vaccinated,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “We do know that the mRNA vaccines are about 95% effective in preventing COVID-19. Currently in Oregon, about 98% of our cases are in unvaccinated patients and about 2% of COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated.”

In addition, the recently published ECZTRA5 vaccine study showed that nonlive vaccines (tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis; and meningococcal vaccines) could be safely administered and can elicit normal immune responses in patients treated with tralokinumab.

“We sorely need COVID-19–related safety data for all of our current and emerging systemic and biologic therapies used to treat atopic dermatitis,” said Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment about these results. “This study is important because it shows that tralokinumab was not associated with any obvious safety signals with respect to COVID-19 infections. The major limitation is that it is not a prospective study designed to assess tralokinumab efficacy in COVID-19 patients per se. However, this post hoc study provides reassuring data. We need similar or even more robust studies for other systemic therapies in AD.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported that he is an investigator and a scientific advisor for LEO Pharma, which is developing tralokinumab, and for several other pharmaceutical companies developing treatments for AD. Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies, including LEO Pharma.

[email protected]

Among the 51 patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who developed COVID-19 while participating in an open-label clinical trial of tralokinumab, 96% of cases were mild or moderate and all patients continued tralokinumab treatment following their diagnosis.

“This is a great first look at COVID-19 outcomes in this population,” lead study investigator Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “This suggests that tralokinumab does not significantly impact the ability to respond to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. It’s encouraging and promising.”

Tralokinumab is a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to interleukin-13, which is a key driver of underlying inflammation in AD. An ongoing, open-label extension trial called ECZTEND is investigating the long-term safety and efficacy of tralokinumab in patients with AD who participated in previous tralokinumab trials. The purpose of the current case series is to describe the outcomes of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 while participating in ECZTEND, which is a 5-year study.

“Patients are receiving tralokinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks,” said Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist who is president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland. “They’re allowed to use topical steroids, but they’re not allowed to use other AD treatments. We do regular clinical and safety assessments throughout the study.”

As of Feb. 26, 2021, there were 51 adults with moderate to severe AD who had confirmed COVID-19 infection during treatment with tralokinumab every 2 weeks. “Patients were not required to discontinue tralokinumab treatment following a COVID-19 diagnosis, if continuation was deemed appropriate by the investigator,” Dr. Blauvelt said. Of the 51 patients, 22 were male, 29 were female, their mean age was 38 years, and their baseline body mass index was 27.6 kg/m². Most of the patients (36, or 71%) were from Europe, 15 (29%) were from North America, and 30 (59%) had a history of asthma.

The average duration of COVID-19 infection was 15 days and severity of disease was mild in 35 patients (69%), moderate in 14 (27%), and severe in 2 (4%). According to the study abstract, those two patients had multiple risk factors and comorbidities, including obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cardiovascular disease. They were hospitalized for a mean of 7 days, but subsequently recovered – one with sequelae. None of the patients died.

Of the 51 COVID-19 cases, 2 were deemed to be possibly related to tralokinumab treatment by the investigator, Dr. Blauvelt said. Both were mild or moderate cases that occurred in patients younger than age 30. “Interestingly, 75% of the COVID-19 patients had no dose interruption; they continued dosing their tralokinumab every 2 weeks during and around the time they had COVID-19,” he said. “However, 25% of patients did interrupt their dosing during COVID-19 infection. That means that they either delayed or stopped dosing while they were sick.”

Of the 51 patients, 19 (37%) had received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and 6 (12%) had received their second dose. “So, 12% of patients were fully vaccinated,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “We do know that the mRNA vaccines are about 95% effective in preventing COVID-19. Currently in Oregon, about 98% of our cases are in unvaccinated patients and about 2% of COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated.”

In addition, the recently published ECZTRA5 vaccine study showed that nonlive vaccines (tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis; and meningococcal vaccines) could be safely administered and can elicit normal immune responses in patients treated with tralokinumab.

“We sorely need COVID-19–related safety data for all of our current and emerging systemic and biologic therapies used to treat atopic dermatitis,” said Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment about these results. “This study is important because it shows that tralokinumab was not associated with any obvious safety signals with respect to COVID-19 infections. The major limitation is that it is not a prospective study designed to assess tralokinumab efficacy in COVID-19 patients per se. However, this post hoc study provides reassuring data. We need similar or even more robust studies for other systemic therapies in AD.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported that he is an investigator and a scientific advisor for LEO Pharma, which is developing tralokinumab, and for several other pharmaceutical companies developing treatments for AD. Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies, including LEO Pharma.

[email protected]

Among the 51 patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who developed COVID-19 while participating in an open-label clinical trial of tralokinumab, 96% of cases were mild or moderate and all patients continued tralokinumab treatment following their diagnosis.

“This is a great first look at COVID-19 outcomes in this population,” lead study investigator Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “This suggests that tralokinumab does not significantly impact the ability to respond to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. It’s encouraging and promising.”

Tralokinumab is a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to interleukin-13, which is a key driver of underlying inflammation in AD. An ongoing, open-label extension trial called ECZTEND is investigating the long-term safety and efficacy of tralokinumab in patients with AD who participated in previous tralokinumab trials. The purpose of the current case series is to describe the outcomes of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 while participating in ECZTEND, which is a 5-year study.

“Patients are receiving tralokinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks,” said Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist who is president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland. “They’re allowed to use topical steroids, but they’re not allowed to use other AD treatments. We do regular clinical and safety assessments throughout the study.”

As of Feb. 26, 2021, there were 51 adults with moderate to severe AD who had confirmed COVID-19 infection during treatment with tralokinumab every 2 weeks. “Patients were not required to discontinue tralokinumab treatment following a COVID-19 diagnosis, if continuation was deemed appropriate by the investigator,” Dr. Blauvelt said. Of the 51 patients, 22 were male, 29 were female, their mean age was 38 years, and their baseline body mass index was 27.6 kg/m². Most of the patients (36, or 71%) were from Europe, 15 (29%) were from North America, and 30 (59%) had a history of asthma.

The average duration of COVID-19 infection was 15 days and severity of disease was mild in 35 patients (69%), moderate in 14 (27%), and severe in 2 (4%). According to the study abstract, those two patients had multiple risk factors and comorbidities, including obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cardiovascular disease. They were hospitalized for a mean of 7 days, but subsequently recovered – one with sequelae. None of the patients died.

Of the 51 COVID-19 cases, 2 were deemed to be possibly related to tralokinumab treatment by the investigator, Dr. Blauvelt said. Both were mild or moderate cases that occurred in patients younger than age 30. “Interestingly, 75% of the COVID-19 patients had no dose interruption; they continued dosing their tralokinumab every 2 weeks during and around the time they had COVID-19,” he said. “However, 25% of patients did interrupt their dosing during COVID-19 infection. That means that they either delayed or stopped dosing while they were sick.”

Of the 51 patients, 19 (37%) had received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and 6 (12%) had received their second dose. “So, 12% of patients were fully vaccinated,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “We do know that the mRNA vaccines are about 95% effective in preventing COVID-19. Currently in Oregon, about 98% of our cases are in unvaccinated patients and about 2% of COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated.”

In addition, the recently published ECZTRA5 vaccine study showed that nonlive vaccines (tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis; and meningococcal vaccines) could be safely administered and can elicit normal immune responses in patients treated with tralokinumab.

“We sorely need COVID-19–related safety data for all of our current and emerging systemic and biologic therapies used to treat atopic dermatitis,” said Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment about these results. “This study is important because it shows that tralokinumab was not associated with any obvious safety signals with respect to COVID-19 infections. The major limitation is that it is not a prospective study designed to assess tralokinumab efficacy in COVID-19 patients per se. However, this post hoc study provides reassuring data. We need similar or even more robust studies for other systemic therapies in AD.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported that he is an investigator and a scientific advisor for LEO Pharma, which is developing tralokinumab, and for several other pharmaceutical companies developing treatments for AD. Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies, including LEO Pharma.

[email protected]

Low adenoma detection rates (ADRs) were associated with a greater risk of death in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, especially among those with high-risk adenomas, based on a review of more than 250,000 colonoscopies.

pixologicstudio/Thinkstock

“Both performance quality of the endoscopist as well as specific characteristics of resected adenomas at colonoscopy are associated with colorectal cancer mortality,” but the impact of these combined factors on colorectal cancer mortality has not been examined on a large scale, according to Elisabeth A. Waldmann, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna and colleagues.

In a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology, the researchers reviewed 259,885 colonoscopies performed by 361 endoscopists. Over an average follow-up period of 59 months, 165 CRC-related deaths occurred.

Across all risk groups, CRC mortality was higher among patients whose colonoscopies yielded an ADR of less than 25%, although this was not statistically significant in all groups.

The researchers then stratified patients into those with a negative colonoscopy, those with low-risk adenomas (one to two adenomas less than 10 mm), and those with high-risk adenomas (advanced adenomas or at least three adenomas), with the negative colonoscopy group used as the reference group for comparisons. The average age of the patients was 61 years, and approximately half were women.

Endoscopists were classified as having an ADR of less than 25% or 25% and higher.

Among individuals with low-risk adenomas, CRC mortality was similar whether the ADR on a negative colonoscopy was less than 25% or 25% or higher (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.25 and 1.22, respectively). CRC mortality also remained unaffected by ADR in patients with negatively colonoscopies (aHR, 1.27).

By contrast, individuals with high-risk adenomas had a significantly increased risk of CRC death if their colonoscopy was performed by an endoscopist with an ADR of less than 25%, compared with those whose endoscopists had ADRs of 25% or higher (aHR, 2.25 and 1.35, respectively).

“Our study demonstrated that adding ADR to the risk stratification model improved risk assessment in all risk groups,” the researchers noted. “Importantly, stratification improved most for individuals with high-risk adenomas, the group demanding most resources in health care systems.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the focus on only screening and surveillance colonoscopies, not including diagnostic colonoscopies, and the inability to adjust for comorbidities and lifestyle factors that might impact CRC mortality, the researchers noted. The 22.4% average ADR in the current study was low, compared with other studies, and could be a limitation as well, although previous guidelines recommend a target ADR of at least 20%.

“Despite the extensive body of literature supporting the importance of ADR in terms of CRC prevention, its implementation into clinical surveillance is challenging,” as physicians under pressure might try to game their ADRs, the researchers wrote.

The findings support the value of mandatory assessment of performance quality, the researchers added. However, “because of the potential possibility of gaming one’s ADR one conclusion drawn by the study results should be that endoscopists’ quality parameters should be monitored and those not meeting the standards trained to improve rather than requiring minimum ADRs as premise for offering screening colonoscopy.”
 

Improve performance, but don’t discount patient factors

The study is important at this time because colorectal cancer is the third-leading cause of cancer death in the United States, Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago said in an interview.

“Screening colonoscopy has been shown to decrease CRC mortality, but factors influencing outcomes after screening colonoscopies remain to be determined,” he said.

“It was expected that high-quality colonoscopy performed by an endoscopist with ADR of 25% or greater was associated with a lower risk for CRC death,” Dr. Sakuraba said. “The strength of the study is that the authors demonstrated that high-quality colonoscopy was more important in individuals with high-risk adenomas, such as advanced adenomas or at least three adenomas.”

The study findings have implications for practice in that they show the importance of monitoring performance quality in screening colonoscopy, Dr. Sakuraba said, “especially when patients have high-risk adenomas.” However, “the authors included only age and sex as variables, but the influence of other factors, such as smoking, [body mass index], and race, need to be studied.”

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sakuraba had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Low adenoma detection rates (ADRs) were associated with a greater risk of death in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, especially among those with high-risk adenomas, based on a review of more than 250,000 colonoscopies.

pixologicstudio/Thinkstock

“Both performance quality of the endoscopist as well as specific characteristics of resected adenomas at colonoscopy are associated with colorectal cancer mortality,” but the impact of these combined factors on colorectal cancer mortality has not been examined on a large scale, according to Elisabeth A. Waldmann, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna and colleagues.

In a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology, the researchers reviewed 259,885 colonoscopies performed by 361 endoscopists. Over an average follow-up period of 59 months, 165 CRC-related deaths occurred.

Across all risk groups, CRC mortality was higher among patients whose colonoscopies yielded an ADR of less than 25%, although this was not statistically significant in all groups.

The researchers then stratified patients into those with a negative colonoscopy, those with low-risk adenomas (one to two adenomas less than 10 mm), and those with high-risk adenomas (advanced adenomas or at least three adenomas), with the negative colonoscopy group used as the reference group for comparisons. The average age of the patients was 61 years, and approximately half were women.

Endoscopists were classified as having an ADR of less than 25% or 25% and higher.

Among individuals with low-risk adenomas, CRC mortality was similar whether the ADR on a negative colonoscopy was less than 25% or 25% or higher (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.25 and 1.22, respectively). CRC mortality also remained unaffected by ADR in patients with negatively colonoscopies (aHR, 1.27).

By contrast, individuals with high-risk adenomas had a significantly increased risk of CRC death if their colonoscopy was performed by an endoscopist with an ADR of less than 25%, compared with those whose endoscopists had ADRs of 25% or higher (aHR, 2.25 and 1.35, respectively).

“Our study demonstrated that adding ADR to the risk stratification model improved risk assessment in all risk groups,” the researchers noted. “Importantly, stratification improved most for individuals with high-risk adenomas, the group demanding most resources in health care systems.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the focus on only screening and surveillance colonoscopies, not including diagnostic colonoscopies, and the inability to adjust for comorbidities and lifestyle factors that might impact CRC mortality, the researchers noted. The 22.4% average ADR in the current study was low, compared with other studies, and could be a limitation as well, although previous guidelines recommend a target ADR of at least 20%.

“Despite the extensive body of literature supporting the importance of ADR in terms of CRC prevention, its implementation into clinical surveillance is challenging,” as physicians under pressure might try to game their ADRs, the researchers wrote.

The findings support the value of mandatory assessment of performance quality, the researchers added. However, “because of the potential possibility of gaming one’s ADR one conclusion drawn by the study results should be that endoscopists’ quality parameters should be monitored and those not meeting the standards trained to improve rather than requiring minimum ADRs as premise for offering screening colonoscopy.”
 

Improve performance, but don’t discount patient factors

The study is important at this time because colorectal cancer is the third-leading cause of cancer death in the United States, Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago said in an interview.

“Screening colonoscopy has been shown to decrease CRC mortality, but factors influencing outcomes after screening colonoscopies remain to be determined,” he said.

“It was expected that high-quality colonoscopy performed by an endoscopist with ADR of 25% or greater was associated with a lower risk for CRC death,” Dr. Sakuraba said. “The strength of the study is that the authors demonstrated that high-quality colonoscopy was more important in individuals with high-risk adenomas, such as advanced adenomas or at least three adenomas.”

The study findings have implications for practice in that they show the importance of monitoring performance quality in screening colonoscopy, Dr. Sakuraba said, “especially when patients have high-risk adenomas.” However, “the authors included only age and sex as variables, but the influence of other factors, such as smoking, [body mass index], and race, need to be studied.”

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sakuraba had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Low adenoma detection rates (ADRs) were associated with a greater risk of death in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, especially among those with high-risk adenomas, based on a review of more than 250,000 colonoscopies.

pixologicstudio/Thinkstock

“Both performance quality of the endoscopist as well as specific characteristics of resected adenomas at colonoscopy are associated with colorectal cancer mortality,” but the impact of these combined factors on colorectal cancer mortality has not been examined on a large scale, according to Elisabeth A. Waldmann, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna and colleagues.

In a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology, the researchers reviewed 259,885 colonoscopies performed by 361 endoscopists. Over an average follow-up period of 59 months, 165 CRC-related deaths occurred.

Across all risk groups, CRC mortality was higher among patients whose colonoscopies yielded an ADR of less than 25%, although this was not statistically significant in all groups.

The researchers then stratified patients into those with a negative colonoscopy, those with low-risk adenomas (one to two adenomas less than 10 mm), and those with high-risk adenomas (advanced adenomas or at least three adenomas), with the negative colonoscopy group used as the reference group for comparisons. The average age of the patients was 61 years, and approximately half were women.

Endoscopists were classified as having an ADR of less than 25% or 25% and higher.

Among individuals with low-risk adenomas, CRC mortality was similar whether the ADR on a negative colonoscopy was less than 25% or 25% or higher (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.25 and 1.22, respectively). CRC mortality also remained unaffected by ADR in patients with negatively colonoscopies (aHR, 1.27).

By contrast, individuals with high-risk adenomas had a significantly increased risk of CRC death if their colonoscopy was performed by an endoscopist with an ADR of less than 25%, compared with those whose endoscopists had ADRs of 25% or higher (aHR, 2.25 and 1.35, respectively).

“Our study demonstrated that adding ADR to the risk stratification model improved risk assessment in all risk groups,” the researchers noted. “Importantly, stratification improved most for individuals with high-risk adenomas, the group demanding most resources in health care systems.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the focus on only screening and surveillance colonoscopies, not including diagnostic colonoscopies, and the inability to adjust for comorbidities and lifestyle factors that might impact CRC mortality, the researchers noted. The 22.4% average ADR in the current study was low, compared with other studies, and could be a limitation as well, although previous guidelines recommend a target ADR of at least 20%.

“Despite the extensive body of literature supporting the importance of ADR in terms of CRC prevention, its implementation into clinical surveillance is challenging,” as physicians under pressure might try to game their ADRs, the researchers wrote.

The findings support the value of mandatory assessment of performance quality, the researchers added. However, “because of the potential possibility of gaming one’s ADR one conclusion drawn by the study results should be that endoscopists’ quality parameters should be monitored and those not meeting the standards trained to improve rather than requiring minimum ADRs as premise for offering screening colonoscopy.”
 

Improve performance, but don’t discount patient factors

The study is important at this time because colorectal cancer is the third-leading cause of cancer death in the United States, Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago said in an interview.

“Screening colonoscopy has been shown to decrease CRC mortality, but factors influencing outcomes after screening colonoscopies remain to be determined,” he said.

“It was expected that high-quality colonoscopy performed by an endoscopist with ADR of 25% or greater was associated with a lower risk for CRC death,” Dr. Sakuraba said. “The strength of the study is that the authors demonstrated that high-quality colonoscopy was more important in individuals with high-risk adenomas, such as advanced adenomas or at least three adenomas.”

The study findings have implications for practice in that they show the importance of monitoring performance quality in screening colonoscopy, Dr. Sakuraba said, “especially when patients have high-risk adenomas.” However, “the authors included only age and sex as variables, but the influence of other factors, such as smoking, [body mass index], and race, need to be studied.”

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sakuraba had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Public health precautions meant to reduce the spread of COVID-19 may have had an unintended but happy side effect.

They may also have benefited individuals who have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a new study.

During the pandemic, admissions for COPD flare-ups dropped dramatically – by 53% – at University of Maryland Medical System hospitals.

Researchers at the university suspect this was the result of a drop in circulating seasonal respiratory viruses, such as influenza. They theorized that stay-at-home orders, social distancing, mask mandates, and strict limits on large gatherings reduced exposure not only to COVID but also to other respiratory infections.

“Our study shows there’s a silver lining to the behavior changes beyond protecting against COVID-19,” said senior author Robert Reed, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine.

COPD is a group of lung diseases that worsen over time and make it hard to breathe. Before the pandemic, they were the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide, commonly triggered by tobacco smoke and dirty air. Nearly half of flare-ups are caused by seasonal respiratory viruses.

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 13 UMMS hospitals, comparing weekly admissions for COPD in 2018 and 2019, with admissions after April 1, 2020, when COVID-19 public health measures were introduced. Investigators chose the same six-month period in each year for comparison – April 1 to Sept. 30.

The findings were matched against U.S. federal data on respiratory viral trends between Jan. 1, 2018, and Oct. 1, 2020.

As significant as was the system’s 53% drop in COPD admissions during the pandemic, there was also a 36% decline in weekly admissions for such serious conditions as congestive heart failure, diabetes and heart attack, said co–lead author Jennifer So, MD. She’s an assistant professor of medicine and COPD specialist.

The researchers warned that a full return to normal may again expose COPD patients to the familiar seasonal triggers.

“If we completely eliminate masks and distancing during cold and flu season, we’ll allow all those viruses that have been effectively suppressed to come raging back,” Dr. Reed said in a university news release. “There could be a lot of illness.”

He noted that the study did not assess which measures tamed seasonal viruses. But, Dr. Reed added, “a simple thing like wearing a mask while riding on public transit or working from home when you’re sick with a cold could go a long way to reduce virus exposure.”

Dr. So said it is a cultural norm in her native South Korea to wear masks during the winter.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has helped a lot of people around the world become more aware of the role of masking and social distancing to reduce the spread of disease,” she said in the release.

The findings were recently published in the preprint server medRxiv and have not yet been peer reviewed.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more information on COVID-19 and chronic lung diseases.

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

Public health precautions meant to reduce the spread of COVID-19 may have had an unintended but happy side effect.

They may also have benefited individuals who have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a new study.

During the pandemic, admissions for COPD flare-ups dropped dramatically – by 53% – at University of Maryland Medical System hospitals.

Researchers at the university suspect this was the result of a drop in circulating seasonal respiratory viruses, such as influenza. They theorized that stay-at-home orders, social distancing, mask mandates, and strict limits on large gatherings reduced exposure not only to COVID but also to other respiratory infections.

“Our study shows there’s a silver lining to the behavior changes beyond protecting against COVID-19,” said senior author Robert Reed, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine.

COPD is a group of lung diseases that worsen over time and make it hard to breathe. Before the pandemic, they were the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide, commonly triggered by tobacco smoke and dirty air. Nearly half of flare-ups are caused by seasonal respiratory viruses.

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 13 UMMS hospitals, comparing weekly admissions for COPD in 2018 and 2019, with admissions after April 1, 2020, when COVID-19 public health measures were introduced. Investigators chose the same six-month period in each year for comparison – April 1 to Sept. 30.

The findings were matched against U.S. federal data on respiratory viral trends between Jan. 1, 2018, and Oct. 1, 2020.

As significant as was the system’s 53% drop in COPD admissions during the pandemic, there was also a 36% decline in weekly admissions for such serious conditions as congestive heart failure, diabetes and heart attack, said co–lead author Jennifer So, MD. She’s an assistant professor of medicine and COPD specialist.

The researchers warned that a full return to normal may again expose COPD patients to the familiar seasonal triggers.

“If we completely eliminate masks and distancing during cold and flu season, we’ll allow all those viruses that have been effectively suppressed to come raging back,” Dr. Reed said in a university news release. “There could be a lot of illness.”

He noted that the study did not assess which measures tamed seasonal viruses. But, Dr. Reed added, “a simple thing like wearing a mask while riding on public transit or working from home when you’re sick with a cold could go a long way to reduce virus exposure.”

Dr. So said it is a cultural norm in her native South Korea to wear masks during the winter.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has helped a lot of people around the world become more aware of the role of masking and social distancing to reduce the spread of disease,” she said in the release.

The findings were recently published in the preprint server medRxiv and have not yet been peer reviewed.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more information on COVID-19 and chronic lung diseases.

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

Public health precautions meant to reduce the spread of COVID-19 may have had an unintended but happy side effect.

They may also have benefited individuals who have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a new study.

During the pandemic, admissions for COPD flare-ups dropped dramatically – by 53% – at University of Maryland Medical System hospitals.

Researchers at the university suspect this was the result of a drop in circulating seasonal respiratory viruses, such as influenza. They theorized that stay-at-home orders, social distancing, mask mandates, and strict limits on large gatherings reduced exposure not only to COVID but also to other respiratory infections.

“Our study shows there’s a silver lining to the behavior changes beyond protecting against COVID-19,” said senior author Robert Reed, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine.

COPD is a group of lung diseases that worsen over time and make it hard to breathe. Before the pandemic, they were the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide, commonly triggered by tobacco smoke and dirty air. Nearly half of flare-ups are caused by seasonal respiratory viruses.

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 13 UMMS hospitals, comparing weekly admissions for COPD in 2018 and 2019, with admissions after April 1, 2020, when COVID-19 public health measures were introduced. Investigators chose the same six-month period in each year for comparison – April 1 to Sept. 30.

The findings were matched against U.S. federal data on respiratory viral trends between Jan. 1, 2018, and Oct. 1, 2020.

As significant as was the system’s 53% drop in COPD admissions during the pandemic, there was also a 36% decline in weekly admissions for such serious conditions as congestive heart failure, diabetes and heart attack, said co–lead author Jennifer So, MD. She’s an assistant professor of medicine and COPD specialist.

The researchers warned that a full return to normal may again expose COPD patients to the familiar seasonal triggers.

“If we completely eliminate masks and distancing during cold and flu season, we’ll allow all those viruses that have been effectively suppressed to come raging back,” Dr. Reed said in a university news release. “There could be a lot of illness.”

He noted that the study did not assess which measures tamed seasonal viruses. But, Dr. Reed added, “a simple thing like wearing a mask while riding on public transit or working from home when you’re sick with a cold could go a long way to reduce virus exposure.”

Dr. So said it is a cultural norm in her native South Korea to wear masks during the winter.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has helped a lot of people around the world become more aware of the role of masking and social distancing to reduce the spread of disease,” she said in the release.

The findings were recently published in the preprint server medRxiv and have not yet been peer reviewed.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more information on COVID-19 and chronic lung diseases.

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

Brain metastases remain a frequent and often fatal consequence of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). MBC carries a median survival of about 3 years, but that rate drops significantly when cancer cells move to the brain. A recent analysis estimates median survival in patients with brain metastases ranges from 6 months in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) to 21 months in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive disease. But with a growing array of MBC treatments that cross the blood-brain barrier and target a range of tumor characteristics, outcomes for these patients should continue to improve.

This news organization spoke to Kevin M. Kalinsky, MD, acting associate professor in the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta and director of the Glenn Family Breast Center at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, about the risk for brain metastases in patients with MBC, strategies for screening and treatment, and the work being done to achieve a better understanding of the disease.

Question: Before we dig into strategies to manage MBC brain metastasis, let’s talk about the risks. When and how often do brain metastases present in patients with MBC? What factors increase the likelihood of developing brain metastasis?

Dr. Kalinsky: The biggest risk factor for MBC spreading to the central nervous system (CNS), which includes the brain and spine, is breast cancer subtype. For patients with metastatic TNBC, the risk for brain metastasis can be more than 50%. For patients with HER2-positive disease, the risk may be slightly lower, with estimates in the range of 25%-50%, whereas the likelihood of brain metastasis in patients with hormone receptor–positive MBC is significantly lower at close to 14%. In addition, patients with metastatic TNBC may have brain metastases a little earlier in their disease progression compared with patients with HER2-positive or estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, where brain metastases generally develop a little later in the disease course.

At what point is it recommended to screen patients with MBC for brain metastasis?

Current guidelines suggest that we scan for brain metastasis in the presence of new neurologic symptoms, such as headache, dizziness, or weakness in the arms or legs. MRI, in particular, is useful for evaluating brain metastasis, especially for smaller lesions, but lesions are sometimes detected through CT imaging of the head, too.

That’s where the guidelines are now. But as our systemic agents improve, there’s always the possibility these recommendations will be revisited and potentially include imaging as screening tools in asymptomatic patients, as well.

Increasingly, because our systemic therapies in breast cancer are getting better in terms of crossing the blood-brain barrier, we think about local therapy on a case-by-case basis. We think about it with the question of whether we delay surgery or radiation — whole brain radiation, in particular — given concerns surrounding the side effects of these modalities, namely cognitive dysfunction for radiation and increased risk of bleeding and infection for surgery.

Giving a patient-directed local therapy, such as Gamma Knife radiosurgery or whole-brain radiotherapy, ultimately depends on the burden of brain metastasis, the status of systemic disease outside of the brain, and the number and size of the lesions seen on imaging. If, for instance, a patient has a large lesion that will immediately impact their neurologic status, we may opt to resect the lesion. If there are innumerable lesions, some of which are large, we may do whole-brain radiotherapy. If, however, a patient has systemic disease that is largely under control but is experiencing local progression in the brain, we may use local radiotherapy while continuing systemic therapy.

What about systemic therapies that cross the blood-brain barrier? What’s available now and how do you choose among the options?The subtype of breast cancer informs treatment with systemic therapies. For instance, patients with HER2-positive disease may receive oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as tucatinib, neratinib, and lapatinib, which have strong CNS penetration. For patients with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative MBC, estrogen therapies including aromatase inhibitors, as well as targeted therapies such as the mTOR inhibitor everolimus, have good CNS penetration. For patients with metastatic TNBC, we have chemotherapies that cross the blood-brain barrier, such as capecitabine and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Evidence suggests that tumors in the brain may harbor different genetic abnormalities from tumors in the breast. How do you consider the potential genetic heterogeneity in CNS tumors vs. the primary breast tumor?When a patient’s disease has spread to the brain, we may preferentially use agents we know cross the blood-brain barrier, so we can obtain systemic control both intracranially and extracranially. If we have already resected or biopsied cancerous brain tissue, it’s good to check the tumor’s estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status and do next-generation sequencing to see if the tumor has any other targetable mutations, such as PIK3CA mutations.

But when a patient has multiple lesions, we don’t go in and biopsy all of them to check for heterogeneity. We have to make decisions based on samples we have. In cases where we start systemic therapy and notice one lesion is not responding to these agents while others are, the nonresponsive lesion may be an outlier in terms of its biologic characteristics. It may be worth targeting that lesion for biopsy and further sequencing to determine the next best systemic approach.

How do quality of life considerations factor into the management of patients with MBC brain metastases?

We use a multidisciplinary approach when treating patients. This means patient care involves a team of experts, which can include medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and neuro-oncologists who help determine a treatment plan that takes factors such as survival and quality of life into account.

This is why, for example, we try to delay whole brain radiotherapy when we can. The HER2CLIMB study, which led to the approval of tucatinib as a treatment option for patients with HER2-positive MBC, showed us that patients with treated or untreated brain metastases receiving systemic therapy before local therapy could benefit from the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine. These patients exhibited a median progression-free survival of 7.6 months compared with 5.4 months in the placebo group.

HER2CLIMB has been practice changing because it showed us that tucatinib has good CNS activity in patients with brain metastases. The HER2CLIMB findings raise an important question: As our systemic therapies improve, how aggressive do we need to be with local therapy? Can we push off modalities like whole-brain radiotherapy, which are associated with toxicity?

This study also highlights how important it is for patients with metastatic disease to seek clinical trials. Although some trials exclude patients with brain metastases and others may have criteria that require the stability of brain metastasis for a certain amount of time, the knowledge gained can be invaluable.

Brain metastases remain a frequent and often fatal consequence of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). MBC carries a median survival of about 3 years, but that rate drops significantly when cancer cells move to the brain. A recent analysis estimates median survival in patients with brain metastases ranges from 6 months in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) to 21 months in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive disease. But with a growing array of MBC treatments that cross the blood-brain barrier and target a range of tumor characteristics, outcomes for these patients should continue to improve.

This news organization spoke to Kevin M. Kalinsky, MD, acting associate professor in the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta and director of the Glenn Family Breast Center at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, about the risk for brain metastases in patients with MBC, strategies for screening and treatment, and the work being done to achieve a better understanding of the disease.

Question: Before we dig into strategies to manage MBC brain metastasis, let’s talk about the risks. When and how often do brain metastases present in patients with MBC? What factors increase the likelihood of developing brain metastasis?

Dr. Kalinsky: The biggest risk factor for MBC spreading to the central nervous system (CNS), which includes the brain and spine, is breast cancer subtype. For patients with metastatic TNBC, the risk for brain metastasis can be more than 50%. For patients with HER2-positive disease, the risk may be slightly lower, with estimates in the range of 25%-50%, whereas the likelihood of brain metastasis in patients with hormone receptor–positive MBC is significantly lower at close to 14%. In addition, patients with metastatic TNBC may have brain metastases a little earlier in their disease progression compared with patients with HER2-positive or estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, where brain metastases generally develop a little later in the disease course.

At what point is it recommended to screen patients with MBC for brain metastasis?

Current guidelines suggest that we scan for brain metastasis in the presence of new neurologic symptoms, such as headache, dizziness, or weakness in the arms or legs. MRI, in particular, is useful for evaluating brain metastasis, especially for smaller lesions, but lesions are sometimes detected through CT imaging of the head, too.

That’s where the guidelines are now. But as our systemic agents improve, there’s always the possibility these recommendations will be revisited and potentially include imaging as screening tools in asymptomatic patients, as well.

Increasingly, because our systemic therapies in breast cancer are getting better in terms of crossing the blood-brain barrier, we think about local therapy on a case-by-case basis. We think about it with the question of whether we delay surgery or radiation — whole brain radiation, in particular — given concerns surrounding the side effects of these modalities, namely cognitive dysfunction for radiation and increased risk of bleeding and infection for surgery.

Giving a patient-directed local therapy, such as Gamma Knife radiosurgery or whole-brain radiotherapy, ultimately depends on the burden of brain metastasis, the status of systemic disease outside of the brain, and the number and size of the lesions seen on imaging. If, for instance, a patient has a large lesion that will immediately impact their neurologic status, we may opt to resect the lesion. If there are innumerable lesions, some of which are large, we may do whole-brain radiotherapy. If, however, a patient has systemic disease that is largely under control but is experiencing local progression in the brain, we may use local radiotherapy while continuing systemic therapy.

What about systemic therapies that cross the blood-brain barrier? What’s available now and how do you choose among the options?The subtype of breast cancer informs treatment with systemic therapies. For instance, patients with HER2-positive disease may receive oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as tucatinib, neratinib, and lapatinib, which have strong CNS penetration. For patients with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative MBC, estrogen therapies including aromatase inhibitors, as well as targeted therapies such as the mTOR inhibitor everolimus, have good CNS penetration. For patients with metastatic TNBC, we have chemotherapies that cross the blood-brain barrier, such as capecitabine and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Evidence suggests that tumors in the brain may harbor different genetic abnormalities from tumors in the breast. How do you consider the potential genetic heterogeneity in CNS tumors vs. the primary breast tumor?When a patient’s disease has spread to the brain, we may preferentially use agents we know cross the blood-brain barrier, so we can obtain systemic control both intracranially and extracranially. If we have already resected or biopsied cancerous brain tissue, it’s good to check the tumor’s estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status and do next-generation sequencing to see if the tumor has any other targetable mutations, such as PIK3CA mutations.

But when a patient has multiple lesions, we don’t go in and biopsy all of them to check for heterogeneity. We have to make decisions based on samples we have. In cases where we start systemic therapy and notice one lesion is not responding to these agents while others are, the nonresponsive lesion may be an outlier in terms of its biologic characteristics. It may be worth targeting that lesion for biopsy and further sequencing to determine the next best systemic approach.

How do quality of life considerations factor into the management of patients with MBC brain metastases?

We use a multidisciplinary approach when treating patients. This means patient care involves a team of experts, which can include medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and neuro-oncologists who help determine a treatment plan that takes factors such as survival and quality of life into account.

This is why, for example, we try to delay whole brain radiotherapy when we can. The HER2CLIMB study, which led to the approval of tucatinib as a treatment option for patients with HER2-positive MBC, showed us that patients with treated or untreated brain metastases receiving systemic therapy before local therapy could benefit from the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine. These patients exhibited a median progression-free survival of 7.6 months compared with 5.4 months in the placebo group.

HER2CLIMB has been practice changing because it showed us that tucatinib has good CNS activity in patients with brain metastases. The HER2CLIMB findings raise an important question: As our systemic therapies improve, how aggressive do we need to be with local therapy? Can we push off modalities like whole-brain radiotherapy, which are associated with toxicity?

This study also highlights how important it is for patients with metastatic disease to seek clinical trials. Although some trials exclude patients with brain metastases and others may have criteria that require the stability of brain metastasis for a certain amount of time, the knowledge gained can be invaluable.

Brain metastases remain a frequent and often fatal consequence of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). MBC carries a median survival of about 3 years, but that rate drops significantly when cancer cells move to the brain. A recent analysis estimates median survival in patients with brain metastases ranges from 6 months in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) to 21 months in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive disease. But with a growing array of MBC treatments that cross the blood-brain barrier and target a range of tumor characteristics, outcomes for these patients should continue to improve.

This news organization spoke to Kevin M. Kalinsky, MD, acting associate professor in the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta and director of the Glenn Family Breast Center at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, about the risk for brain metastases in patients with MBC, strategies for screening and treatment, and the work being done to achieve a better understanding of the disease.

Question: Before we dig into strategies to manage MBC brain metastasis, let’s talk about the risks. When and how often do brain metastases present in patients with MBC? What factors increase the likelihood of developing brain metastasis?

Dr. Kalinsky: The biggest risk factor for MBC spreading to the central nervous system (CNS), which includes the brain and spine, is breast cancer subtype. For patients with metastatic TNBC, the risk for brain metastasis can be more than 50%. For patients with HER2-positive disease, the risk may be slightly lower, with estimates in the range of 25%-50%, whereas the likelihood of brain metastasis in patients with hormone receptor–positive MBC is significantly lower at close to 14%. In addition, patients with metastatic TNBC may have brain metastases a little earlier in their disease progression compared with patients with HER2-positive or estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers, where brain metastases generally develop a little later in the disease course.

At what point is it recommended to screen patients with MBC for brain metastasis?

Current guidelines suggest that we scan for brain metastasis in the presence of new neurologic symptoms, such as headache, dizziness, or weakness in the arms or legs. MRI, in particular, is useful for evaluating brain metastasis, especially for smaller lesions, but lesions are sometimes detected through CT imaging of the head, too.

That’s where the guidelines are now. But as our systemic agents improve, there’s always the possibility these recommendations will be revisited and potentially include imaging as screening tools in asymptomatic patients, as well.

Increasingly, because our systemic therapies in breast cancer are getting better in terms of crossing the blood-brain barrier, we think about local therapy on a case-by-case basis. We think about it with the question of whether we delay surgery or radiation — whole brain radiation, in particular — given concerns surrounding the side effects of these modalities, namely cognitive dysfunction for radiation and increased risk of bleeding and infection for surgery.

Giving a patient-directed local therapy, such as Gamma Knife radiosurgery or whole-brain radiotherapy, ultimately depends on the burden of brain metastasis, the status of systemic disease outside of the brain, and the number and size of the lesions seen on imaging. If, for instance, a patient has a large lesion that will immediately impact their neurologic status, we may opt to resect the lesion. If there are innumerable lesions, some of which are large, we may do whole-brain radiotherapy. If, however, a patient has systemic disease that is largely under control but is experiencing local progression in the brain, we may use local radiotherapy while continuing systemic therapy.

What about systemic therapies that cross the blood-brain barrier? What’s available now and how do you choose among the options?The subtype of breast cancer informs treatment with systemic therapies. For instance, patients with HER2-positive disease may receive oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as tucatinib, neratinib, and lapatinib, which have strong CNS penetration. For patients with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative MBC, estrogen therapies including aromatase inhibitors, as well as targeted therapies such as the mTOR inhibitor everolimus, have good CNS penetration. For patients with metastatic TNBC, we have chemotherapies that cross the blood-brain barrier, such as capecitabine and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Evidence suggests that tumors in the brain may harbor different genetic abnormalities from tumors in the breast. How do you consider the potential genetic heterogeneity in CNS tumors vs. the primary breast tumor?When a patient’s disease has spread to the brain, we may preferentially use agents we know cross the blood-brain barrier, so we can obtain systemic control both intracranially and extracranially. If we have already resected or biopsied cancerous brain tissue, it’s good to check the tumor’s estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status and do next-generation sequencing to see if the tumor has any other targetable mutations, such as PIK3CA mutations.

But when a patient has multiple lesions, we don’t go in and biopsy all of them to check for heterogeneity. We have to make decisions based on samples we have. In cases where we start systemic therapy and notice one lesion is not responding to these agents while others are, the nonresponsive lesion may be an outlier in terms of its biologic characteristics. It may be worth targeting that lesion for biopsy and further sequencing to determine the next best systemic approach.

How do quality of life considerations factor into the management of patients with MBC brain metastases?

We use a multidisciplinary approach when treating patients. This means patient care involves a team of experts, which can include medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and neuro-oncologists who help determine a treatment plan that takes factors such as survival and quality of life into account.

This is why, for example, we try to delay whole brain radiotherapy when we can. The HER2CLIMB study, which led to the approval of tucatinib as a treatment option for patients with HER2-positive MBC, showed us that patients with treated or untreated brain metastases receiving systemic therapy before local therapy could benefit from the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine. These patients exhibited a median progression-free survival of 7.6 months compared with 5.4 months in the placebo group.

HER2CLIMB has been practice changing because it showed us that tucatinib has good CNS activity in patients with brain metastases. The HER2CLIMB findings raise an important question: As our systemic therapies improve, how aggressive do we need to be with local therapy? Can we push off modalities like whole-brain radiotherapy, which are associated with toxicity?

This study also highlights how important it is for patients with metastatic disease to seek clinical trials. Although some trials exclude patients with brain metastases and others may have criteria that require the stability of brain metastasis for a certain amount of time, the knowledge gained can be invaluable.

Women who receive pellet hormonal therapy may be significantly more likely to have side effects such as mood swings, anxiety, breast tenderness, hair pattern change, acne, and weight gain, compared with women who receive hormonal treatments that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, a study indicates.

In addition, abnormal uterine bleeding may be significantly more common in women who receive pellets than it is in women who receive Food and Drug Administration–approved options, according to the retrospective study, which was published online in Menopause.

Women receiving pellets also were more likely to undergo hysterectomy while on hormonal therapy, and they had higher supraphysiological levels of estradiol and total testosterone during treatment, compared with women on conventional therapy, the study of 539 women shows.

The findings, which had been presented at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting, were highlighted during a lecture at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The data are “not very reassuring at all,” said Robert P. Kauffman, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Texas Tech University, Amarillo, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Kauffman commented on the research during a review of concerns surrounding non–FDA-approved hormone replacement therapies at the ACOG meeting. Concerns include variations in compounded products, a lack of randomized, controlled trial data supporting their use, and ethical dilemmas that may exist if clinicians have financial incentives to provide compounded bioidentical hormone therapy over FDA-approved treatments.

No peer-reviewed studies show that compounded hormone creams or pellets are safer, more efficacious, or less likely to cause adverse effects, compared with FDA-approved products, Dr. Kauffman said.
 

Data from Pennsylvania

For the retrospective study, Xuezhi (Daniel) Jiang, MD, PhD, and colleagues identified postmenopausal patients in the Reading Hospital Electronic Medical Record System, including 10,801 on FDA-approved hormonal therapy and 1,061 on pellet hormonal therapy. Their analysis focused on data from the medical records of 384 women on pellet hormonal therapy and 155 women on FDA-approved hormonal therapy. Dr. Jiang is affiliated with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Reading (Pa.) Hospital and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

The researchers examined data from 2005 to 2017 for patients in the pellet therapy group, and from 1985 to 2017 for patients in the conventional therapy group.

Patients in the conventional therapy group received 24 brands of FDA-approved hormone products; 4.5% received testosterone or methyltestosterone in addition to estrogen. Patients in the pellet therapy group had pellets prescribed by clinicians at two private practices in the hospital system that use this treatment approach. Patients in the pellet group received compounded estradiol and testosterone pellets made at a pharmacy in Tennessee.* Almost all of the patients in the pellet group received testosterone and estradiol pellets.

Low libido was listed as a reason why women started treatment for 83.5% of the pellet group versus 4.5% of the conventional therapy group.

In all, 57.6% of patients on pellet therapy had side effects, versus 14.8% on FDA-approved therapy, the researchers found. Patients on pellet hormonal therapy reported higher incidence of mood swings (7% vs. 1.9%), anxiety (18.5% vs. 5.8%), breast tenderness (10.1% vs. 2.6%), hair pattern change (13.5% vs. 2.6%), acne (8.6% vs. 1.3%), and weight gain (34.4% vs 4.5%), relative to patients on FDA-approved options.

Among those with an intact uterus when starting therapy (246 of those on pellets and 133 of those on FDA-approved treatments), abnormal uterine bleeding occurred in 55.3% on pellets, compared with 15.2% on FDA-approved treatments (adjusted odds ratio, 7.9). Hysterectomy secondary to abnormal uterine bleeding occurred in 20.3% of the patients on pellets versus 6.3% on FDA-approved treatments (aOR, 3.2).

In many cases, records show that patients chose to have a hysterectomy so they could continue pellet therapy without worrying about abnormal uterine bleeding, Dr. Jiang said in an interview.

Dr. Kauffman has seen patients on pellet therapy, usually implanted by family physicians, develop postmenopausal bleeding because of high levels of estrogen. “Our experience has been too that, if you have pellets, you are more likely to get a hysterectomy for bleeding issues. And I think these are the safety issues that need to be looked at on a broader scope,” he said in an interview.

Although hysterectomy may stop the bleeding, other safety risks may remain with pellet therapy, noted Sharon Winer, MD, MPH, an obstetrician and gynecologist with a subspecialty in reproductive endocrinology and infertility who practices in Beverly Hills, Calif.

Pellets, which are about the size of a grain of rice, typically are implanted in the hip, lower abdomen, or buttock and release hormones over 3-6 months. The pellets are not retrievable. “The question becomes, what if she has a new breast cancer diagnosis or a diagnosis where estrogen is contraindicated? She has got that estrogen already in her system,” Dr. Winer said.

“The hysterectomy may solve the bleeding problem ... but it doesn’t solve the safety problem overall,” said Dr. Winer, who also is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and codirector of the reproductive endocrinology and infertility clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Elevated levels

Average peak serum estradiol was significantly higher in the pellet treatment group than in the conventional therapy group (237.70 pg/mL vs. 93.45 pg/mL), as was average peak serum testosterone (192.84 ng/dL vs. 15.59 ng/dL), the researchers reported. Patients on FDA-approved treatments were less likely to have had their hormone levels measured. How concentrations of hormone levels correlate with side effects is unclear, Dr. Jiang said.

The study was limited by its single-institution, retrospective design, and some patient characteristics differed between the treatment groups, the authors noted.

Still, “clinicians ought to be mindful of fully counseling patients on side effects identified in the current study,” Dr. Jiang and coauthors concluded. Clinicians also need to discuss potential risks of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, and cardiovascular disease with patients.

Many primary care clinicians rely on outdated information from the Women’s Health Initiative, published in 2002 and 2004, in their understanding of postmenopausal hormonal therapy and its risks and benefits, Dr. Jiang said. And some patients consider custom-compounded hormone therapy to be safer and more natural, “which is totally misleading.”

Pellets and other custom-compounded medicine containing testosterone may make patients feel better and more energetic, Dr. Jiang acknowledged. “That’s a reason why patients ... tend to stay on, even though they have side effects. The only issue is the safety.”

Additional questions remain. The researchers recently started to examine rates of breast cancer and abnormal breast pathology and mammogram results. “It’s a long journey,” he said.

Plenty of approved options

Custom-compounded medicines are not FDA approved and are not recommended by medical menopause societies, Dr. Jiang said. Meanwhile, plenty of approved hormone therapies, including bioidentical treatments, have safety data and are available.

A 2020 consensus study report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that examined the use of compounded hormonal therapy and provides guidance for clinicians is a good start in addressing this major issue, he added.

A committee determined “there is insufficient evidence to support the overall clinical utility of [compounded bioidentical hormone therapies] as treatment for menopause and male hypogonadism symptoms.”

If an FDA-approved option is available, “I would always go with an FDA-approved product before I would go with a compounded product,” Dr. Winer said. A 2012 fungal meningitis outbreak linked to a compounding pharmacy highlighted risks associated with poor quality compounded drugs.

“I think at least now it is recognized that compounding is an issue that has got to be dealt with,” Dr. Winer said. “It is just that it is so widespread and it is sometimes under the radar ... that I think it is really hard for the FDA to get a handle on it.”

Dr. Winer has seen patients on compounded treatments who are underdosed and patients who are overdosed. “I’ve also seen patients who do quite well with it, but I’m not happy continuing it because tomorrow there may be inconsistency in potency or quality resulting in a different clinical response,” she said.

Nevertheless, compounded pharmacies are needed, Dr. Winer said. If she wants to give natural progesterone that is FDA approved but happens to be made with peanut oil, she will have a compounding pharmacy make it with canola oil instead if a patient has a peanut allergy, for example. Other patients need dosages that are so low that they are not available as FDA-approved products.

Dr. Jiang and Dr. Kauffman had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Winer has done work with AbbVie (related to endometriosis), TherapeuticsMD (related to a menopause bioidentical hormonal pill and vaginal estrogen product), and Biogix (related to an antioxidant supplement for menopause symptoms).

[email protected]

*This story was updated on 6/22/2021.

Women who receive pellet hormonal therapy may be significantly more likely to have side effects such as mood swings, anxiety, breast tenderness, hair pattern change, acne, and weight gain, compared with women who receive hormonal treatments that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, a study indicates.

In addition, abnormal uterine bleeding may be significantly more common in women who receive pellets than it is in women who receive Food and Drug Administration–approved options, according to the retrospective study, which was published online in Menopause.

Women receiving pellets also were more likely to undergo hysterectomy while on hormonal therapy, and they had higher supraphysiological levels of estradiol and total testosterone during treatment, compared with women on conventional therapy, the study of 539 women shows.

The findings, which had been presented at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting, were highlighted during a lecture at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The data are “not very reassuring at all,” said Robert P. Kauffman, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Texas Tech University, Amarillo, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Kauffman commented on the research during a review of concerns surrounding non–FDA-approved hormone replacement therapies at the ACOG meeting. Concerns include variations in compounded products, a lack of randomized, controlled trial data supporting their use, and ethical dilemmas that may exist if clinicians have financial incentives to provide compounded bioidentical hormone therapy over FDA-approved treatments.

No peer-reviewed studies show that compounded hormone creams or pellets are safer, more efficacious, or less likely to cause adverse effects, compared with FDA-approved products, Dr. Kauffman said.
 

Data from Pennsylvania

For the retrospective study, Xuezhi (Daniel) Jiang, MD, PhD, and colleagues identified postmenopausal patients in the Reading Hospital Electronic Medical Record System, including 10,801 on FDA-approved hormonal therapy and 1,061 on pellet hormonal therapy. Their analysis focused on data from the medical records of 384 women on pellet hormonal therapy and 155 women on FDA-approved hormonal therapy. Dr. Jiang is affiliated with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Reading (Pa.) Hospital and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

The researchers examined data from 2005 to 2017 for patients in the pellet therapy group, and from 1985 to 2017 for patients in the conventional therapy group.

Patients in the conventional therapy group received 24 brands of FDA-approved hormone products; 4.5% received testosterone or methyltestosterone in addition to estrogen. Patients in the pellet therapy group had pellets prescribed by clinicians at two private practices in the hospital system that use this treatment approach. Patients in the pellet group received compounded estradiol and testosterone pellets made at a pharmacy in Tennessee.* Almost all of the patients in the pellet group received testosterone and estradiol pellets.

Low libido was listed as a reason why women started treatment for 83.5% of the pellet group versus 4.5% of the conventional therapy group.

In all, 57.6% of patients on pellet therapy had side effects, versus 14.8% on FDA-approved therapy, the researchers found. Patients on pellet hormonal therapy reported higher incidence of mood swings (7% vs. 1.9%), anxiety (18.5% vs. 5.8%), breast tenderness (10.1% vs. 2.6%), hair pattern change (13.5% vs. 2.6%), acne (8.6% vs. 1.3%), and weight gain (34.4% vs 4.5%), relative to patients on FDA-approved options.

Among those with an intact uterus when starting therapy (246 of those on pellets and 133 of those on FDA-approved treatments), abnormal uterine bleeding occurred in 55.3% on pellets, compared with 15.2% on FDA-approved treatments (adjusted odds ratio, 7.9). Hysterectomy secondary to abnormal uterine bleeding occurred in 20.3% of the patients on pellets versus 6.3% on FDA-approved treatments (aOR, 3.2).

In many cases, records show that patients chose to have a hysterectomy so they could continue pellet therapy without worrying about abnormal uterine bleeding, Dr. Jiang said in an interview.

Dr. Kauffman has seen patients on pellet therapy, usually implanted by family physicians, develop postmenopausal bleeding because of high levels of estrogen. “Our experience has been too that, if you have pellets, you are more likely to get a hysterectomy for bleeding issues. And I think these are the safety issues that need to be looked at on a broader scope,” he said in an interview.

Although hysterectomy may stop the bleeding, other safety risks may remain with pellet therapy, noted Sharon Winer, MD, MPH, an obstetrician and gynecologist with a subspecialty in reproductive endocrinology and infertility who practices in Beverly Hills, Calif.

Pellets, which are about the size of a grain of rice, typically are implanted in the hip, lower abdomen, or buttock and release hormones over 3-6 months. The pellets are not retrievable. “The question becomes, what if she has a new breast cancer diagnosis or a diagnosis where estrogen is contraindicated? She has got that estrogen already in her system,” Dr. Winer said.

“The hysterectomy may solve the bleeding problem ... but it doesn’t solve the safety problem overall,” said Dr. Winer, who also is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and codirector of the reproductive endocrinology and infertility clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Elevated levels

Average peak serum estradiol was significantly higher in the pellet treatment group than in the conventional therapy group (237.70 pg/mL vs. 93.45 pg/mL), as was average peak serum testosterone (192.84 ng/dL vs. 15.59 ng/dL), the researchers reported. Patients on FDA-approved treatments were less likely to have had their hormone levels measured. How concentrations of hormone levels correlate with side effects is unclear, Dr. Jiang said.

The study was limited by its single-institution, retrospective design, and some patient characteristics differed between the treatment groups, the authors noted.

Still, “clinicians ought to be mindful of fully counseling patients on side effects identified in the current study,” Dr. Jiang and coauthors concluded. Clinicians also need to discuss potential risks of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, and cardiovascular disease with patients.

Many primary care clinicians rely on outdated information from the Women’s Health Initiative, published in 2002 and 2004, in their understanding of postmenopausal hormonal therapy and its risks and benefits, Dr. Jiang said. And some patients consider custom-compounded hormone therapy to be safer and more natural, “which is totally misleading.”

Pellets and other custom-compounded medicine containing testosterone may make patients feel better and more energetic, Dr. Jiang acknowledged. “That’s a reason why patients ... tend to stay on, even though they have side effects. The only issue is the safety.”

Additional questions remain. The researchers recently started to examine rates of breast cancer and abnormal breast pathology and mammogram results. “It’s a long journey,” he said.

Plenty of approved options

Custom-compounded medicines are not FDA approved and are not recommended by medical menopause societies, Dr. Jiang said. Meanwhile, plenty of approved hormone therapies, including bioidentical treatments, have safety data and are available.

A 2020 consensus study report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that examined the use of compounded hormonal therapy and provides guidance for clinicians is a good start in addressing this major issue, he added.

A committee determined “there is insufficient evidence to support the overall clinical utility of [compounded bioidentical hormone therapies] as treatment for menopause and male hypogonadism symptoms.”

If an FDA-approved option is available, “I would always go with an FDA-approved product before I would go with a compounded product,” Dr. Winer said. A 2012 fungal meningitis outbreak linked to a compounding pharmacy highlighted risks associated with poor quality compounded drugs.

“I think at least now it is recognized that compounding is an issue that has got to be dealt with,” Dr. Winer said. “It is just that it is so widespread and it is sometimes under the radar ... that I think it is really hard for the FDA to get a handle on it.”

Dr. Winer has seen patients on compounded treatments who are underdosed and patients who are overdosed. “I’ve also seen patients who do quite well with it, but I’m not happy continuing it because tomorrow there may be inconsistency in potency or quality resulting in a different clinical response,” she said.

Nevertheless, compounded pharmacies are needed, Dr. Winer said. If she wants to give natural progesterone that is FDA approved but happens to be made with peanut oil, she will have a compounding pharmacy make it with canola oil instead if a patient has a peanut allergy, for example. Other patients need dosages that are so low that they are not available as FDA-approved products.

Dr. Jiang and Dr. Kauffman had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Winer has done work with AbbVie (related to endometriosis), TherapeuticsMD (related to a menopause bioidentical hormonal pill and vaginal estrogen product), and Biogix (related to an antioxidant supplement for menopause symptoms).

[email protected]

*This story was updated on 6/22/2021.

Women who receive pellet hormonal therapy may be significantly more likely to have side effects such as mood swings, anxiety, breast tenderness, hair pattern change, acne, and weight gain, compared with women who receive hormonal treatments that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, a study indicates.

In addition, abnormal uterine bleeding may be significantly more common in women who receive pellets than it is in women who receive Food and Drug Administration–approved options, according to the retrospective study, which was published online in Menopause.

Women receiving pellets also were more likely to undergo hysterectomy while on hormonal therapy, and they had higher supraphysiological levels of estradiol and total testosterone during treatment, compared with women on conventional therapy, the study of 539 women shows.

The findings, which had been presented at the North American Menopause Society annual meeting, were highlighted during a lecture at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The data are “not very reassuring at all,” said Robert P. Kauffman, MD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Texas Tech University, Amarillo, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Kauffman commented on the research during a review of concerns surrounding non–FDA-approved hormone replacement therapies at the ACOG meeting. Concerns include variations in compounded products, a lack of randomized, controlled trial data supporting their use, and ethical dilemmas that may exist if clinicians have financial incentives to provide compounded bioidentical hormone therapy over FDA-approved treatments.

No peer-reviewed studies show that compounded hormone creams or pellets are safer, more efficacious, or less likely to cause adverse effects, compared with FDA-approved products, Dr. Kauffman said.
 

Data from Pennsylvania

For the retrospective study, Xuezhi (Daniel) Jiang, MD, PhD, and colleagues identified postmenopausal patients in the Reading Hospital Electronic Medical Record System, including 10,801 on FDA-approved hormonal therapy and 1,061 on pellet hormonal therapy. Their analysis focused on data from the medical records of 384 women on pellet hormonal therapy and 155 women on FDA-approved hormonal therapy. Dr. Jiang is affiliated with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Reading (Pa.) Hospital and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

The researchers examined data from 2005 to 2017 for patients in the pellet therapy group, and from 1985 to 2017 for patients in the conventional therapy group.

Patients in the conventional therapy group received 24 brands of FDA-approved hormone products; 4.5% received testosterone or methyltestosterone in addition to estrogen. Patients in the pellet therapy group had pellets prescribed by clinicians at two private practices in the hospital system that use this treatment approach. Patients in the pellet group received compounded estradiol and testosterone pellets made at a pharmacy in Tennessee.* Almost all of the patients in the pellet group received testosterone and estradiol pellets.

Low libido was listed as a reason why women started treatment for 83.5% of the pellet group versus 4.5% of the conventional therapy group.

In all, 57.6% of patients on pellet therapy had side effects, versus 14.8% on FDA-approved therapy, the researchers found. Patients on pellet hormonal therapy reported higher incidence of mood swings (7% vs. 1.9%), anxiety (18.5% vs. 5.8%), breast tenderness (10.1% vs. 2.6%), hair pattern change (13.5% vs. 2.6%), acne (8.6% vs. 1.3%), and weight gain (34.4% vs 4.5%), relative to patients on FDA-approved options.

Among those with an intact uterus when starting therapy (246 of those on pellets and 133 of those on FDA-approved treatments), abnormal uterine bleeding occurred in 55.3% on pellets, compared with 15.2% on FDA-approved treatments (adjusted odds ratio, 7.9). Hysterectomy secondary to abnormal uterine bleeding occurred in 20.3% of the patients on pellets versus 6.3% on FDA-approved treatments (aOR, 3.2).

In many cases, records show that patients chose to have a hysterectomy so they could continue pellet therapy without worrying about abnormal uterine bleeding, Dr. Jiang said in an interview.

Dr. Kauffman has seen patients on pellet therapy, usually implanted by family physicians, develop postmenopausal bleeding because of high levels of estrogen. “Our experience has been too that, if you have pellets, you are more likely to get a hysterectomy for bleeding issues. And I think these are the safety issues that need to be looked at on a broader scope,” he said in an interview.

Although hysterectomy may stop the bleeding, other safety risks may remain with pellet therapy, noted Sharon Winer, MD, MPH, an obstetrician and gynecologist with a subspecialty in reproductive endocrinology and infertility who practices in Beverly Hills, Calif.

Pellets, which are about the size of a grain of rice, typically are implanted in the hip, lower abdomen, or buttock and release hormones over 3-6 months. The pellets are not retrievable. “The question becomes, what if she has a new breast cancer diagnosis or a diagnosis where estrogen is contraindicated? She has got that estrogen already in her system,” Dr. Winer said.

“The hysterectomy may solve the bleeding problem ... but it doesn’t solve the safety problem overall,” said Dr. Winer, who also is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and codirector of the reproductive endocrinology and infertility clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Elevated levels

Average peak serum estradiol was significantly higher in the pellet treatment group than in the conventional therapy group (237.70 pg/mL vs. 93.45 pg/mL), as was average peak serum testosterone (192.84 ng/dL vs. 15.59 ng/dL), the researchers reported. Patients on FDA-approved treatments were less likely to have had their hormone levels measured. How concentrations of hormone levels correlate with side effects is unclear, Dr. Jiang said.

The study was limited by its single-institution, retrospective design, and some patient characteristics differed between the treatment groups, the authors noted.

Still, “clinicians ought to be mindful of fully counseling patients on side effects identified in the current study,” Dr. Jiang and coauthors concluded. Clinicians also need to discuss potential risks of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, and cardiovascular disease with patients.

Many primary care clinicians rely on outdated information from the Women’s Health Initiative, published in 2002 and 2004, in their understanding of postmenopausal hormonal therapy and its risks and benefits, Dr. Jiang said. And some patients consider custom-compounded hormone therapy to be safer and more natural, “which is totally misleading.”

Pellets and other custom-compounded medicine containing testosterone may make patients feel better and more energetic, Dr. Jiang acknowledged. “That’s a reason why patients ... tend to stay on, even though they have side effects. The only issue is the safety.”

Additional questions remain. The researchers recently started to examine rates of breast cancer and abnormal breast pathology and mammogram results. “It’s a long journey,” he said.

Plenty of approved options

Custom-compounded medicines are not FDA approved and are not recommended by medical menopause societies, Dr. Jiang said. Meanwhile, plenty of approved hormone therapies, including bioidentical treatments, have safety data and are available.

A 2020 consensus study report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that examined the use of compounded hormonal therapy and provides guidance for clinicians is a good start in addressing this major issue, he added.

A committee determined “there is insufficient evidence to support the overall clinical utility of [compounded bioidentical hormone therapies] as treatment for menopause and male hypogonadism symptoms.”

If an FDA-approved option is available, “I would always go with an FDA-approved product before I would go with a compounded product,” Dr. Winer said. A 2012 fungal meningitis outbreak linked to a compounding pharmacy highlighted risks associated with poor quality compounded drugs.

“I think at least now it is recognized that compounding is an issue that has got to be dealt with,” Dr. Winer said. “It is just that it is so widespread and it is sometimes under the radar ... that I think it is really hard for the FDA to get a handle on it.”

Dr. Winer has seen patients on compounded treatments who are underdosed and patients who are overdosed. “I’ve also seen patients who do quite well with it, but I’m not happy continuing it because tomorrow there may be inconsistency in potency or quality resulting in a different clinical response,” she said.

Nevertheless, compounded pharmacies are needed, Dr. Winer said. If she wants to give natural progesterone that is FDA approved but happens to be made with peanut oil, she will have a compounding pharmacy make it with canola oil instead if a patient has a peanut allergy, for example. Other patients need dosages that are so low that they are not available as FDA-approved products.

Dr. Jiang and Dr. Kauffman had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Winer has done work with AbbVie (related to endometriosis), TherapeuticsMD (related to a menopause bioidentical hormonal pill and vaginal estrogen product), and Biogix (related to an antioxidant supplement for menopause symptoms).

[email protected]

*This story was updated on 6/22/2021.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) carries mandates most physician practices must follow to make their offices accessible so as to not discriminate against patients with disabilities when providing care. And 7 years ago, the government raised the penalties for failing to do so. So it might be time to re-educate yourself on what the ADA requires.

ADA compliance is not an issue that we talk about or provide training for in medical schools or with our professional organizations. Since fines for small businesses are now $75,000 for a first offense and $150,000 for each subsequent violation, this could be an expensive oversight that malpractice and other liability policies will not cover.

A 2019 study in Boston examined physicians’ knowledge of legal obligations when caring for patients with disabilities. Researchers concluded that most physicians interviewed “exhibited a superficial or incorrect understanding of their legal responsibilities to patients with a disability.” If you feel you’re in that boat, you might want to consult federal guidance with information and common questions physicians ask about their ADA obligations.

The ADA defines a person with a disability as someone with “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities”; someone with a record of such an impairment; or someone who is “regarded as having such an impairment.” Among the ADA standards required for accessible exam rooms, according to the guidance:

• The entry door to the exam room should be a minimum width of 32 inches when the door is opened at a 90-degree angle.
• There should be a minimum of 30 by 48 inches of clear floor space next to the exam table.
• An accessible exam table should be able to be lowered to the height of the patient’s wheelchair seat, 17 to 19 inches from the floor.

This does not mean that all of your exam rooms must meet these standards, of course; but if you see any patients with disabilities – and who doesn’t? – you need at least one room that meets the criteria.

Federal guidance also includes requirements on removal of architectural barriers, accessible parking, and entrance and maneuvering spaces – which apply to both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Among them:

• Designated accessible parking spaces must be included among any parking the business provides for the public “if doing so is readily achievable.” Those parking spaces should be the closest to the accessible entrance, on level ground. The spaces should be at least eight feet wide, with an access aisle on either side.
• For accessible spaces for cars, the adjacent access aisle must be at least five feet wide; for van spaces, eight feet wide.
• “If achievable,” an accessible service counter must have a maximum height of 36 inches, with a clear floor space of 30 by 48 inches to permit the use of a wheelchair.

A common misconception is that only new construction and alterations need to be accessible, and that older facilities are “grandfathered,” but that’s not true. Because the ADA is a civil rights law and not a building code, ADA rules apply equally to all facilities, young and old. This is particularly important to remember in light of the long-standing cottage industry of attorneys who sue small businesses for alleged ADA violations.

Another common mistake made by physicians who lease their office space is to assume that their landlord is responsible for meeting all ADA obligations. In fact, The ADA places the legal obligation on both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord and the tenant may decide among themselves who will actually make the changes and provide the aids and services, but both remain legally responsible.

Another aspect that you might not have thought of is access to your website. While ADA applicability to online services remains vague, lawsuits have been filed, and are likely to increase. Online accessibility issues that have been identified include:
 

• Ability to find and process information on a website (e.g., providing audio descriptions for video content, for the sight-impaired).
• Ability to navigate and use a website (e.g., ensuring that all site functions are easily accessible with only a keyboard).
• Ability to comprehend all information (including clearly understandable error messages).

Hearing-impaired patients present their own considerations for delivering adequate care, which I will discuss in my next column.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) carries mandates most physician practices must follow to make their offices accessible so as to not discriminate against patients with disabilities when providing care. And 7 years ago, the government raised the penalties for failing to do so. So it might be time to re-educate yourself on what the ADA requires.

ADA compliance is not an issue that we talk about or provide training for in medical schools or with our professional organizations. Since fines for small businesses are now $75,000 for a first offense and $150,000 for each subsequent violation, this could be an expensive oversight that malpractice and other liability policies will not cover.

A 2019 study in Boston examined physicians’ knowledge of legal obligations when caring for patients with disabilities. Researchers concluded that most physicians interviewed “exhibited a superficial or incorrect understanding of their legal responsibilities to patients with a disability.” If you feel you’re in that boat, you might want to consult federal guidance with information and common questions physicians ask about their ADA obligations.

The ADA defines a person with a disability as someone with “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities”; someone with a record of such an impairment; or someone who is “regarded as having such an impairment.” Among the ADA standards required for accessible exam rooms, according to the guidance:

• The entry door to the exam room should be a minimum width of 32 inches when the door is opened at a 90-degree angle.
• There should be a minimum of 30 by 48 inches of clear floor space next to the exam table.
• An accessible exam table should be able to be lowered to the height of the patient’s wheelchair seat, 17 to 19 inches from the floor.

This does not mean that all of your exam rooms must meet these standards, of course; but if you see any patients with disabilities – and who doesn’t? – you need at least one room that meets the criteria.

Federal guidance also includes requirements on removal of architectural barriers, accessible parking, and entrance and maneuvering spaces – which apply to both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Among them:

• Designated accessible parking spaces must be included among any parking the business provides for the public “if doing so is readily achievable.” Those parking spaces should be the closest to the accessible entrance, on level ground. The spaces should be at least eight feet wide, with an access aisle on either side.
• For accessible spaces for cars, the adjacent access aisle must be at least five feet wide; for van spaces, eight feet wide.
• “If achievable,” an accessible service counter must have a maximum height of 36 inches, with a clear floor space of 30 by 48 inches to permit the use of a wheelchair.

A common misconception is that only new construction and alterations need to be accessible, and that older facilities are “grandfathered,” but that’s not true. Because the ADA is a civil rights law and not a building code, ADA rules apply equally to all facilities, young and old. This is particularly important to remember in light of the long-standing cottage industry of attorneys who sue small businesses for alleged ADA violations.

Another common mistake made by physicians who lease their office space is to assume that their landlord is responsible for meeting all ADA obligations. In fact, The ADA places the legal obligation on both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord and the tenant may decide among themselves who will actually make the changes and provide the aids and services, but both remain legally responsible.

Another aspect that you might not have thought of is access to your website. While ADA applicability to online services remains vague, lawsuits have been filed, and are likely to increase. Online accessibility issues that have been identified include:
 

• Ability to find and process information on a website (e.g., providing audio descriptions for video content, for the sight-impaired).
• Ability to navigate and use a website (e.g., ensuring that all site functions are easily accessible with only a keyboard).
• Ability to comprehend all information (including clearly understandable error messages).

Hearing-impaired patients present their own considerations for delivering adequate care, which I will discuss in my next column.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) carries mandates most physician practices must follow to make their offices accessible so as to not discriminate against patients with disabilities when providing care. And 7 years ago, the government raised the penalties for failing to do so. So it might be time to re-educate yourself on what the ADA requires.

ADA compliance is not an issue that we talk about or provide training for in medical schools or with our professional organizations. Since fines for small businesses are now $75,000 for a first offense and $150,000 for each subsequent violation, this could be an expensive oversight that malpractice and other liability policies will not cover.

A 2019 study in Boston examined physicians’ knowledge of legal obligations when caring for patients with disabilities. Researchers concluded that most physicians interviewed “exhibited a superficial or incorrect understanding of their legal responsibilities to patients with a disability.” If you feel you’re in that boat, you might want to consult federal guidance with information and common questions physicians ask about their ADA obligations.

The ADA defines a person with a disability as someone with “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities”; someone with a record of such an impairment; or someone who is “regarded as having such an impairment.” Among the ADA standards required for accessible exam rooms, according to the guidance:

• The entry door to the exam room should be a minimum width of 32 inches when the door is opened at a 90-degree angle.
• There should be a minimum of 30 by 48 inches of clear floor space next to the exam table.
• An accessible exam table should be able to be lowered to the height of the patient’s wheelchair seat, 17 to 19 inches from the floor.

This does not mean that all of your exam rooms must meet these standards, of course; but if you see any patients with disabilities – and who doesn’t? – you need at least one room that meets the criteria.

Federal guidance also includes requirements on removal of architectural barriers, accessible parking, and entrance and maneuvering spaces – which apply to both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Among them:

• Designated accessible parking spaces must be included among any parking the business provides for the public “if doing so is readily achievable.” Those parking spaces should be the closest to the accessible entrance, on level ground. The spaces should be at least eight feet wide, with an access aisle on either side.
• For accessible spaces for cars, the adjacent access aisle must be at least five feet wide; for van spaces, eight feet wide.
• “If achievable,” an accessible service counter must have a maximum height of 36 inches, with a clear floor space of 30 by 48 inches to permit the use of a wheelchair.

A common misconception is that only new construction and alterations need to be accessible, and that older facilities are “grandfathered,” but that’s not true. Because the ADA is a civil rights law and not a building code, ADA rules apply equally to all facilities, young and old. This is particularly important to remember in light of the long-standing cottage industry of attorneys who sue small businesses for alleged ADA violations.

Another common mistake made by physicians who lease their office space is to assume that their landlord is responsible for meeting all ADA obligations. In fact, The ADA places the legal obligation on both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord and the tenant may decide among themselves who will actually make the changes and provide the aids and services, but both remain legally responsible.

Another aspect that you might not have thought of is access to your website. While ADA applicability to online services remains vague, lawsuits have been filed, and are likely to increase. Online accessibility issues that have been identified include:
 

• Ability to find and process information on a website (e.g., providing audio descriptions for video content, for the sight-impaired).
• Ability to navigate and use a website (e.g., ensuring that all site functions are easily accessible with only a keyboard).
• Ability to comprehend all information (including clearly understandable error messages).

Hearing-impaired patients present their own considerations for delivering adequate care, which I will discuss in my next column.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

This patient has atopic dermatitis (AD), but on the basis of the image and description above, by no means would this be an intuitive diagnosis; the findings are not characteristic of those in younger patients with AD. Further, clinicians might find it difficult to diagnose AD in an older patient because older patients generally tend to have more comorbidities and medication side effects, including chronic pruritus of unknown origin and xerosis, which could confound the diagnosis. 

Finally, specific guidelines are lacking for clinicians to distinguish AD from other pruritic skin conditions in the older patient. Currently, according to one report, older patients are diagnosed with AD after at least 6 months of symptom assessment and exclusion of other conditions, including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, allergic contact dermatitis, psoriasis, drug reactions, and chronic idiopathic or secondary erythroderma.

AD arising de novo in older persons is a discrete form of the disease that characteristically involves the face, neck, trunk, and hands, while sparing the flexural areas, which are prominently involved in younger patients. The eczema can become erythrodermic. Older men are affected threefold more often than older women. 

Skin manifestations in older patients with AD generally match those of adolescents and young adults with AD, but the reverse sign of lichenified eczema around unaffected folds of the elbows and knees is more common than the classic sign of localized lichenified eczema at those folds. 

Factors rendering older people susceptible to AD include innate physiologic changes of aging, notably a decline in skin barrier function, dysregulation of innate immune cells, and skewing of adaptive immunity to a Th2 response.

Much about how to best treat AD in older patients remains unclear. It is a challenge to treat older patients according to standardized guidelines for general AD treatment because dermatologists and others need to consider comorbidities and the medications that these patients might already be taking. Some examples: Dermatologists might limit cyclosporine use in patients with hypertension and reduced kidney function, or limit systemic steroid use in patients with osteoporosis. Older patients have a greater propensity for infection, which might cause dermatologists to limit systemic immunosuppressant drugs. And skin thinning and diffuse photoaging might cause doctors to limit even topical steroid treatment in these patients.

As in other age groups, regular application of moisturizers in combination with calcineurin inhibitors, adjunctive administration of oral antihistamines and avoidance of exacerbating factors comprise basic treatments for AD in older patients. 

Although antihistamines such as hydroxyzine can work for itching in some individuals, they are generally lacking in efficacy in most patients with AD.

Brian S. Kim, MD, is Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Dermatology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

Brian S. Kim, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This patient has atopic dermatitis (AD), but on the basis of the image and description above, by no means would this be an intuitive diagnosis; the findings are not characteristic of those in younger patients with AD. Further, clinicians might find it difficult to diagnose AD in an older patient because older patients generally tend to have more comorbidities and medication side effects, including chronic pruritus of unknown origin and xerosis, which could confound the diagnosis. 

Finally, specific guidelines are lacking for clinicians to distinguish AD from other pruritic skin conditions in the older patient. Currently, according to one report, older patients are diagnosed with AD after at least 6 months of symptom assessment and exclusion of other conditions, including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, allergic contact dermatitis, psoriasis, drug reactions, and chronic idiopathic or secondary erythroderma.

AD arising de novo in older persons is a discrete form of the disease that characteristically involves the face, neck, trunk, and hands, while sparing the flexural areas, which are prominently involved in younger patients. The eczema can become erythrodermic. Older men are affected threefold more often than older women. 

Skin manifestations in older patients with AD generally match those of adolescents and young adults with AD, but the reverse sign of lichenified eczema around unaffected folds of the elbows and knees is more common than the classic sign of localized lichenified eczema at those folds. 

Factors rendering older people susceptible to AD include innate physiologic changes of aging, notably a decline in skin barrier function, dysregulation of innate immune cells, and skewing of adaptive immunity to a Th2 response.

Much about how to best treat AD in older patients remains unclear. It is a challenge to treat older patients according to standardized guidelines for general AD treatment because dermatologists and others need to consider comorbidities and the medications that these patients might already be taking. Some examples: Dermatologists might limit cyclosporine use in patients with hypertension and reduced kidney function, or limit systemic steroid use in patients with osteoporosis. Older patients have a greater propensity for infection, which might cause dermatologists to limit systemic immunosuppressant drugs. And skin thinning and diffuse photoaging might cause doctors to limit even topical steroid treatment in these patients.

As in other age groups, regular application of moisturizers in combination with calcineurin inhibitors, adjunctive administration of oral antihistamines and avoidance of exacerbating factors comprise basic treatments for AD in older patients. 

Although antihistamines such as hydroxyzine can work for itching in some individuals, they are generally lacking in efficacy in most patients with AD.

Brian S. Kim, MD, is Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Dermatology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

Brian S. Kim, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This patient has atopic dermatitis (AD), but on the basis of the image and description above, by no means would this be an intuitive diagnosis; the findings are not characteristic of those in younger patients with AD. Further, clinicians might find it difficult to diagnose AD in an older patient because older patients generally tend to have more comorbidities and medication side effects, including chronic pruritus of unknown origin and xerosis, which could confound the diagnosis. 

Finally, specific guidelines are lacking for clinicians to distinguish AD from other pruritic skin conditions in the older patient. Currently, according to one report, older patients are diagnosed with AD after at least 6 months of symptom assessment and exclusion of other conditions, including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, allergic contact dermatitis, psoriasis, drug reactions, and chronic idiopathic or secondary erythroderma.

AD arising de novo in older persons is a discrete form of the disease that characteristically involves the face, neck, trunk, and hands, while sparing the flexural areas, which are prominently involved in younger patients. The eczema can become erythrodermic. Older men are affected threefold more often than older women. 

Skin manifestations in older patients with AD generally match those of adolescents and young adults with AD, but the reverse sign of lichenified eczema around unaffected folds of the elbows and knees is more common than the classic sign of localized lichenified eczema at those folds. 

Factors rendering older people susceptible to AD include innate physiologic changes of aging, notably a decline in skin barrier function, dysregulation of innate immune cells, and skewing of adaptive immunity to a Th2 response.

Much about how to best treat AD in older patients remains unclear. It is a challenge to treat older patients according to standardized guidelines for general AD treatment because dermatologists and others need to consider comorbidities and the medications that these patients might already be taking. Some examples: Dermatologists might limit cyclosporine use in patients with hypertension and reduced kidney function, or limit systemic steroid use in patients with osteoporosis. Older patients have a greater propensity for infection, which might cause dermatologists to limit systemic immunosuppressant drugs. And skin thinning and diffuse photoaging might cause doctors to limit even topical steroid treatment in these patients.

As in other age groups, regular application of moisturizers in combination with calcineurin inhibitors, adjunctive administration of oral antihistamines and avoidance of exacerbating factors comprise basic treatments for AD in older patients. 

Although antihistamines such as hydroxyzine can work for itching in some individuals, they are generally lacking in efficacy in most patients with AD.

Brian S. Kim, MD, is Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Dermatology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

Brian S. Kim, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Late-stage trials of new antipsychotic drugs are showing promise in the control of negative symptoms, according to an overview presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

The progress in these trials deserves attention, because control of negative symptoms is “a major unmet need in schizophrenia,” according to Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, director of the schizophrenia program at the University of Cincinnati.

The novel mechanisms of the agents in development are credited with the promise. Not least, several antipsychotic agents with activity against both positive and negative symptoms “are completely devoid of dopamine receptor blockade,” Dr. Nasrallah said at the virtual meeting, presented by MedscapeLive!

The xanomeline portion of the investigational treatment xanomeline-trospium is one example. Xanomeline is a muscarinic receptor agonist with no activity on dopamine D2 receptors. The role of trospium, a muscarinic receptor antagonist, is to reduce peripheral cholinergic side effects.
 

Xanomeline-trospium: Negative vs. positive symptoms

In a recently published placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial, the reductions relative to placebo after 5 weeks on the negative subscale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) tool (–3.9 vs. –1.3; P < .001) was about as robust as that achieved on the positive subscale (–5.6 vs. –3.2; P < .001).

These subscales were secondary endpoints. Relative to placebo, xanomeline-trospium was also effective on the primary endpoint of the PANSS total score (–17.9 vs. –5.9; P < .001).

The presence of trospium did not eliminate cholinergic side effects, which included constipation, dry mouth, and nausea, but the therapy strengthens the evidence that newer agents with novel mechanisms of action, including those without dopamine blockade, can achieve meaningful clinical effects.

SEP-363856, another example of an experimental agent without direct dopamine blockade, was also recently tested in placebo-controlled, double-blind study.

“This is the first agonist of the TAAR1 [trace amine-associated receptor 1] and 5-HT1A [serotonin 5–hydroxytryptamine type 1A receptor] to reach clinical trials,” said Dr. Nasrallah, calling this an interesting agent for its range of clinical activity, which appears to include antianxiety effects.

SEP-363856: Negative vs. positive symptoms

It also appears to include activity against negative symptoms. While the primary endpoint of total PANSS score favored SEP-363856 over placebo at the end of 4 weeks (–17.2 points vs. –9.7; P = .001), the reductions in the subscales for negative (–3.1 vs. –1.6) and positive (–5.5 vs. 3.9) symptoms were also substantial even if statistical differences were not calculated.

The rates of side effects on SEP-3638656 were low, according to Dr. Nasrallah. The most common complaints, such as somnolence, agitation, and nausea, were observed in fewer than 10% of patients.

Roluperidone, another agent with no direct dopamine blockade, has reached phase 3 trials. The activity of this agent is attributed to antagonist activity on the serotonin 5-HT2A and sigma2 receptors. In a multinational, phase 2b study cited by Dr. Nasrallah, both of two study doses of roluperidone were superior to placebo for the negative symptom dimensions of expressive deficit and experiential deficit. Patients enrolled in the trial were required to have baseline PANSS negative symptom subscale scores of 20 points or greater.

Pimavanserin, an inverse agonist of 5-HT2A receptors, is already approved for the treatment of psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, but it is now attracting interest for its potential efficacy against negative symptoms in schizophrenia, according to Dr. Nasrallah, who cited a poster presented last November at the Psych Congress 2020.

The poster provided results of ADVANCE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study that associated pimavanserin with significant improvement across several types of negative symptoms, Dr. Nasrallah said. The drug was well tolerated with a side-effect profile “similar to placebo.”

Traditional antipsychotic therapies are generally associated with limited effect against negative symptoms, but it has never been proven that the interaction of treatments on the dopaminergic system is the reason. Indeed, in his list of therapies being pursued for potential benefit against negative symptoms, Dr. Nasrallah cited a clinical study with cariprazine, an agent with multiple effects on dopamine and serotonin signaling.

“Cariprazine is a partial agonist at D2, D3, and 5-HT1A receptors and an antagonist at 5-HT2c and 5-HT7 receptors, but it has the highest affinity to the D3 receptor,” Dr. Nasrallah reported.

Cariprazine is already approved for schizophrenia, acute mania, and bipolar depression, but the authors of a recent review claim evidence of activity against negative symptoms. Furthermore, they speculate that this activity might be mediated by agonism of the D3 receptor.

Despite the evidence that these agents might control negative symptoms, the relative roles will be defined by clinical experience, not just clinical trials, Dr. Nasrallah said. However, he did indicate that there appears to be meaningful progress in this area.

Potential progress in this area is important, because “negative symptoms are a largely unaddressed treatment target in people with schizophrenia,” reported Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. These symptoms deserve attention for their “important potential to improve interpersonal, educational, and work function.”

Dr. Correll agreed that the newer drugs with mechanisms other than postsynaptic dopamine blockade could be a very important advance in the treatment of schizophrenia.

“Promising new medications with potential efficacy for negative symptoms, either based on their pharmacological profile and/or emerging data, include cariprazine, lumateperone, ulotaront [SEP-363856], and xanomeline plus trospium,” he said. Efficacy for negative symptoms, if proven, will address an “elusive goal.”

MedscapeLive! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Nasrallah reported financial relationships with Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Alkermes, Avanir, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Indivior, Janssen, Neurocrine, and Teva. Dr. Correll listed financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies, including several developing medications with potential activity against negative symptoms.

Late-stage trials of new antipsychotic drugs are showing promise in the control of negative symptoms, according to an overview presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

The progress in these trials deserves attention, because control of negative symptoms is “a major unmet need in schizophrenia,” according to Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, director of the schizophrenia program at the University of Cincinnati.

The novel mechanisms of the agents in development are credited with the promise. Not least, several antipsychotic agents with activity against both positive and negative symptoms “are completely devoid of dopamine receptor blockade,” Dr. Nasrallah said at the virtual meeting, presented by MedscapeLive!

The xanomeline portion of the investigational treatment xanomeline-trospium is one example. Xanomeline is a muscarinic receptor agonist with no activity on dopamine D2 receptors. The role of trospium, a muscarinic receptor antagonist, is to reduce peripheral cholinergic side effects.
 

Xanomeline-trospium: Negative vs. positive symptoms

In a recently published placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial, the reductions relative to placebo after 5 weeks on the negative subscale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) tool (–3.9 vs. –1.3; P < .001) was about as robust as that achieved on the positive subscale (–5.6 vs. –3.2; P < .001).

These subscales were secondary endpoints. Relative to placebo, xanomeline-trospium was also effective on the primary endpoint of the PANSS total score (–17.9 vs. –5.9; P < .001).

The presence of trospium did not eliminate cholinergic side effects, which included constipation, dry mouth, and nausea, but the therapy strengthens the evidence that newer agents with novel mechanisms of action, including those without dopamine blockade, can achieve meaningful clinical effects.

SEP-363856, another example of an experimental agent without direct dopamine blockade, was also recently tested in placebo-controlled, double-blind study.

“This is the first agonist of the TAAR1 [trace amine-associated receptor 1] and 5-HT1A [serotonin 5–hydroxytryptamine type 1A receptor] to reach clinical trials,” said Dr. Nasrallah, calling this an interesting agent for its range of clinical activity, which appears to include antianxiety effects.

SEP-363856: Negative vs. positive symptoms

It also appears to include activity against negative symptoms. While the primary endpoint of total PANSS score favored SEP-363856 over placebo at the end of 4 weeks (–17.2 points vs. –9.7; P = .001), the reductions in the subscales for negative (–3.1 vs. –1.6) and positive (–5.5 vs. 3.9) symptoms were also substantial even if statistical differences were not calculated.

The rates of side effects on SEP-3638656 were low, according to Dr. Nasrallah. The most common complaints, such as somnolence, agitation, and nausea, were observed in fewer than 10% of patients.

Roluperidone, another agent with no direct dopamine blockade, has reached phase 3 trials. The activity of this agent is attributed to antagonist activity on the serotonin 5-HT2A and sigma2 receptors. In a multinational, phase 2b study cited by Dr. Nasrallah, both of two study doses of roluperidone were superior to placebo for the negative symptom dimensions of expressive deficit and experiential deficit. Patients enrolled in the trial were required to have baseline PANSS negative symptom subscale scores of 20 points or greater.

Pimavanserin, an inverse agonist of 5-HT2A receptors, is already approved for the treatment of psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, but it is now attracting interest for its potential efficacy against negative symptoms in schizophrenia, according to Dr. Nasrallah, who cited a poster presented last November at the Psych Congress 2020.

The poster provided results of ADVANCE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study that associated pimavanserin with significant improvement across several types of negative symptoms, Dr. Nasrallah said. The drug was well tolerated with a side-effect profile “similar to placebo.”

Traditional antipsychotic therapies are generally associated with limited effect against negative symptoms, but it has never been proven that the interaction of treatments on the dopaminergic system is the reason. Indeed, in his list of therapies being pursued for potential benefit against negative symptoms, Dr. Nasrallah cited a clinical study with cariprazine, an agent with multiple effects on dopamine and serotonin signaling.

“Cariprazine is a partial agonist at D2, D3, and 5-HT1A receptors and an antagonist at 5-HT2c and 5-HT7 receptors, but it has the highest affinity to the D3 receptor,” Dr. Nasrallah reported.

Cariprazine is already approved for schizophrenia, acute mania, and bipolar depression, but the authors of a recent review claim evidence of activity against negative symptoms. Furthermore, they speculate that this activity might be mediated by agonism of the D3 receptor.

Despite the evidence that these agents might control negative symptoms, the relative roles will be defined by clinical experience, not just clinical trials, Dr. Nasrallah said. However, he did indicate that there appears to be meaningful progress in this area.

Potential progress in this area is important, because “negative symptoms are a largely unaddressed treatment target in people with schizophrenia,” reported Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. These symptoms deserve attention for their “important potential to improve interpersonal, educational, and work function.”

Dr. Correll agreed that the newer drugs with mechanisms other than postsynaptic dopamine blockade could be a very important advance in the treatment of schizophrenia.

“Promising new medications with potential efficacy for negative symptoms, either based on their pharmacological profile and/or emerging data, include cariprazine, lumateperone, ulotaront [SEP-363856], and xanomeline plus trospium,” he said. Efficacy for negative symptoms, if proven, will address an “elusive goal.”

MedscapeLive! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Nasrallah reported financial relationships with Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Alkermes, Avanir, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Indivior, Janssen, Neurocrine, and Teva. Dr. Correll listed financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies, including several developing medications with potential activity against negative symptoms.

Late-stage trials of new antipsychotic drugs are showing promise in the control of negative symptoms, according to an overview presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

The progress in these trials deserves attention, because control of negative symptoms is “a major unmet need in schizophrenia,” according to Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, director of the schizophrenia program at the University of Cincinnati.

The novel mechanisms of the agents in development are credited with the promise. Not least, several antipsychotic agents with activity against both positive and negative symptoms “are completely devoid of dopamine receptor blockade,” Dr. Nasrallah said at the virtual meeting, presented by MedscapeLive!

The xanomeline portion of the investigational treatment xanomeline-trospium is one example. Xanomeline is a muscarinic receptor agonist with no activity on dopamine D2 receptors. The role of trospium, a muscarinic receptor antagonist, is to reduce peripheral cholinergic side effects.
 

Xanomeline-trospium: Negative vs. positive symptoms

In a recently published placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial, the reductions relative to placebo after 5 weeks on the negative subscale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) tool (–3.9 vs. –1.3; P < .001) was about as robust as that achieved on the positive subscale (–5.6 vs. –3.2; P < .001).

These subscales were secondary endpoints. Relative to placebo, xanomeline-trospium was also effective on the primary endpoint of the PANSS total score (–17.9 vs. –5.9; P < .001).

The presence of trospium did not eliminate cholinergic side effects, which included constipation, dry mouth, and nausea, but the therapy strengthens the evidence that newer agents with novel mechanisms of action, including those without dopamine blockade, can achieve meaningful clinical effects.

SEP-363856, another example of an experimental agent without direct dopamine blockade, was also recently tested in placebo-controlled, double-blind study.

“This is the first agonist of the TAAR1 [trace amine-associated receptor 1] and 5-HT1A [serotonin 5–hydroxytryptamine type 1A receptor] to reach clinical trials,” said Dr. Nasrallah, calling this an interesting agent for its range of clinical activity, which appears to include antianxiety effects.

SEP-363856: Negative vs. positive symptoms

It also appears to include activity against negative symptoms. While the primary endpoint of total PANSS score favored SEP-363856 over placebo at the end of 4 weeks (–17.2 points vs. –9.7; P = .001), the reductions in the subscales for negative (–3.1 vs. –1.6) and positive (–5.5 vs. 3.9) symptoms were also substantial even if statistical differences were not calculated.

The rates of side effects on SEP-3638656 were low, according to Dr. Nasrallah. The most common complaints, such as somnolence, agitation, and nausea, were observed in fewer than 10% of patients.

Roluperidone, another agent with no direct dopamine blockade, has reached phase 3 trials. The activity of this agent is attributed to antagonist activity on the serotonin 5-HT2A and sigma2 receptors. In a multinational, phase 2b study cited by Dr. Nasrallah, both of two study doses of roluperidone were superior to placebo for the negative symptom dimensions of expressive deficit and experiential deficit. Patients enrolled in the trial were required to have baseline PANSS negative symptom subscale scores of 20 points or greater.

Pimavanserin, an inverse agonist of 5-HT2A receptors, is already approved for the treatment of psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, but it is now attracting interest for its potential efficacy against negative symptoms in schizophrenia, according to Dr. Nasrallah, who cited a poster presented last November at the Psych Congress 2020.

The poster provided results of ADVANCE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study that associated pimavanserin with significant improvement across several types of negative symptoms, Dr. Nasrallah said. The drug was well tolerated with a side-effect profile “similar to placebo.”

Traditional antipsychotic therapies are generally associated with limited effect against negative symptoms, but it has never been proven that the interaction of treatments on the dopaminergic system is the reason. Indeed, in his list of therapies being pursued for potential benefit against negative symptoms, Dr. Nasrallah cited a clinical study with cariprazine, an agent with multiple effects on dopamine and serotonin signaling.

“Cariprazine is a partial agonist at D2, D3, and 5-HT1A receptors and an antagonist at 5-HT2c and 5-HT7 receptors, but it has the highest affinity to the D3 receptor,” Dr. Nasrallah reported.

Cariprazine is already approved for schizophrenia, acute mania, and bipolar depression, but the authors of a recent review claim evidence of activity against negative symptoms. Furthermore, they speculate that this activity might be mediated by agonism of the D3 receptor.

Despite the evidence that these agents might control negative symptoms, the relative roles will be defined by clinical experience, not just clinical trials, Dr. Nasrallah said. However, he did indicate that there appears to be meaningful progress in this area.

Potential progress in this area is important, because “negative symptoms are a largely unaddressed treatment target in people with schizophrenia,” reported Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. These symptoms deserve attention for their “important potential to improve interpersonal, educational, and work function.”

Dr. Correll agreed that the newer drugs with mechanisms other than postsynaptic dopamine blockade could be a very important advance in the treatment of schizophrenia.

“Promising new medications with potential efficacy for negative symptoms, either based on their pharmacological profile and/or emerging data, include cariprazine, lumateperone, ulotaront [SEP-363856], and xanomeline plus trospium,” he said. Efficacy for negative symptoms, if proven, will address an “elusive goal.”

MedscapeLive! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Nasrallah reported financial relationships with Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Alkermes, Avanir, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Indivior, Janssen, Neurocrine, and Teva. Dr. Correll listed financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies, including several developing medications with potential activity against negative symptoms.