A shift in managing symptoms for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) may be in order as new research questions the efficacy of three commonly used drugs for MS-related fatigue. Results of a study from Johns Hopkins University show that amantadine, modafinil, and methylphenidate were not superior to placebo. As Dr Mark Freedman reports in this ReCAP, the study suggests that clinicians consider focusing more on patient sleep quality rather than tiredness in their evaluation of fatigue.

This study was presented during the 8th Joint Meeting of ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS, this year branded MSVirtual2020. Dr Freedman, a recognized neurologist from the University of Ottawa, shares key highlights from the online conference.

He explains the significance of new evidence that points to the potential for a selective retinoid X receptor agonist to promote remyelination in relapsing disease. He also discusses a study by researchers at the University of Melbourne that looked at data from the largest cohort of MS patients with COVID-19 and drew troubling conclusions.

Professor, Department of Neurology, University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Director, Multiple Sclerosis Research Unit, The Ottawa Hospital – General Campus, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Mark S. Freedman, MSc, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) on the advisory board, board of directors, or other similar groups for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; Atara Biotherapeutics; BayerHealthcare; BiogenIdec; Celgene; Clene Nanomedicine; GRI Bio; Hoffman La-Roche; Magenta Therapeutics; Merck Serono; MedDay; Novartis; Sanofi-Genzyme; Teva Canada Innovation. Serve(d) as a member of a speakers bureau for: Sanofi-Genzyme; EMD Serono. Received honoraria or consultation fees for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; BiogenIdec; Celgene (BMS); EMD Inc; Sanofi-Genzyme; Hoffman La-Roche; Merck Serono; Novartis; Teva Canada Innovation­. Received research or educational grants from: Sanofi-Genzyme Canada; Hoffman-La Roche; EMD Inc.

A shift in managing symptoms for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) may be in order as new research questions the efficacy of three commonly used drugs for MS-related fatigue. Results of a study from Johns Hopkins University show that amantadine, modafinil, and methylphenidate were not superior to placebo. As Dr Mark Freedman reports in this ReCAP, the study suggests that clinicians consider focusing more on patient sleep quality rather than tiredness in their evaluation of fatigue.

This study was presented during the 8th Joint Meeting of ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS, this year branded MSVirtual2020. Dr Freedman, a recognized neurologist from the University of Ottawa, shares key highlights from the online conference.

He explains the significance of new evidence that points to the potential for a selective retinoid X receptor agonist to promote remyelination in relapsing disease. He also discusses a study by researchers at the University of Melbourne that looked at data from the largest cohort of MS patients with COVID-19 and drew troubling conclusions.

Professor, Department of Neurology, University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Director, Multiple Sclerosis Research Unit, The Ottawa Hospital – General Campus, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Mark S. Freedman, MSc, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) on the advisory board, board of directors, or other similar groups for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; Atara Biotherapeutics; BayerHealthcare; BiogenIdec; Celgene; Clene Nanomedicine; GRI Bio; Hoffman La-Roche; Magenta Therapeutics; Merck Serono; MedDay; Novartis; Sanofi-Genzyme; Teva Canada Innovation. Serve(d) as a member of a speakers bureau for: Sanofi-Genzyme; EMD Serono. Received honoraria or consultation fees for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; BiogenIdec; Celgene (BMS); EMD Inc; Sanofi-Genzyme; Hoffman La-Roche; Merck Serono; Novartis; Teva Canada Innovation­. Received research or educational grants from: Sanofi-Genzyme Canada; Hoffman-La Roche; EMD Inc.

A shift in managing symptoms for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) may be in order as new research questions the efficacy of three commonly used drugs for MS-related fatigue. Results of a study from Johns Hopkins University show that amantadine, modafinil, and methylphenidate were not superior to placebo. As Dr Mark Freedman reports in this ReCAP, the study suggests that clinicians consider focusing more on patient sleep quality rather than tiredness in their evaluation of fatigue.

This study was presented during the 8th Joint Meeting of ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS, this year branded MSVirtual2020. Dr Freedman, a recognized neurologist from the University of Ottawa, shares key highlights from the online conference.

He explains the significance of new evidence that points to the potential for a selective retinoid X receptor agonist to promote remyelination in relapsing disease. He also discusses a study by researchers at the University of Melbourne that looked at data from the largest cohort of MS patients with COVID-19 and drew troubling conclusions.

Professor, Department of Neurology, University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Director, Multiple Sclerosis Research Unit, The Ottawa Hospital – General Campus, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Mark S. Freedman, MSc, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) on the advisory board, board of directors, or other similar groups for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; Atara Biotherapeutics; BayerHealthcare; BiogenIdec; Celgene; Clene Nanomedicine; GRI Bio; Hoffman La-Roche; Magenta Therapeutics; Merck Serono; MedDay; Novartis; Sanofi-Genzyme; Teva Canada Innovation. Serve(d) as a member of a speakers bureau for: Sanofi-Genzyme; EMD Serono. Received honoraria or consultation fees for: Actelion (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson); Alexion; BiogenIdec; Celgene (BMS); EMD Inc; Sanofi-Genzyme; Hoffman La-Roche; Merck Serono; Novartis; Teva Canada Innovation­. Received research or educational grants from: Sanofi-Genzyme Canada; Hoffman-La Roche; EMD Inc.

Psoriasis is a common chronic, multisystem, inflammatory disease with predominantly skin and joint manifestations that affects approximately 2% of the world’s population.¹ It occurs in a variety of clinical forms, from a few well-demarcated, erythematous plaques with a silvery scale to involvement of almost the entire body surface area. Beyond the debilitating physical ailments of the disease, psoriasis also may have psychosocial effects on quality of life.² The pathogenesis of psoriasis is not fully understood but represents a complex multifactorial disease with both immune-mediated and genetic components. Characterized by hyperplasia of epidermal keratinocytes, psoriasis is shown to be mediated by infiltration of T-cell lymphocytes with an increase of various inflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α.³ More recently, interactions of helper T cells (T_H17) via IL-17 and IL-23 have been supported to play a major role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis.^4,5

With the growing understanding of the pathophysiology of psoriasis, focused biologics have been developed to target specific cytokines implicated in the disease process and have been increasingly utilized. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, including adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept, along with the IL-12/IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab, have been revolutionary in psoriasis treatment by providing safe and effective long-term therapy; however, there is concern of life-threatening infections with biologics because of the immunosuppressive effects and mechanisms of action.⁶ Specifically, there have been reported cases of deep fungal infections associated with TNF-α inhibitor use.⁷

Recently, the advent of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors has garnered notable interest in these biologics as promising treatments for psoriasis. With IL-17 and IL-23 supported to have a major role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis, targeting the cytokine is not only logical but also has proven to be effacacious.^8-10 Secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab are IL-17 inhibitors that have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of psoriasis. Secukinumab and ixekizumab are anti–IL-17A monoclonal antibodies, whereas brodalumab is an anti–IL-17 receptor antibody. Risankizumab, guselkumab, and tildrakizumab are IL-23 inhibitors that also have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of psoriasis. As with older biologics, there is concern over the safety of these inhibitors because of the central role of IL-17 and IL-23 in both innate and adaptive immune responses, particularly against fungi.¹¹ Therefore, use of biologics targeting IL-17 and IL-23 may increase susceptibility to deep fungal infections.

Safety data and discussion of the risk for deep fungal infections from IL-17, IL-12/IL-23, and IL-23 inhibitor use for psoriasis treatment currently are lacking. Given the knowledge gap, we sought to synthesize and review the current evidence on risks for deep fungal infections during biologic therapy in patients with psoriasis, with a focus on IL-17 inhibitor therapies.

METHODS

A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE from database inception to 2019 (1946-2019) was performed to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including extended trials and clinical trials, for IL-17, IL-12/IL-23, and IL-23 inhibitors approved by the FDA for psoriasis treatment. The following keywords were used: psoriasis or inflammatory disease and secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, or tildrakizumab. Studies were restricted to the English-language literature, and those that did not provide adequate safety data on the specific types of infections that occurred were excluded.

RESULTSIL-17 Inhibitors

Our search yielded RCTs, some including extension trials, and clinical trials of IL-17 inhibitors used for psoriatic disease and other nonpsoriatic conditions (Table).

Risk for Deep Fungal Infection With Secukinumab
The queried studies included 20 RCTs or clinical trials along with extension trials of 3746 patients with psoriasis or other inflammatory conditions, with follow-up ranging from 12 to 52 weeks. In a 3-year extension study of SCULPTURE, Bissonnette et al¹² reported no new safety concerns for the 340 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis treated with secukinumab. Common adverse events (AEs) included nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and headache, but there were no reports of deep fungal infections.¹² In a subsequent 5-year analysis of 168 patients that focused on the 300-mg fixed interval treatment with secukinumab, the safety profile remained favorable, with 0 reports of invasive fungal infections.¹³ A study (FEATURE) of 118 patients with psoriasis treated with a prefilled syringe of 300 or 150 mg of secukinumab also described an acceptable safety profile and reported no deep fungal infections.¹⁴ JUNCTURE, another study utilizing autoinjectors, also found that treatment with 300 or 150 mg of secukinumab was well tolerated in 121 patients, with no deep fungal infections.¹⁵ Common AEs for both studies included nasopharyngitis and headache.^14,15 A 24-week phase 3 study for scalp psoriasis treated with secukinumab also reported 0 deep fungal infections in 51 patients.¹⁶ In an RCT comparing secukinumab and ustekinumab for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, Blauvelt et al¹⁷ demonstrated that the incidence of serious AEs was comparable between the 2 groups, with no reports of invasive fungal infections in the 334 patients exposed to secukinumab. The CLEAR study, which compared secukinumab and ustekinumab, also found no reported deep fungal disease in the 335 patients exposed to secukinumab.¹⁸ Secukinumab exhibited a similar safety profile to ustekinumab in both studies, with common AEs being headache and nasopharyngitis.^17,18 The GESTURE study investigated the efficacy of secukinumab in 137 patients with palmoplantar psoriasis and reported a favorable profile with no reports of deep fungal disease.¹⁹ In a subanalysis of the phase 3 study ERASURE, secukinumab was shown to have a robust and sustainable efficacy in 58 Japanese patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and there were no reports of invasive fungal infections.²⁰ Another subanalysis of 36 Taiwanese patients from the ERASURE study also had similar findings, with no dose relationship observed for AEs.²¹ In a phase 2 study of 103 patients with psoriasis, Papp et al²² demonstrated AE rates that were similar across different doses of secukinumab—3×150 mg, 3×75 mg, 3×25 mg, and 1×25 mg—and described no incidences of invasive fungal disease. In a phase 2 regimen-finding study of 337 patients conducted by Rich et al,²³ the most commonly reported AEs included nasopharyngitis, worsening psoriasis, and upper respiratory tract infections, but there were no reported deep fungal infections.

Our search also resulted in studies specific to the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with secukinumab. McInnes et al⁹ conducted a phase 2 proof-of-concept trial for patients with PsA and reported no deep fungal infections in 28 patients exposed to 10 mg/kg of secukinumab. A 2-year follow-up with the cohort from FUTURE 1, a phase 3 clinical trial, also showed no new or unexpected safety signals in 404 patients exposed to 150 or 75 mg of secukinumab, including no reports of invasive fungal disease.²⁴ FUTURE 2, a phase 3 clinical trial, demonstrated that the most common AE was upper respiratory tract infection in the 299 patients treatedwith secukinumab, but there were no recorded invasive fungal infections.²⁵ In FUTURE 3, 277 patients were treated with secukinumab, with 14 nonserious candida infections but no observed deep fungal infections.²⁶ A study comparing secukinumab to fumaric acid esters reported that 6 of 105 patients treated with secukinumab also experienced superficial candidiasis, but there were no reports of deep fungal disease.²⁷

Secukinumab also has been used in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in a phase 3 RCT (MEASURE 1) in which 4 cases of superficial candidiasis were reported (0.7 cases per 100 patient-years of secukinumab) that were all resolved with standard antifungal therapy.²⁸ In MEASURE 2, a 5-year phase 3 RCT, 145 patients were treated with secukinumab for ankylosing spondylitis, with common AEs including nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, and upper respiratory tract infection, but there were no reports of any invasive fungal infections.²⁹ MEASURE 3 also demonstrated similar results in which no invasive fungal infections were observed.³⁰

Risk for Deep Fungal Infection With Ixekizumab
The queried studies included 7 RCTs or clinical trials of 3523 patients with psoriasis or other inflammatory conditions, with follow-up ranging from 12 to 52 weeks. In UNCOVER-A, a phase 3 RCT of the pharmacokinetics and safety of ixekizumab, 204 patients were randomized to a prefilled syringe or autoinjector; 48% of patients experienced AEs, but no invasive fungal infections were observed.³¹ In an analysis of 3 phase 3 trials of ixekizumab including a total 2334 patients treated with ixekizumab from UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3, oral candidiasis frequently was reported, but no candidal infections met criteria for serious invasive infection.³² In UNCOVER-J, a 52-week phase 3 open-label trial of Japanese patients, 91 patients were treated for plaque psoriasis, erythrodermic psoriasis, or generalized pustular psoriasis using ixekizumab; the most common AEs included allergic reactions and injection-site reactions. One case of oral candidiasis was reported, but there were no reported cases of invasive fungal infections.³³ A comparison of ixekizumab vs ustekinumab from the IXORA-S trial demonstrated no substantial differences in AEs between the two, and no cases of deep fungal infections were reported. The most common AE between the 2 groups was nasopharyngitis.³⁴ An open-label extension over 4 years of a phase 2 RCT treated 211 patients with either 120 or 80 mg of ixekizumab; 87% of patients had experienced at least 1 AE, and all AEs were considered mild or moderate in severity, with no invasive fungal disease.³⁵

Our search also resulted in 1 study specific to the treatment of PsA with ixekizumab. A phase 3, 52-week study of patients treated with ixekizumab for PsA observed 2 incidences of oral candidiasis and nail candida infections, but no invasive fungal infections were reported.³⁶

We also found 1 study of ixekizumab used in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. COAST-V was a phase 3 RCT of patients treated for ankylosing spondylitis in which 164 patients were treated with ixekizumab; no serious AEs were recorded, including 0 deep fungal infections. The most common AEs observed were nasopharyngitis and upper respiratory tract infections.³⁷

Risk for Deep Fungal Infection With Brodalumab
The queried studies included 9 RCTs and 3 clinical trials along with extension trials of 1599 patients with psoriasis or other inflammatory conditions, with follow-up ranging from 12 to 120 weeks. In a phase 2 RCT of Japanese patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, 113 patients were treated with 70, 140, or 210 mg of brodalumab, and the most common AEs were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, and upper respiratory tract inflammation. There were no reported cases of fungal infections in the study.³⁸ In an open-label extension study of Japanese patients that evaluated the long-term clinical safety of brodalumab, 145 patients were enrolled and observed similar AEs to the RCT, with 7 patients experiencing oral candidiasis and 1 patient having skin candidiasis, but there were no observed deep fungal infections.³⁹ In AMG 827, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of brodalumab, 320 patients were treated, and only 2 serious AEs were reported, neither of which were deep fungal disease.¹⁰ A phase 3 RCT conducted by Papp et al⁴⁰ (AMAGINE-1) also treated 441 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with brodalumab and observed candida infections in 9 patients that were mild to moderate and responsive to treatment, with no patients discontinuing the study. In a 120-week open-label extension study of 181 patients, Papp et al⁴¹ reported 8% of patients experienced serious AEs, with 1 case of latent tuberculosis that led to withdrawal of treatment. A study also investigated the efficacy and safety of brodalumab in 30 patients with generalized pustular psoriasis or psoriatic erythroderma and observed 2 cases of mild candida infections that resolved with treatment. There were no reports of invasive fungal disease.⁴²

Our search also resulted in studies of brodalumab used in the treatment of PsA and nonpsoriatic diseases. In one phase 2 RCT, 113 patients with PsA were treated with 140 mg, 280 mg, or combined doses of brodalumab, with the most common AEs being nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and diarrhea, but there were no reports of deep fungal infection.⁴³ In a phase 1b trial of patients with methotrexate-resistant rheumatoid arthritis treated with brodalumab, common AEs reported included headache, cough, and abdominal pain, with only 1 case of oral candidiasis that was determined not to be drug related.⁴⁴ Finally, an RCT of patients with moderate to severe asthma treated 226 patients with brodalumab and reported a greater incidence of oral candidiasis in treatment groups compared with placebo (3.5% vs 0%) but saw no instances of invasive fungal infection.⁴⁵

IL-12/IL-23 Inhibitor

Risk for Deep Fungal Infection With Ustekinumab
The queried studies included 4 RCTs of 954 patients with psoriasis treated with ustekinumab (eTable).^46-49 Within these trials, there were no reported cases of serious infections involving deep fungal organisms during the stated follow-up period. The literature search also found long-term safety data from the ACCEPT and PHOENIX trials that included 5437 patients with psoriasis treated with ustekinumab.^66,67 There also were no demonstrated incidences of invasive fungal disease in these studies, with most cases of infection being common bacterial or viral infections.

IL-23 Inhibitors

Risk for Deep Fungal Infection With Risankizumab, Guselkumab, and Tildrakizumab
The queried studies included 16 RCTs or clinical trials for psoriatic patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors, including 5 with risankizumab,^50-54 9 with guselkumab,^55-63 and 2 with tildrakizumab.^64,65 Within these trials there were no observed cases of serious infections with deep fungal disease.

COMMENT

Our literature review has demonstrated that there does not appear to be an increased incidence of deep fungal infections for patients treated with IL-17, IL-12/IL-23, or IL-23 inhibitors for psoriatic disease. All of the reviewed studies found no cases of invasive fungal infections for patients with psoriasis treated with secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, or tildrakizumab. Patients with other inflammatory conditions, such as ankylosing spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and asthma, also did not appear to show an increased incidence of deep fungal disease.

Although these results show promising safety data for the use of these biologic therapies in treating inflammatory conditions, caution still is warranted, as these medications still are relatively new, with FDA approvals within the last 5 years. Safety data among different study populations also cannot be derived without further investigation, and much of the available literature is limited in long-term data. More extended trials or registry data from a large, broadly representative cohort are necessary to establish the long-term safety and risk for deep fungal infections with IL-17 and especially the newer IL-23 inhibitors.

A small percentage of patients from the reviewed literature did develop superficial candidiasis. This outcome can be expected, as the central role of IL-17 and IL-23 has been recognized in immunologic protection against infections, specifically against fungi.¹¹ Because all of the fungal infections reported for patients on IL-17 inhibitors were superficial candidiasis, guides for practical management and treatment should be implemented to standardize future research and care. A proposed screening algorithm for patients on these biologic therapies involves safety monitoring, including inspection of the oral cavity, folds, and genitals, along with inquiring about symptoms such as burning, dysgeusia, and dysuria.⁶⁸ If infection is suspected, confirmation by culture, molecular method, or optimally with esophagoscopy can be performed, and appropriate treatment may be initiated.⁶⁸ Patients with candida infections of the oral cavity, folds, or genitals can be placed on topical therapy such as nystatin, amphotericin B, ciclopirox, or other azoles, while those with infections of the esophagus can be started on oral fluconazole.⁶⁸

Although there were no reported cases of deep fungal infections, the theoretical risk for developing one while on IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors may warrant further screening prior to beginning therapy. The TNF inhibitors approved for the treatment of psoriasis currently contain a black box warning for risk for disseminated and extrapulmonary histoplasmosis, coccidioidomycosis, blastomycosis, and other invasive fungal infections, which may highlight the importance of thorough evaluation and awareness of endemic areas for patients on biologics. Prior to initiating treatment with TNF inhibitors, current suggestions involve performing a thorough examination along with keeping a high index of suspicion for invasive fungal infections in patients who live in or have traveled to endemic regions.⁶⁹

Screening for invasive fungal infections for patients on TNF inhibitors involves questioning about potential exposures, such as demolition of old buildings, bird roosts, or spelunking.⁷⁰ Serologies or antigen testing can be used routinely, but as these tests are insensitive, empiric antifungal therapy should be initiated if there is high enough clinical suspicion.⁷¹ Currently, there are no clinical guidelines regarding fungal screening and initiation of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors for treatment of psoriasis and other inflammatory conditions, but careful stewardship over using these effective medications should still be practiced.

Upon review of the available safety data on the use of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors for the treatment of psoriasis and other inflammatory conditions, there does not appear to be an increased incidence of deep fungal infections. Physicians, however, should still be cautiously optimistic in prescribing these medications, as there is a theoretical risk for infection for all patients on biologics. A high index of suspicion for patients presenting with symptoms of fungal infections should be maintained, and appropriate diagnosis and management should be initiated if they do occur.

Psoriasis is a common chronic, multisystem, inflammatory disease with predominantly skin and joint manifestations that affects approximately 2% of the world’s population.¹ It occurs in a variety of clinical forms, from a few well-demarcated, erythematous plaques with a silvery scale to involvement of almost the entire body surface area. Beyond the debilitating physical ailments of the disease, psoriasis also may have psychosocial effects on quality of life.² The pathogenesis of psoriasis is not fully understood but represents a complex multifactorial disease with both immune-mediated and genetic components. Characterized by hyperplasia of epidermal keratinocytes, psoriasis is shown to be mediated by infiltration of T-cell lymphocytes with an increase of various inflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α.³ More recently, interactions of helper T cells (T_H17) via IL-17 and IL-23 have been supported to play a major role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis.^4,5

With the growing understanding of the pathophysiology of psoriasis, focused biologics have been developed to target specific cytokines implicated in the disease process and have been increasingly utilized. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, including adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept, along with the IL-12/IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab, have been revolutionary in psoriasis treatment by providing safe and effective long-term therapy; however, there is concern of life-threatening infections with biologics because of the immunosuppressive effects and mechanisms of action.⁶ Specifically, there have been reported cases of deep fungal infections associated with TNF-α inhibitor use.⁷

Recently, the advent of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors has garnered notable interest in these biologics as promising treatments for psoriasis. With IL-17 and IL-23 supported to have a major role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis, targeting the cytokine is not only logical but also has proven to be effacacious.^8-10 Secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab are IL-17 inhibitors that have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of psoriasis. Secukinumab and ixekizumab are anti–IL-17A monoclonal antibodies, whereas brodalumab is an anti–IL-17 receptor antibody. Risankizumab, guselkumab, and tildrakizumab are IL-23 inhibitors that also have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of psoriasis. As with older biologics, there is concern over the safety of these inhibitors because of the central role of IL-17 and IL-23 in both innate and adaptive immune responses, particularly against fungi.¹¹ Therefore, use of biologics targeting IL-17 and IL-23 may increase susceptibility to deep fungal infections.

Safety data and discussion of the risk for deep fungal infections from IL-17, IL-12/IL-23, and IL-23 inhibitor use for psoriasis treatment currently are lacking. Given the knowledge gap, we sought to synthesize and review the current evidence on risks for deep fungal infections during biologic therapy in patients with psoriasis, with a focus on IL-17 inhibitor therapies.

METHODS

A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE from database inception to 2019 (1946-2019) was performed to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including extended trials and clinical trials, for IL-17, IL-12/IL-23, and IL-23 inhibitors approved by the FDA for psoriasis treatment. The following keywords were used: psoriasis or inflammatory disease and secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, or tildrakizumab. Studies were restricted to the English-language literature, and those that did not provide adequate safety data on the specific types of infections that occurred were excluded.

RESULTSIL-17 Inhibitors

Our search yielded RCTs, some including extension trials, and clinical trials of IL-17 inhibitors used for psoriatic disease and other nonpsoriatic conditions (Table).

Risk for Deep Fungal Infection With Secukinumab
The queried studies included 20 RCTs or clinical trials along with extension trials of 3746 patients with psoriasis or other inflammatory conditions, with follow-up ranging from 12 to 52 weeks. In a 3-year extension study of SCULPTURE, Bissonnette et al¹² reported no new safety concerns for the 340 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis treated with secukinumab. Common adverse events (AEs) included nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and headache, but there were no reports of deep fungal infections.¹² In a subsequent 5-year analysis of 168 patients that focused on the 300-mg fixed interval treatment with secukinumab, the safety profile remained favorable, with 0 reports of invasive fungal infections.¹³ A study (FEATURE) of 118 patients with psoriasis treated with a prefilled syringe of 300 or 150 mg of secukinumab also described an acceptable safety profile and reported no deep fungal infections.¹⁴ JUNCTURE, another study utilizing autoinjectors, also found that treatment with 300 or 150 mg of secukinumab was well tolerated in 121 patients, with no deep fungal infections.¹⁵ Common AEs for both studies included nasopharyngitis and headache.^14,15 A 24-week phase 3 study for scalp psoriasis treated with secukinumab also reported 0 deep fungal infections in 51 patients.¹⁶ In an RCT comparing secukinumab and ustekinumab for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, Blauvelt et al¹⁷ demonstrated that the incidence of serious AEs was comparable between the 2 groups, with no reports of invasive fungal infections in the 334 patients exposed to secukinumab. The CLEAR study, which compared secukinumab and ustekinumab, also found no reported deep fungal disease in the 335 patients exposed to secukinumab.¹⁸ Secukinumab exhibited a similar safety profile to ustekinumab in both studies, with common AEs being headache and nasopharyngitis.^17,18 The GESTURE study investigated the efficacy of secukinumab in 137 patients with palmoplantar psoriasis and reported a favorable profile with no reports of deep fungal disease.¹⁹ In a subanalysis of the phase 3 study ERASURE, secukinumab was shown to have a robust and sustainable efficacy in 58 Japanese patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and there were no reports of invasive fungal infections.²⁰ Another subanalysis of 36 Taiwanese patients from the ERASURE study also had similar findings, with no dose relationship observed for AEs.²¹ In a phase 2 study of 103 patients with psoriasis, Papp et al²² demonstrated AE rates that were similar across different doses of secukinumab—3×150 mg, 3×75 mg, 3×25 mg, and 1×25 mg—and described no incidences of invasive fungal disease. In a phase 2 regimen-finding study of 337 patients conducted by Rich et al,²³ the most commonly reported AEs included nasopharyngitis, worsening psoriasis, and upper respiratory tract infections, but there were no reported deep fungal infections.

Our search also resulted in studies specific to the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with secukinumab. McInnes et al⁹ conducted a phase 2 proof-of-concept trial for patients with PsA and reported no deep fungal infections in 28 patients exposed to 10 mg/kg of secukinumab. A 2-year follow-up with the cohort from FUTURE 1, a phase 3 clinical trial, also showed no new or unexpected safety signals in 404 patients exposed to 150 or 75 mg of secukinumab, including no reports of invasive fungal disease.²⁴ FUTURE 2, a phase 3 clinical trial, demonstrated that the most common AE was upper respiratory tract infection in the 299 patients treatedwith secukinumab, but there were no recorded invasive fungal infections.²⁵ In FUTURE 3, 277 patients were treated with secukinumab, with 14 nonserious candida infections but no observed deep fungal infections.²⁶ A study comparing secukinumab to fumaric acid esters reported that 6 of 105 patients treated with secukinumab also experienced superficial candidiasis, but there were no reports of deep fungal disease.²⁷

Secukinumab also has been used in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in a phase 3 RCT (MEASURE 1) in which 4 cases of superficial candidiasis were reported (0.7 cases per 100 patient-years of secukinumab) that were all resolved with standard antifungal therapy.²⁸ In MEASURE 2, a 5-year phase 3 RCT, 145 patients were treated with secukinumab for ankylosing spondylitis, with common AEs including nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, and upper respiratory tract infection, but there were no reports of any invasive fungal infections.²⁹ MEASURE 3 also demonstrated similar results in which no invasive fungal infections were observed.³⁰

Risk for Deep Fungal Infection With Ixekizumab
The queried studies included 7 RCTs or clinical trials of 3523 patients with psoriasis or other inflammatory conditions, with follow-up ranging from 12 to 52 weeks. In UNCOVER-A, a phase 3 RCT of the pharmacokinetics and safety of ixekizumab, 204 patients were randomized to a prefilled syringe or autoinjector; 48% of patients experienced AEs, but no invasive fungal infections were observed.³¹ In an analysis of 3 phase 3 trials of ixekizumab including a total 2334 patients treated with ixekizumab from UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3, oral candidiasis frequently was reported, but no candidal infections met criteria for serious invasive infection.³² In UNCOVER-J, a 52-week phase 3 open-label trial of Japanese patients, 91 patients were treated for plaque psoriasis, erythrodermic psoriasis, or generalized pustular psoriasis using ixekizumab; the most common AEs included allergic reactions and injection-site reactions. One case of oral candidiasis was reported, but there were no reported cases of invasive fungal infections.³³ A comparison of ixekizumab vs ustekinumab from the IXORA-S trial demonstrated no substantial differences in AEs between the two, and no cases of deep fungal infections were reported. The most common AE between the 2 groups was nasopharyngitis.³⁴ An open-label extension over 4 years of a phase 2 RCT treated 211 patients with either 120 or 80 mg of ixekizumab; 87% of patients had experienced at least 1 AE, and all AEs were considered mild or moderate in severity, with no invasive fungal disease.³⁵

Our search also resulted in 1 study specific to the treatment of PsA with ixekizumab. A phase 3, 52-week study of patients treated with ixekizumab for PsA observed 2 incidences of oral candidiasis and nail candida infections, but no invasive fungal infections were reported.³⁶

We also found 1 study of ixekizumab used in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. COAST-V was a phase 3 RCT of patients treated for ankylosing spondylitis in which 164 patients were treated with ixekizumab; no serious AEs were recorded, including 0 deep fungal infections. The most common AEs observed were nasopharyngitis and upper respiratory tract infections.³⁷

Risk for Deep Fungal Infection With Brodalumab
The queried studies included 9 RCTs and 3 clinical trials along with extension trials of 1599 patients with psoriasis or other inflammatory conditions, with follow-up ranging from 12 to 120 weeks. In a phase 2 RCT of Japanese patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, 113 patients were treated with 70, 140, or 210 mg of brodalumab, and the most common AEs were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, and upper respiratory tract inflammation. There were no reported cases of fungal infections in the study.³⁸ In an open-label extension study of Japanese patients that evaluated the long-term clinical safety of brodalumab, 145 patients were enrolled and observed similar AEs to the RCT, with 7 patients experiencing oral candidiasis and 1 patient having skin candidiasis, but there were no observed deep fungal infections.³⁹ In AMG 827, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of brodalumab, 320 patients were treated, and only 2 serious AEs were reported, neither of which were deep fungal disease.¹⁰ A phase 3 RCT conducted by Papp et al⁴⁰ (AMAGINE-1) also treated 441 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with brodalumab and observed candida infections in 9 patients that were mild to moderate and responsive to treatment, with no patients discontinuing the study. In a 120-week open-label extension study of 181 patients, Papp et al⁴¹ reported 8% of patients experienced serious AEs, with 1 case of latent tuberculosis that led to withdrawal of treatment. A study also investigated the efficacy and safety of brodalumab in 30 patients with generalized pustular psoriasis or psoriatic erythroderma and observed 2 cases of mild candida infections that resolved with treatment. There were no reports of invasive fungal disease.⁴²

Our search also resulted in studies of brodalumab used in the treatment of PsA and nonpsoriatic diseases. In one phase 2 RCT, 113 patients with PsA were treated with 140 mg, 280 mg, or combined doses of brodalumab, with the most common AEs being nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and diarrhea, but there were no reports of deep fungal infection.⁴³ In a phase 1b trial of patients with methotrexate-resistant rheumatoid arthritis treated with brodalumab, common AEs reported included headache, cough, and abdominal pain, with only 1 case of oral candidiasis that was determined not to be drug related.⁴⁴ Finally, an RCT of patients with moderate to severe asthma treated 226 patients with brodalumab and reported a greater incidence of oral candidiasis in treatment groups compared with placebo (3.5% vs 0%) but saw no instances of invasive fungal infection.⁴⁵

IL-12/IL-23 Inhibitor

Risk for Deep Fungal Infection With Ustekinumab
The queried studies included 4 RCTs of 954 patients with psoriasis treated with ustekinumab (eTable).^46-49 Within these trials, there were no reported cases of serious infections involving deep fungal organisms during the stated follow-up period. The literature search also found long-term safety data from the ACCEPT and PHOENIX trials that included 5437 patients with psoriasis treated with ustekinumab.^66,67 There also were no demonstrated incidences of invasive fungal disease in these studies, with most cases of infection being common bacterial or viral infections.

IL-23 Inhibitors

Risk for Deep Fungal Infection With Risankizumab, Guselkumab, and Tildrakizumab
The queried studies included 16 RCTs or clinical trials for psoriatic patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors, including 5 with risankizumab,^50-54 9 with guselkumab,^55-63 and 2 with tildrakizumab.^64,65 Within these trials there were no observed cases of serious infections with deep fungal disease.

COMMENT

Our literature review has demonstrated that there does not appear to be an increased incidence of deep fungal infections for patients treated with IL-17, IL-12/IL-23, or IL-23 inhibitors for psoriatic disease. All of the reviewed studies found no cases of invasive fungal infections for patients with psoriasis treated with secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, or tildrakizumab. Patients with other inflammatory conditions, such as ankylosing spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and asthma, also did not appear to show an increased incidence of deep fungal disease.

Although these results show promising safety data for the use of these biologic therapies in treating inflammatory conditions, caution still is warranted, as these medications still are relatively new, with FDA approvals within the last 5 years. Safety data among different study populations also cannot be derived without further investigation, and much of the available literature is limited in long-term data. More extended trials or registry data from a large, broadly representative cohort are necessary to establish the long-term safety and risk for deep fungal infections with IL-17 and especially the newer IL-23 inhibitors.

A small percentage of patients from the reviewed literature did develop superficial candidiasis. This outcome can be expected, as the central role of IL-17 and IL-23 has been recognized in immunologic protection against infections, specifically against fungi.¹¹ Because all of the fungal infections reported for patients on IL-17 inhibitors were superficial candidiasis, guides for practical management and treatment should be implemented to standardize future research and care. A proposed screening algorithm for patients on these biologic therapies involves safety monitoring, including inspection of the oral cavity, folds, and genitals, along with inquiring about symptoms such as burning, dysgeusia, and dysuria.⁶⁸ If infection is suspected, confirmation by culture, molecular method, or optimally with esophagoscopy can be performed, and appropriate treatment may be initiated.⁶⁸ Patients with candida infections of the oral cavity, folds, or genitals can be placed on topical therapy such as nystatin, amphotericin B, ciclopirox, or other azoles, while those with infections of the esophagus can be started on oral fluconazole.⁶⁸

Although there were no reported cases of deep fungal infections, the theoretical risk for developing one while on IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors may warrant further screening prior to beginning therapy. The TNF inhibitors approved for the treatment of psoriasis currently contain a black box warning for risk for disseminated and extrapulmonary histoplasmosis, coccidioidomycosis, blastomycosis, and other invasive fungal infections, which may highlight the importance of thorough evaluation and awareness of endemic areas for patients on biologics. Prior to initiating treatment with TNF inhibitors, current suggestions involve performing a thorough examination along with keeping a high index of suspicion for invasive fungal infections in patients who live in or have traveled to endemic regions.⁶⁹

Screening for invasive fungal infections for patients on TNF inhibitors involves questioning about potential exposures, such as demolition of old buildings, bird roosts, or spelunking.⁷⁰ Serologies or antigen testing can be used routinely, but as these tests are insensitive, empiric antifungal therapy should be initiated if there is high enough clinical suspicion.⁷¹ Currently, there are no clinical guidelines regarding fungal screening and initiation of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors for treatment of psoriasis and other inflammatory conditions, but careful stewardship over using these effective medications should still be practiced.

Upon review of the available safety data on the use of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors for the treatment of psoriasis and other inflammatory conditions, there does not appear to be an increased incidence of deep fungal infections. Physicians, however, should still be cautiously optimistic in prescribing these medications, as there is a theoretical risk for infection for all patients on biologics. A high index of suspicion for patients presenting with symptoms of fungal infections should be maintained, and appropriate diagnosis and management should be initiated if they do occur.

Psoriasis is a common chronic, multisystem, inflammatory disease with predominantly skin and joint manifestations that affects approximately 2% of the world’s population.¹ It occurs in a variety of clinical forms, from a few well-demarcated, erythematous plaques with a silvery scale to involvement of almost the entire body surface area. Beyond the debilitating physical ailments of the disease, psoriasis also may have psychosocial effects on quality of life.² The pathogenesis of psoriasis is not fully understood but represents a complex multifactorial disease with both immune-mediated and genetic components. Characterized by hyperplasia of epidermal keratinocytes, psoriasis is shown to be mediated by infiltration of T-cell lymphocytes with an increase of various inflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α.³ More recently, interactions of helper T cells (T_H17) via IL-17 and IL-23 have been supported to play a major role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis.^4,5

With the growing understanding of the pathophysiology of psoriasis, focused biologics have been developed to target specific cytokines implicated in the disease process and have been increasingly utilized. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, including adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept, along with the IL-12/IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab, have been revolutionary in psoriasis treatment by providing safe and effective long-term therapy; however, there is concern of life-threatening infections with biologics because of the immunosuppressive effects and mechanisms of action.⁶ Specifically, there have been reported cases of deep fungal infections associated with TNF-α inhibitor use.⁷

Recently, the advent of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors has garnered notable interest in these biologics as promising treatments for psoriasis. With IL-17 and IL-23 supported to have a major role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis, targeting the cytokine is not only logical but also has proven to be effacacious.^8-10 Secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab are IL-17 inhibitors that have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of psoriasis. Secukinumab and ixekizumab are anti–IL-17A monoclonal antibodies, whereas brodalumab is an anti–IL-17 receptor antibody. Risankizumab, guselkumab, and tildrakizumab are IL-23 inhibitors that also have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of psoriasis. As with older biologics, there is concern over the safety of these inhibitors because of the central role of IL-17 and IL-23 in both innate and adaptive immune responses, particularly against fungi.¹¹ Therefore, use of biologics targeting IL-17 and IL-23 may increase susceptibility to deep fungal infections.

Safety data and discussion of the risk for deep fungal infections from IL-17, IL-12/IL-23, and IL-23 inhibitor use for psoriasis treatment currently are lacking. Given the knowledge gap, we sought to synthesize and review the current evidence on risks for deep fungal infections during biologic therapy in patients with psoriasis, with a focus on IL-17 inhibitor therapies.

METHODS

A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE from database inception to 2019 (1946-2019) was performed to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including extended trials and clinical trials, for IL-17, IL-12/IL-23, and IL-23 inhibitors approved by the FDA for psoriasis treatment. The following keywords were used: psoriasis or inflammatory disease and secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, or tildrakizumab. Studies were restricted to the English-language literature, and those that did not provide adequate safety data on the specific types of infections that occurred were excluded.

RESULTSIL-17 Inhibitors

Our search yielded RCTs, some including extension trials, and clinical trials of IL-17 inhibitors used for psoriatic disease and other nonpsoriatic conditions (Table).

Risk for Deep Fungal Infection With Secukinumab
The queried studies included 20 RCTs or clinical trials along with extension trials of 3746 patients with psoriasis or other inflammatory conditions, with follow-up ranging from 12 to 52 weeks. In a 3-year extension study of SCULPTURE, Bissonnette et al¹² reported no new safety concerns for the 340 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis treated with secukinumab. Common adverse events (AEs) included nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and headache, but there were no reports of deep fungal infections.¹² In a subsequent 5-year analysis of 168 patients that focused on the 300-mg fixed interval treatment with secukinumab, the safety profile remained favorable, with 0 reports of invasive fungal infections.¹³ A study (FEATURE) of 118 patients with psoriasis treated with a prefilled syringe of 300 or 150 mg of secukinumab also described an acceptable safety profile and reported no deep fungal infections.¹⁴ JUNCTURE, another study utilizing autoinjectors, also found that treatment with 300 or 150 mg of secukinumab was well tolerated in 121 patients, with no deep fungal infections.¹⁵ Common AEs for both studies included nasopharyngitis and headache.^14,15 A 24-week phase 3 study for scalp psoriasis treated with secukinumab also reported 0 deep fungal infections in 51 patients.¹⁶ In an RCT comparing secukinumab and ustekinumab for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, Blauvelt et al¹⁷ demonstrated that the incidence of serious AEs was comparable between the 2 groups, with no reports of invasive fungal infections in the 334 patients exposed to secukinumab. The CLEAR study, which compared secukinumab and ustekinumab, also found no reported deep fungal disease in the 335 patients exposed to secukinumab.¹⁸ Secukinumab exhibited a similar safety profile to ustekinumab in both studies, with common AEs being headache and nasopharyngitis.^17,18 The GESTURE study investigated the efficacy of secukinumab in 137 patients with palmoplantar psoriasis and reported a favorable profile with no reports of deep fungal disease.¹⁹ In a subanalysis of the phase 3 study ERASURE, secukinumab was shown to have a robust and sustainable efficacy in 58 Japanese patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and there were no reports of invasive fungal infections.²⁰ Another subanalysis of 36 Taiwanese patients from the ERASURE study also had similar findings, with no dose relationship observed for AEs.²¹ In a phase 2 study of 103 patients with psoriasis, Papp et al²² demonstrated AE rates that were similar across different doses of secukinumab—3×150 mg, 3×75 mg, 3×25 mg, and 1×25 mg—and described no incidences of invasive fungal disease. In a phase 2 regimen-finding study of 337 patients conducted by Rich et al,²³ the most commonly reported AEs included nasopharyngitis, worsening psoriasis, and upper respiratory tract infections, but there were no reported deep fungal infections.

Our search also resulted in studies specific to the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with secukinumab. McInnes et al⁹ conducted a phase 2 proof-of-concept trial for patients with PsA and reported no deep fungal infections in 28 patients exposed to 10 mg/kg of secukinumab. A 2-year follow-up with the cohort from FUTURE 1, a phase 3 clinical trial, also showed no new or unexpected safety signals in 404 patients exposed to 150 or 75 mg of secukinumab, including no reports of invasive fungal disease.²⁴ FUTURE 2, a phase 3 clinical trial, demonstrated that the most common AE was upper respiratory tract infection in the 299 patients treatedwith secukinumab, but there were no recorded invasive fungal infections.²⁵ In FUTURE 3, 277 patients were treated with secukinumab, with 14 nonserious candida infections but no observed deep fungal infections.²⁶ A study comparing secukinumab to fumaric acid esters reported that 6 of 105 patients treated with secukinumab also experienced superficial candidiasis, but there were no reports of deep fungal disease.²⁷

Secukinumab also has been used in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in a phase 3 RCT (MEASURE 1) in which 4 cases of superficial candidiasis were reported (0.7 cases per 100 patient-years of secukinumab) that were all resolved with standard antifungal therapy.²⁸ In MEASURE 2, a 5-year phase 3 RCT, 145 patients were treated with secukinumab for ankylosing spondylitis, with common AEs including nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, and upper respiratory tract infection, but there were no reports of any invasive fungal infections.²⁹ MEASURE 3 also demonstrated similar results in which no invasive fungal infections were observed.³⁰

Risk for Deep Fungal Infection With Ixekizumab
The queried studies included 7 RCTs or clinical trials of 3523 patients with psoriasis or other inflammatory conditions, with follow-up ranging from 12 to 52 weeks. In UNCOVER-A, a phase 3 RCT of the pharmacokinetics and safety of ixekizumab, 204 patients were randomized to a prefilled syringe or autoinjector; 48% of patients experienced AEs, but no invasive fungal infections were observed.³¹ In an analysis of 3 phase 3 trials of ixekizumab including a total 2334 patients treated with ixekizumab from UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3, oral candidiasis frequently was reported, but no candidal infections met criteria for serious invasive infection.³² In UNCOVER-J, a 52-week phase 3 open-label trial of Japanese patients, 91 patients were treated for plaque psoriasis, erythrodermic psoriasis, or generalized pustular psoriasis using ixekizumab; the most common AEs included allergic reactions and injection-site reactions. One case of oral candidiasis was reported, but there were no reported cases of invasive fungal infections.³³ A comparison of ixekizumab vs ustekinumab from the IXORA-S trial demonstrated no substantial differences in AEs between the two, and no cases of deep fungal infections were reported. The most common AE between the 2 groups was nasopharyngitis.³⁴ An open-label extension over 4 years of a phase 2 RCT treated 211 patients with either 120 or 80 mg of ixekizumab; 87% of patients had experienced at least 1 AE, and all AEs were considered mild or moderate in severity, with no invasive fungal disease.³⁵

Our search also resulted in 1 study specific to the treatment of PsA with ixekizumab. A phase 3, 52-week study of patients treated with ixekizumab for PsA observed 2 incidences of oral candidiasis and nail candida infections, but no invasive fungal infections were reported.³⁶

We also found 1 study of ixekizumab used in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. COAST-V was a phase 3 RCT of patients treated for ankylosing spondylitis in which 164 patients were treated with ixekizumab; no serious AEs were recorded, including 0 deep fungal infections. The most common AEs observed were nasopharyngitis and upper respiratory tract infections.³⁷

Risk for Deep Fungal Infection With Brodalumab
The queried studies included 9 RCTs and 3 clinical trials along with extension trials of 1599 patients with psoriasis or other inflammatory conditions, with follow-up ranging from 12 to 120 weeks. In a phase 2 RCT of Japanese patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, 113 patients were treated with 70, 140, or 210 mg of brodalumab, and the most common AEs were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, and upper respiratory tract inflammation. There were no reported cases of fungal infections in the study.³⁸ In an open-label extension study of Japanese patients that evaluated the long-term clinical safety of brodalumab, 145 patients were enrolled and observed similar AEs to the RCT, with 7 patients experiencing oral candidiasis and 1 patient having skin candidiasis, but there were no observed deep fungal infections.³⁹ In AMG 827, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of brodalumab, 320 patients were treated, and only 2 serious AEs were reported, neither of which were deep fungal disease.¹⁰ A phase 3 RCT conducted by Papp et al⁴⁰ (AMAGINE-1) also treated 441 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with brodalumab and observed candida infections in 9 patients that were mild to moderate and responsive to treatment, with no patients discontinuing the study. In a 120-week open-label extension study of 181 patients, Papp et al⁴¹ reported 8% of patients experienced serious AEs, with 1 case of latent tuberculosis that led to withdrawal of treatment. A study also investigated the efficacy and safety of brodalumab in 30 patients with generalized pustular psoriasis or psoriatic erythroderma and observed 2 cases of mild candida infections that resolved with treatment. There were no reports of invasive fungal disease.⁴²

Our search also resulted in studies of brodalumab used in the treatment of PsA and nonpsoriatic diseases. In one phase 2 RCT, 113 patients with PsA were treated with 140 mg, 280 mg, or combined doses of brodalumab, with the most common AEs being nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and diarrhea, but there were no reports of deep fungal infection.⁴³ In a phase 1b trial of patients with methotrexate-resistant rheumatoid arthritis treated with brodalumab, common AEs reported included headache, cough, and abdominal pain, with only 1 case of oral candidiasis that was determined not to be drug related.⁴⁴ Finally, an RCT of patients with moderate to severe asthma treated 226 patients with brodalumab and reported a greater incidence of oral candidiasis in treatment groups compared with placebo (3.5% vs 0%) but saw no instances of invasive fungal infection.⁴⁵

IL-12/IL-23 Inhibitor

Risk for Deep Fungal Infection With Ustekinumab
The queried studies included 4 RCTs of 954 patients with psoriasis treated with ustekinumab (eTable).^46-49 Within these trials, there were no reported cases of serious infections involving deep fungal organisms during the stated follow-up period. The literature search also found long-term safety data from the ACCEPT and PHOENIX trials that included 5437 patients with psoriasis treated with ustekinumab.^66,67 There also were no demonstrated incidences of invasive fungal disease in these studies, with most cases of infection being common bacterial or viral infections.

IL-23 Inhibitors

Risk for Deep Fungal Infection With Risankizumab, Guselkumab, and Tildrakizumab
The queried studies included 16 RCTs or clinical trials for psoriatic patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors, including 5 with risankizumab,^50-54 9 with guselkumab,^55-63 and 2 with tildrakizumab.^64,65 Within these trials there were no observed cases of serious infections with deep fungal disease.

COMMENT

Our literature review has demonstrated that there does not appear to be an increased incidence of deep fungal infections for patients treated with IL-17, IL-12/IL-23, or IL-23 inhibitors for psoriatic disease. All of the reviewed studies found no cases of invasive fungal infections for patients with psoriasis treated with secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, or tildrakizumab. Patients with other inflammatory conditions, such as ankylosing spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and asthma, also did not appear to show an increased incidence of deep fungal disease.

Although these results show promising safety data for the use of these biologic therapies in treating inflammatory conditions, caution still is warranted, as these medications still are relatively new, with FDA approvals within the last 5 years. Safety data among different study populations also cannot be derived without further investigation, and much of the available literature is limited in long-term data. More extended trials or registry data from a large, broadly representative cohort are necessary to establish the long-term safety and risk for deep fungal infections with IL-17 and especially the newer IL-23 inhibitors.

A small percentage of patients from the reviewed literature did develop superficial candidiasis. This outcome can be expected, as the central role of IL-17 and IL-23 has been recognized in immunologic protection against infections, specifically against fungi.¹¹ Because all of the fungal infections reported for patients on IL-17 inhibitors were superficial candidiasis, guides for practical management and treatment should be implemented to standardize future research and care. A proposed screening algorithm for patients on these biologic therapies involves safety monitoring, including inspection of the oral cavity, folds, and genitals, along with inquiring about symptoms such as burning, dysgeusia, and dysuria.⁶⁸ If infection is suspected, confirmation by culture, molecular method, or optimally with esophagoscopy can be performed, and appropriate treatment may be initiated.⁶⁸ Patients with candida infections of the oral cavity, folds, or genitals can be placed on topical therapy such as nystatin, amphotericin B, ciclopirox, or other azoles, while those with infections of the esophagus can be started on oral fluconazole.⁶⁸

Although there were no reported cases of deep fungal infections, the theoretical risk for developing one while on IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors may warrant further screening prior to beginning therapy. The TNF inhibitors approved for the treatment of psoriasis currently contain a black box warning for risk for disseminated and extrapulmonary histoplasmosis, coccidioidomycosis, blastomycosis, and other invasive fungal infections, which may highlight the importance of thorough evaluation and awareness of endemic areas for patients on biologics. Prior to initiating treatment with TNF inhibitors, current suggestions involve performing a thorough examination along with keeping a high index of suspicion for invasive fungal infections in patients who live in or have traveled to endemic regions.⁶⁹

Screening for invasive fungal infections for patients on TNF inhibitors involves questioning about potential exposures, such as demolition of old buildings, bird roosts, or spelunking.⁷⁰ Serologies or antigen testing can be used routinely, but as these tests are insensitive, empiric antifungal therapy should be initiated if there is high enough clinical suspicion.⁷¹ Currently, there are no clinical guidelines regarding fungal screening and initiation of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors for treatment of psoriasis and other inflammatory conditions, but careful stewardship over using these effective medications should still be practiced.

Upon review of the available safety data on the use of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors for the treatment of psoriasis and other inflammatory conditions, there does not appear to be an increased incidence of deep fungal infections. Physicians, however, should still be cautiously optimistic in prescribing these medications, as there is a theoretical risk for infection for all patients on biologics. A high index of suspicion for patients presenting with symptoms of fungal infections should be maintained, and appropriate diagnosis and management should be initiated if they do occur.

Children should not return to sports for 14 days after exposure to COVID-19, and those with moderate symptoms should undergo an electrocardiogram before returning, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The recommendations, which update the academy’s July 23 guidance, stem from new concerns that the disease can cause myocarditis, said Susannah Briskin, MD, a pediatric sports medicine specialist at Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland.

“There has been emerging evidence about cases of myocarditis occurring in athletes, including athletes who are asymptomatic with COVID-19,” she said in an interview.

The update aligns the AAP recommendations with those from the American College of Cardiologists, she added.

Recent imaging studies have turned up signs of myocarditis in athletes recovering from mild or asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 and have prompted calls for clearer guidelines about imaging studies and return to play.

Viral myocarditis poses a risk to athletes because it can lead to potentially fatal arrhythmias, Dr. Briskin said.

Although children benefit from participating in sports, these activities also put them at risk of contracting COVID-19 and spreading it to others, the guidance noted.

To balance the risks and benefits, the academy proposed guidelines that vary depending on the severity of the presentation.

In the first category are patients with a severe presentation (hypotension, arrhythmias, need for intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, kidney or cardiac failure) or with multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Clinicians should treat these patients as though they have myocarditis. Patients should be restricted from engaging in sports and other exercise for 3-6 months, the guidance stated.

The primary care physician and “appropriate pediatric medical subspecialist, preferably in consultation with a pediatric cardiologist,” should clear them before they return to activities. In examining patients for return to play, clinicians should focus on cardiac symptoms, including chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations, or syncope, the guidance said.

In another category are patients with cardiac symptoms, those with concerning findings on examination, and those with moderate symptoms of COVID-19, including prolonged fever. These patients should undergo an ECG and possibly be referred to a pediatric cardiologist, the guidelines said. These symptoms must be absent for at least 14 days before these patients can return to sports, and the athletes should obtain clearance from their primary care physicians before they resume.

In a third category are patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who have had close contact with someone who was infected but who have not themselves experienced symptoms. These athletes should refrain from sports for at least 14 days, the guidelines said.

Children who don’t fall into any of these categories should not be tested for the virus or antibodies to it before participation in sports, the academy said.

The guidelines don’t vary depending on the sport. But the academy has issued separate guidance for parents and guardians to help them evaluate the risk for COVID-19 transmission by sport.

Athletes participating in “sports that have greater amount of contact time or proximity to people would be at higher risk for contracting COVID-19,” Dr. Briskin said. “But I think that’s all fairly common sense, given the recommendations for non–sport-related activity just in terms of social distancing and masking.”

The new guidance called on sports organizers to minimize contact by, for example, modifying drills and conditioning. It recommended that athletes wear masks except during vigorous exercise or when participating in water sports, as well as in other circumstances in which the mask could become a safety hazard.

They also recommended using handwashing stations or hand sanitizer, avoiding contact with shared surfaces, and avoiding small rooms and areas with poor ventilation.

Dr. Briskin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children should not return to sports for 14 days after exposure to COVID-19, and those with moderate symptoms should undergo an electrocardiogram before returning, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The recommendations, which update the academy’s July 23 guidance, stem from new concerns that the disease can cause myocarditis, said Susannah Briskin, MD, a pediatric sports medicine specialist at Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland.

“There has been emerging evidence about cases of myocarditis occurring in athletes, including athletes who are asymptomatic with COVID-19,” she said in an interview.

The update aligns the AAP recommendations with those from the American College of Cardiologists, she added.

Recent imaging studies have turned up signs of myocarditis in athletes recovering from mild or asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 and have prompted calls for clearer guidelines about imaging studies and return to play.

Viral myocarditis poses a risk to athletes because it can lead to potentially fatal arrhythmias, Dr. Briskin said.

Although children benefit from participating in sports, these activities also put them at risk of contracting COVID-19 and spreading it to others, the guidance noted.

To balance the risks and benefits, the academy proposed guidelines that vary depending on the severity of the presentation.

In the first category are patients with a severe presentation (hypotension, arrhythmias, need for intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, kidney or cardiac failure) or with multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Clinicians should treat these patients as though they have myocarditis. Patients should be restricted from engaging in sports and other exercise for 3-6 months, the guidance stated.

The primary care physician and “appropriate pediatric medical subspecialist, preferably in consultation with a pediatric cardiologist,” should clear them before they return to activities. In examining patients for return to play, clinicians should focus on cardiac symptoms, including chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations, or syncope, the guidance said.

In another category are patients with cardiac symptoms, those with concerning findings on examination, and those with moderate symptoms of COVID-19, including prolonged fever. These patients should undergo an ECG and possibly be referred to a pediatric cardiologist, the guidelines said. These symptoms must be absent for at least 14 days before these patients can return to sports, and the athletes should obtain clearance from their primary care physicians before they resume.

In a third category are patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who have had close contact with someone who was infected but who have not themselves experienced symptoms. These athletes should refrain from sports for at least 14 days, the guidelines said.

Children who don’t fall into any of these categories should not be tested for the virus or antibodies to it before participation in sports, the academy said.

The guidelines don’t vary depending on the sport. But the academy has issued separate guidance for parents and guardians to help them evaluate the risk for COVID-19 transmission by sport.

Athletes participating in “sports that have greater amount of contact time or proximity to people would be at higher risk for contracting COVID-19,” Dr. Briskin said. “But I think that’s all fairly common sense, given the recommendations for non–sport-related activity just in terms of social distancing and masking.”

The new guidance called on sports organizers to minimize contact by, for example, modifying drills and conditioning. It recommended that athletes wear masks except during vigorous exercise or when participating in water sports, as well as in other circumstances in which the mask could become a safety hazard.

They also recommended using handwashing stations or hand sanitizer, avoiding contact with shared surfaces, and avoiding small rooms and areas with poor ventilation.

Dr. Briskin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children should not return to sports for 14 days after exposure to COVID-19, and those with moderate symptoms should undergo an electrocardiogram before returning, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The recommendations, which update the academy’s July 23 guidance, stem from new concerns that the disease can cause myocarditis, said Susannah Briskin, MD, a pediatric sports medicine specialist at Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland.

“There has been emerging evidence about cases of myocarditis occurring in athletes, including athletes who are asymptomatic with COVID-19,” she said in an interview.

The update aligns the AAP recommendations with those from the American College of Cardiologists, she added.

Recent imaging studies have turned up signs of myocarditis in athletes recovering from mild or asymptomatic cases of COVID-19 and have prompted calls for clearer guidelines about imaging studies and return to play.

Viral myocarditis poses a risk to athletes because it can lead to potentially fatal arrhythmias, Dr. Briskin said.

Although children benefit from participating in sports, these activities also put them at risk of contracting COVID-19 and spreading it to others, the guidance noted.

To balance the risks and benefits, the academy proposed guidelines that vary depending on the severity of the presentation.

In the first category are patients with a severe presentation (hypotension, arrhythmias, need for intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, kidney or cardiac failure) or with multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Clinicians should treat these patients as though they have myocarditis. Patients should be restricted from engaging in sports and other exercise for 3-6 months, the guidance stated.

The primary care physician and “appropriate pediatric medical subspecialist, preferably in consultation with a pediatric cardiologist,” should clear them before they return to activities. In examining patients for return to play, clinicians should focus on cardiac symptoms, including chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, palpitations, or syncope, the guidance said.

In another category are patients with cardiac symptoms, those with concerning findings on examination, and those with moderate symptoms of COVID-19, including prolonged fever. These patients should undergo an ECG and possibly be referred to a pediatric cardiologist, the guidelines said. These symptoms must be absent for at least 14 days before these patients can return to sports, and the athletes should obtain clearance from their primary care physicians before they resume.

In a third category are patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who have had close contact with someone who was infected but who have not themselves experienced symptoms. These athletes should refrain from sports for at least 14 days, the guidelines said.

Children who don’t fall into any of these categories should not be tested for the virus or antibodies to it before participation in sports, the academy said.

The guidelines don’t vary depending on the sport. But the academy has issued separate guidance for parents and guardians to help them evaluate the risk for COVID-19 transmission by sport.

Athletes participating in “sports that have greater amount of contact time or proximity to people would be at higher risk for contracting COVID-19,” Dr. Briskin said. “But I think that’s all fairly common sense, given the recommendations for non–sport-related activity just in terms of social distancing and masking.”

The new guidance called on sports organizers to minimize contact by, for example, modifying drills and conditioning. It recommended that athletes wear masks except during vigorous exercise or when participating in water sports, as well as in other circumstances in which the mask could become a safety hazard.

They also recommended using handwashing stations or hand sanitizer, avoiding contact with shared surfaces, and avoiding small rooms and areas with poor ventilation.

Dr. Briskin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.

“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.

Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.

Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.

Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.

The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.

After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:

• CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
• Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
• All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).

“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.

Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.

Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.

“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.

“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.

The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”

She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.

“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”

Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.

“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.

Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.

Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.

Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.

The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.

After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:

• CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
• Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
• All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).

“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.

Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.

Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.

“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.

“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.

The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”

She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.

“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”

Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.

“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.

Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.

Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.

Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.

The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.

After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:

• CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
• Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
• All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).

“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.

Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.

Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.

“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.

“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.

The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”

She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.

“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”

Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), MRI has provided a key indication of disease presence and activity. With the availability of serum neurofilament (sNfL) assays, disease activity can be correlated with sNfL levels.

Dr Tobias Derfuss, from University Hospital Basel in Basel, Switzerland, discusses emerging research reported at the ACTRIMS/ECTRIMS 2020 Virtual Meeting, focusing on the use of sNfL as a biomarker for monitoring treatment response and disease activity in RRMS.

Dr Derfuss highlights one study in which longitudinal observations showed that high levels of sNfL at baseline are associated with a high risk for gadolinium-enhancing lesions; the study authors suggest that quarterly monitoring may be adequate for surveillance of subclinical disease.

In another study, higher sNfL levels at baseline were linked to a higher risk for T2 lesions and a more pronounced brain atrophy rate, but disability progression was not correlated to baseline sNfL levels.

Finally, Dr Derfuss reports on a real-world, large cohort study supporting the value of sNfL to capture and predict disability progression independent of relapses.

Tobias J. Derfuss, MD, Professor, Head of Outpatient Clinic, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Board, Basel, Switzerland

Tobias J. Derfuss, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:­ Received financial compensation for his activities in advisory boards, steering committees, data safety monitoring boards, and consultation for: Novartis; Merck; Biogen; Celgene; Actelion; Mitsubishi Pharma; MedDay; Roche; Sanofi Genzyme. Received research grant from: Novartis; Biogen; Roche; Swiss National Science Foundation; European Union; Swiss MS Society. Spouse is an employee of and holds stock options in: Novartis

In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), MRI has provided a key indication of disease presence and activity. With the availability of serum neurofilament (sNfL) assays, disease activity can be correlated with sNfL levels.

Dr Tobias Derfuss, from University Hospital Basel in Basel, Switzerland, discusses emerging research reported at the ACTRIMS/ECTRIMS 2020 Virtual Meeting, focusing on the use of sNfL as a biomarker for monitoring treatment response and disease activity in RRMS.

Dr Derfuss highlights one study in which longitudinal observations showed that high levels of sNfL at baseline are associated with a high risk for gadolinium-enhancing lesions; the study authors suggest that quarterly monitoring may be adequate for surveillance of subclinical disease.

In another study, higher sNfL levels at baseline were linked to a higher risk for T2 lesions and a more pronounced brain atrophy rate, but disability progression was not correlated to baseline sNfL levels.

Finally, Dr Derfuss reports on a real-world, large cohort study supporting the value of sNfL to capture and predict disability progression independent of relapses.

Tobias J. Derfuss, MD, Professor, Head of Outpatient Clinic, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Board, Basel, Switzerland

Tobias J. Derfuss, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:­ Received financial compensation for his activities in advisory boards, steering committees, data safety monitoring boards, and consultation for: Novartis; Merck; Biogen; Celgene; Actelion; Mitsubishi Pharma; MedDay; Roche; Sanofi Genzyme. Received research grant from: Novartis; Biogen; Roche; Swiss National Science Foundation; European Union; Swiss MS Society. Spouse is an employee of and holds stock options in: Novartis

In relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), MRI has provided a key indication of disease presence and activity. With the availability of serum neurofilament (sNfL) assays, disease activity can be correlated with sNfL levels.

Dr Tobias Derfuss, from University Hospital Basel in Basel, Switzerland, discusses emerging research reported at the ACTRIMS/ECTRIMS 2020 Virtual Meeting, focusing on the use of sNfL as a biomarker for monitoring treatment response and disease activity in RRMS.

Dr Derfuss highlights one study in which longitudinal observations showed that high levels of sNfL at baseline are associated with a high risk for gadolinium-enhancing lesions; the study authors suggest that quarterly monitoring may be adequate for surveillance of subclinical disease.

In another study, higher sNfL levels at baseline were linked to a higher risk for T2 lesions and a more pronounced brain atrophy rate, but disability progression was not correlated to baseline sNfL levels.

Finally, Dr Derfuss reports on a real-world, large cohort study supporting the value of sNfL to capture and predict disability progression independent of relapses.

Tobias J. Derfuss, MD, Professor, Head of Outpatient Clinic, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Board, Basel, Switzerland

Tobias J. Derfuss, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:­ Received financial compensation for his activities in advisory boards, steering committees, data safety monitoring boards, and consultation for: Novartis; Merck; Biogen; Celgene; Actelion; Mitsubishi Pharma; MedDay; Roche; Sanofi Genzyme. Received research grant from: Novartis; Biogen; Roche; Swiss National Science Foundation; European Union; Swiss MS Society. Spouse is an employee of and holds stock options in: Novartis

Having been a reader of Pediatric News for years, I want to bring to light access-to-care issues involving COVID-19 medical facility restrictions for pediatric patients and their parents.

On March 27, 2020, I received a phone call from the Department of Human Services pleading with me to take a medically fragile child who was entering the foster care system that day. He had very specific needs, and they had no one available who could medically meet those needs. The week prior was my kids’ scheduled spring break; the week I got the call was the week that I was voluntarily furloughed from my job as a pediatric nurse practitioner so that I could stay home with my kids as their school would not be reopening for the year, and someone had to be with them. I was already home with my 3-year-old and 6-year-old, so why not add another?

Leo (name changed for privacy) came to me with a multitude of diagnoses, to say the least. Not only did he require physical, speech, and occupational therapy twice weekly, but he often had appointments with 10 different specialists at the local children’s hospital. The first few weeks he was in my care, we had almost daily visits to either therapists or specialists. Keeping up with these types of appointments in a normal world is difficult ... I was getting the crash course on how to navigate all of it in the COVID-19 world.

So now, I am the primary caregiver during the day for my two children and our medically fragile foster child who has multiple medical appointments a week. Our local children’s hospital allowed only the caregiver to accompany him to his visits. In theory this sounds great, right? Fewer people in a facility equals less exposure, less risk, and fewer COVID-19 infections.

But what about the negative consequences of these hospital policies? I have two other children I was caring for. I couldn’t take them to their grandparents’ house because people over age 65 years are at risk of having COVID-19 complications. I had been furloughed, so our income was half what it typically was. Regardless, I had to hire a babysitter each time I took our foster child to the hospital for his appointments because they would not allow my children to accompany me.

Now imagine if I were a single mom who had three kids and a lesser paying job. Schools are closed and she’s forced to work from home and homeschool her children. Or worse, she’s been laid off and living on unemployment. Do you think she is going to have the time or finances available to hire a babysitter so that she can take her medically fragile child in for his cardiology follow-up? Because not only does she have to pay the copays and whatever insurance doesn’t cover, but now she has to fork over $50 for child care. If you don’t know the answer already, it’s no, she does not have the time or the finances. So her child misses a cardiology appointment, which means that his meds weren’t increased according to his growth, which means his pulmonary hypertension is not controlled, which worsens his heart failure ... you get my drift.

Fast forward to Sept. 22, 2020. I had a cardiology appointment at our local heart hospital for myself. It’s 2020, people, I’ve been having some palpitations that I needed checked out and was going in to have a heart monitor patch placed. I had my 4-year-old son with me because he is on a hybrid schedule where we homeschool 2 days a week. We entered the building wearing masks, and I was immediately stopped by security and informed that, according to the COVID-19 policy for their hospital, children under 16 are not allowed to enter the building. After some discussion, I was ultimately refused care because my son was with me that day. Refused care because I had a masked 4-year-old with a normal temperature at my side.

These policies are not working. We are in health care. It should not matter what pandemic is on the table, we should not be refusing patients access to care based on who is by their side that day. We knew the risks when we entered our profession, and we know the proper measures to protect ourselves. Our patients also know the risks and can protect themselves accordingly.

So this is my plea to all medical facilities out there: Stop. Stop telling people their loved ones can’t accompany them to appointments. Stop telling caregivers to wait in their cars while their elderly, demented mothers have their annual physicals. Stop telling moms they need to leave their other children at home. This is now a huge access-to-care issue nationwide and it needs to stop. Excess deaths in our nation are soaring, and it’s not just because people don’t want to seek medical attention; it’s because medical facilities are making it almost impossible to seek help for many. People are dying, and it’s not only from COVID-19. This is on us as health care providers, and we need to step up to the plate and do what is right.
 

Ms. Baxendale is a nurse practitioner in Mustang, Okla. Email her at [email protected].

Having been a reader of Pediatric News for years, I want to bring to light access-to-care issues involving COVID-19 medical facility restrictions for pediatric patients and their parents.

On March 27, 2020, I received a phone call from the Department of Human Services pleading with me to take a medically fragile child who was entering the foster care system that day. He had very specific needs, and they had no one available who could medically meet those needs. The week prior was my kids’ scheduled spring break; the week I got the call was the week that I was voluntarily furloughed from my job as a pediatric nurse practitioner so that I could stay home with my kids as their school would not be reopening for the year, and someone had to be with them. I was already home with my 3-year-old and 6-year-old, so why not add another?

Leo (name changed for privacy) came to me with a multitude of diagnoses, to say the least. Not only did he require physical, speech, and occupational therapy twice weekly, but he often had appointments with 10 different specialists at the local children’s hospital. The first few weeks he was in my care, we had almost daily visits to either therapists or specialists. Keeping up with these types of appointments in a normal world is difficult ... I was getting the crash course on how to navigate all of it in the COVID-19 world.

So now, I am the primary caregiver during the day for my two children and our medically fragile foster child who has multiple medical appointments a week. Our local children’s hospital allowed only the caregiver to accompany him to his visits. In theory this sounds great, right? Fewer people in a facility equals less exposure, less risk, and fewer COVID-19 infections.

But what about the negative consequences of these hospital policies? I have two other children I was caring for. I couldn’t take them to their grandparents’ house because people over age 65 years are at risk of having COVID-19 complications. I had been furloughed, so our income was half what it typically was. Regardless, I had to hire a babysitter each time I took our foster child to the hospital for his appointments because they would not allow my children to accompany me.

Now imagine if I were a single mom who had three kids and a lesser paying job. Schools are closed and she’s forced to work from home and homeschool her children. Or worse, she’s been laid off and living on unemployment. Do you think she is going to have the time or finances available to hire a babysitter so that she can take her medically fragile child in for his cardiology follow-up? Because not only does she have to pay the copays and whatever insurance doesn’t cover, but now she has to fork over $50 for child care. If you don’t know the answer already, it’s no, she does not have the time or the finances. So her child misses a cardiology appointment, which means that his meds weren’t increased according to his growth, which means his pulmonary hypertension is not controlled, which worsens his heart failure ... you get my drift.

Fast forward to Sept. 22, 2020. I had a cardiology appointment at our local heart hospital for myself. It’s 2020, people, I’ve been having some palpitations that I needed checked out and was going in to have a heart monitor patch placed. I had my 4-year-old son with me because he is on a hybrid schedule where we homeschool 2 days a week. We entered the building wearing masks, and I was immediately stopped by security and informed that, according to the COVID-19 policy for their hospital, children under 16 are not allowed to enter the building. After some discussion, I was ultimately refused care because my son was with me that day. Refused care because I had a masked 4-year-old with a normal temperature at my side.

These policies are not working. We are in health care. It should not matter what pandemic is on the table, we should not be refusing patients access to care based on who is by their side that day. We knew the risks when we entered our profession, and we know the proper measures to protect ourselves. Our patients also know the risks and can protect themselves accordingly.

So this is my plea to all medical facilities out there: Stop. Stop telling people their loved ones can’t accompany them to appointments. Stop telling caregivers to wait in their cars while their elderly, demented mothers have their annual physicals. Stop telling moms they need to leave their other children at home. This is now a huge access-to-care issue nationwide and it needs to stop. Excess deaths in our nation are soaring, and it’s not just because people don’t want to seek medical attention; it’s because medical facilities are making it almost impossible to seek help for many. People are dying, and it’s not only from COVID-19. This is on us as health care providers, and we need to step up to the plate and do what is right.
 

Ms. Baxendale is a nurse practitioner in Mustang, Okla. Email her at [email protected].

Having been a reader of Pediatric News for years, I want to bring to light access-to-care issues involving COVID-19 medical facility restrictions for pediatric patients and their parents.

On March 27, 2020, I received a phone call from the Department of Human Services pleading with me to take a medically fragile child who was entering the foster care system that day. He had very specific needs, and they had no one available who could medically meet those needs. The week prior was my kids’ scheduled spring break; the week I got the call was the week that I was voluntarily furloughed from my job as a pediatric nurse practitioner so that I could stay home with my kids as their school would not be reopening for the year, and someone had to be with them. I was already home with my 3-year-old and 6-year-old, so why not add another?

Leo (name changed for privacy) came to me with a multitude of diagnoses, to say the least. Not only did he require physical, speech, and occupational therapy twice weekly, but he often had appointments with 10 different specialists at the local children’s hospital. The first few weeks he was in my care, we had almost daily visits to either therapists or specialists. Keeping up with these types of appointments in a normal world is difficult ... I was getting the crash course on how to navigate all of it in the COVID-19 world.

So now, I am the primary caregiver during the day for my two children and our medically fragile foster child who has multiple medical appointments a week. Our local children’s hospital allowed only the caregiver to accompany him to his visits. In theory this sounds great, right? Fewer people in a facility equals less exposure, less risk, and fewer COVID-19 infections.

But what about the negative consequences of these hospital policies? I have two other children I was caring for. I couldn’t take them to their grandparents’ house because people over age 65 years are at risk of having COVID-19 complications. I had been furloughed, so our income was half what it typically was. Regardless, I had to hire a babysitter each time I took our foster child to the hospital for his appointments because they would not allow my children to accompany me.

Now imagine if I were a single mom who had three kids and a lesser paying job. Schools are closed and she’s forced to work from home and homeschool her children. Or worse, she’s been laid off and living on unemployment. Do you think she is going to have the time or finances available to hire a babysitter so that she can take her medically fragile child in for his cardiology follow-up? Because not only does she have to pay the copays and whatever insurance doesn’t cover, but now she has to fork over $50 for child care. If you don’t know the answer already, it’s no, she does not have the time or the finances. So her child misses a cardiology appointment, which means that his meds weren’t increased according to his growth, which means his pulmonary hypertension is not controlled, which worsens his heart failure ... you get my drift.

Fast forward to Sept. 22, 2020. I had a cardiology appointment at our local heart hospital for myself. It’s 2020, people, I’ve been having some palpitations that I needed checked out and was going in to have a heart monitor patch placed. I had my 4-year-old son with me because he is on a hybrid schedule where we homeschool 2 days a week. We entered the building wearing masks, and I was immediately stopped by security and informed that, according to the COVID-19 policy for their hospital, children under 16 are not allowed to enter the building. After some discussion, I was ultimately refused care because my son was with me that day. Refused care because I had a masked 4-year-old with a normal temperature at my side.

These policies are not working. We are in health care. It should not matter what pandemic is on the table, we should not be refusing patients access to care based on who is by their side that day. We knew the risks when we entered our profession, and we know the proper measures to protect ourselves. Our patients also know the risks and can protect themselves accordingly.

So this is my plea to all medical facilities out there: Stop. Stop telling people their loved ones can’t accompany them to appointments. Stop telling caregivers to wait in their cars while their elderly, demented mothers have their annual physicals. Stop telling moms they need to leave their other children at home. This is now a huge access-to-care issue nationwide and it needs to stop. Excess deaths in our nation are soaring, and it’s not just because people don’t want to seek medical attention; it’s because medical facilities are making it almost impossible to seek help for many. People are dying, and it’s not only from COVID-19. This is on us as health care providers, and we need to step up to the plate and do what is right.
 

Ms. Baxendale is a nurse practitioner in Mustang, Okla. Email her at [email protected].

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is an autosomal dominant inherited disorder that is estimated to occur in 1:2500 births and to have a prevalence of 1:2000 to 1:4000.^1,2 It was first described in 1882 by Friedrich Daniel Von Recklinghausen, who identified patients and their relatives with signs of neuroectodermal abnormalities (café-au-lait macules [CALMs], axillary and inguinal freckling, and neurofibromas).

NF1 may begin insidiously in childhood and evolves as the patient ages. It is associated with intracranial, intraspinal, and intraorbital neoplasms, although other organs and tissues can also be involved.

The family physician might be the first one to recognize the signs of this condition during a well-child exam and is in a unique position to coordinate a multidisciplinary approach to care.

A mutated allele and early manifestations on the skin

NF1 has been attributed to genetic mosaicism and is classified as segmental, generalized, or (less frequently) gonadal. The disorder results from germline mutations in the NF1 tumor-suppressor gene on chromosome 17, known to codify the cytoplasmic protein called neurofibromin.³ The penetrance of NF1 is complete, which means that 100% of patients with the mutated allele will develop the disease.

Patients typically have symptoms by the third decade of life, although many will show signs of the disease in early childhood. CALMs are the earliest expression of NF1. They manifest in the first 2 years of life and are found in almost all affected patients. The lesions are well defined and measure 10 to 40 mm. They are typically light brown, although they may darken with sun exposure.

Histologically, the lesions will show macromelanosomes and high concentrations of melanin but do not represent an increased risk for malignancy.⁴ Not all isolated CALMs are a sign of NF1. While children younger than 29 months with 6 or more CALMs have a high risk for NF1 (80.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 74.6% to 86.2%), those who are older than 29 months with at least 1 atypical CALM or fewer than 6 CALMs have just a 0.9% (95% CI, 0% to 2.6%) risk for constitutional NF1.⁵

Freckles are also observed in 90% of patients with NF1; these tend to develop after the third year of life. The breast and trunk are the most commonly affected areas in adults. The pathophysiology is unknown, but this freckling is believed to be related to skin friction, high humidity, and ambient temperature.⁶

Continue to: Neurofibromas are benign...

Some patients show disfiguration when hundreds of neurofibromas are present.

Neurofibromas are benign subcutaneous palpable lesions that grow within peripheral nerve tissue, including spinal, subcutaneous, plexiform, or dermal encapsulated nerves. Originating in Schwann cells, they are composed of fibroblasts, mast cells, macrophages, endothelial cells, and other perineural cells. Some patients show disfiguration when hundreds of these masses are present (FIGURE). These tumors increase in number as the patient ages or during pregnancy, which is thought to be secondary to hormonal changes.⁷ They are sometimes painful and can be pruritic. Their appearance can also cause patient distress.

The diagnosis is a clinical one

Suspicion for NF1 should be high in patients presenting with the dermatologic findings described, although CALMs and freckling are not exclusive to NF1. Diagnostic criteria for NF1, which distinguish it from other conditions, were first outlined in a National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement in 1987.⁸ The list of criteria has subsequently been expanded.

While the presence of at least 2 criteria is required for diagnosis,² NF1 should be suspected in individuals who have any of the following findings^8,9:

• the presence of at least 6 CALMs that are > 5 mm in prepubertal children and > 15 mm in adults
• 2 or more neurofibromas of any type, or at least one plexiform neurofibroma
• axillary or groin freckling
• optic pathway glioma
• 2 or more Lisch nodules (iris hamartomas seen on slit-lamp examination)
• bony dysplasia (sphenoid wing dysplasia, bowing of long bone ± pseudarthrosis)
• first-degree relative with NF1.

What you’ll see as the disease progresses

NF1 can affect a variety of systems, and potential complications of the disease are numerous and varied (see TABLE⁹). Here is some of what you may see as the patient’s disease progresses to various organ systems:

Learning disabilities and other cognitive and behavioral problems, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, may affect up to 70% of children with NF1. Additionally, children with NF1 have visual/spatial problems, impaired visual motor integration, and language deficits.¹⁰ The etiology of cognitive impairment in NF1 is unknown.¹¹  

Continue to: Hypertension

Hypertension is common and may contribute to premature death in patients with NF1. Up to 27% of patients will have significant cardiovascular anomalies, including pulmonary valve stenosis, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in patients with complete deletions of the NF1 gene, intracardiac neurofibromas, renal artery stenosis, coarctation of the aorta, and cerebral infarctions.¹² Renal artery stenosis occurs in approximately 2% of the NF1 population, and the diagnosis should be considered in hypertensive children, young adults, pregnant women, older individuals with refractory hypertension, and those with an abdominal bruit.¹³

Psychological issues. The disfigurement caused by neurofibromas and the uncertainty of an unpredictable disease course can cause psychological manifestations for patients with NF1. Anxiety and depression are common. Not surprisingly, patients with more severe disease report more adverse psychological effects.

Orthopedic deformities. Spinal deformities are the most common skeletal manifestation of NF1, with an incidence estimated from 10% to 25% in various studies. Bone mineral density, as measured by age- and gender-adjusted Z-scores, is significantly lower in NF1 patients than in the general population.¹⁴ Children may develop bowing of the long bones, particularly the tibia, and pseudarthrosis, a false joint in a long bone. Children with NF1 need yearly assessment of the spine. Patients with clinical evidence of scoliosis should be referred to Orthopedics for further evaluation.

Eye issues. A majority of adult patients develop neurofibroma-like nodules in the iris known as Lisch nodules. The nodules are not thought to cause any ophthalmologic complications. Patients may also develop palpebral neurofibroma, which may become large and sporadically show malignant transformation. Optic nerve glioma may cause strabismus and proptosis, and a large number of patients will also develop glaucoma and globe enlargement.¹⁵

Gastrointestinal lesions and cancer. Neurofibromas can grow in the stomach, liver, mesentery, retroperitoneum, and bowel. Adenocarcinoma developed in 23% of patients.¹⁶ Gastrointestinal tract bleeding, pseudo-obstruction, and protein-losing enteropathy also may occur.¹⁷

Continue to: Central nervous system manifestations

Central nervous system manifestations. Neurological manifestations have been observed in 55% of patients with NF1.¹⁸ These include headache, hydrocephalus, epilepsy, lacunar stroke, white matter disease, intraspinal neurofibroma, facial palsy, radiculopathy, and polyneuropathy. Tumors include optic pathway tumors, meningioma, and cerebral glioma. Glioma is the predominant tumor type in NF1 and occurs in all parts of the nervous system, with a predilection for the optic pathways, brainstem, and cerebellum.¹⁸

Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors. There is an 8% to 13% lifetime risk for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST), predominantly in individuals between the ages of 20 and 35.^19,20 Any change in neurofibroma from soft to hard, or a rapid increase in the size, is suspicious for MPNST. Other symptoms include persistent pain lasting for longer than a month, pain that disturbs sleep, and new neurological deficits. These cancers can be hard to detect, leading to poor prognosis secondary to metastasis.^19,20 The greatest risk factors for MPNST are pain associated with a mass and the presence of cutaneous and subcutaneous neurofibromas.²¹

Treatment is symptom based, but there is a new option

Treatment is individualized to the patient’s symptoms. Neurofibromas that are disfiguring, disruptive, or malignant may be surgically removed.

In April 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved selumetinib (Koselugo) for the treatment of pediatric patients (ages ≥ 2 years) with NF1 who have symptomatic, inoperable plexiform neurofibromas (PNs).²² In a clinical trial, patients received selumetinib 25 mg/m² orally twice a day until they demonstrated disease progression or experienced “unacceptable” adverse events.^22,23 The overall response rate was 66%, defined as “the percentage of patients with a complete response and those who experienced more than a 20% reduction in PN volume on MRI that was confirmed on a subsequent MRI within 3 to 6 months.”²²

In light of the condition’s heterogeneity, the goals of care include early recognition and treatment of complications, especially neoplasms.

Of note, all patients had a partial, not complete, response. Common adverse effects included vomiting, rash, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and nausea.²³ Selumetinib may also cause more serious adverse effects, including cardiomyopathy and ocular toxicity. Prior to treatment initiation and at regular intervals during treatment, patients should undergo cardiac and ophthalmic evaluation.^22,23 Selumetinib was granted priority review and orphan drug status by the FDA.²²

Continue to: You play a key role in ongoing monitoring

In light of the condition’s heterogeneity, the goals of care include early recognition and treatment of complications, especially neoplasms; optimization of quality of life; and identification and treatment of comorbidities. Family physicians are well positioned to monitor patients with NF1 for age-specific disease manifestations and potential complications.⁹ All patients require:

• an annual physical examination by a physician who is familiar with the individual and with the disease
• annual ophthalmologic examination in early childhood; less frequent examination in older children and adults
• regular blood pressure monitoring
• other studies (eg, MRI) only as indicated on the basis of clinically apparent signs or symptoms
• monitoring by an appropriate specialist if there are abnormalities of the central nervous, skeletal, or cardiovascular systems
• referral to a neurologist for any unexplained neurological signs and symptoms. Referral should be urgent if there are acute symptoms of progressive sensory disturbance, motor deficit and incoordination, or sphincter disturbances since these might indicate an intracranial lesion or spinal cord compression. Headaches on waking, morning vomiting, and altered consciousness are suggestive of raised intracranial pressure.

Children with NF1 benefit from coordinated care between the FP and a pediatrician or other specialist familiar with the disease. In addition to providing usual well care, perform regular assessment of development and school performance. Pay careful attention to the cardiovascular system (particularly blood pressure) and evaluate for scoliosis.

Young adults should be continually monitored for all complications, especially hypertension. This population requires continued education about NF1 and its possible complications and may benefit from counseling about disease inheritance. Screen for anxiety and depression; offer psychological support.

Provide adult patients with education about complications, especially malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors and spinal cord compression.

Adults require monitoring based on patient preference and disease severity. For this population, blood pressure should be measured annually, or more frequently if the patient’s values indicate borderline hypertension. Provide education about complications, especially MPNSTs and spinal cord compression. Patients who have abnormalities of the central nervous, skeletal, or cardiovascular systems should be monitored by an appropriate specialist. If desired, the patient may be referred to a geneticist, especially if he or she expresses concern about inheritance. Cutaneous neurofibromas can be removed if they cause discomfort, although removal occasionally results in neurological deficit.

CORRESPONDENCE
T. Grant Phillips, MD, Associate Director, UPMC Altoona Family Physicians Residency, 501 Howard Avenue, Altoona, PA 16601-4899; [email protected]

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is an autosomal dominant inherited disorder that is estimated to occur in 1:2500 births and to have a prevalence of 1:2000 to 1:4000.^1,2 It was first described in 1882 by Friedrich Daniel Von Recklinghausen, who identified patients and their relatives with signs of neuroectodermal abnormalities (café-au-lait macules [CALMs], axillary and inguinal freckling, and neurofibromas).

NF1 may begin insidiously in childhood and evolves as the patient ages. It is associated with intracranial, intraspinal, and intraorbital neoplasms, although other organs and tissues can also be involved.

The family physician might be the first one to recognize the signs of this condition during a well-child exam and is in a unique position to coordinate a multidisciplinary approach to care.

A mutated allele and early manifestations on the skin

NF1 has been attributed to genetic mosaicism and is classified as segmental, generalized, or (less frequently) gonadal. The disorder results from germline mutations in the NF1 tumor-suppressor gene on chromosome 17, known to codify the cytoplasmic protein called neurofibromin.³ The penetrance of NF1 is complete, which means that 100% of patients with the mutated allele will develop the disease.

Patients typically have symptoms by the third decade of life, although many will show signs of the disease in early childhood. CALMs are the earliest expression of NF1. They manifest in the first 2 years of life and are found in almost all affected patients. The lesions are well defined and measure 10 to 40 mm. They are typically light brown, although they may darken with sun exposure.

Histologically, the lesions will show macromelanosomes and high concentrations of melanin but do not represent an increased risk for malignancy.⁴ Not all isolated CALMs are a sign of NF1. While children younger than 29 months with 6 or more CALMs have a high risk for NF1 (80.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 74.6% to 86.2%), those who are older than 29 months with at least 1 atypical CALM or fewer than 6 CALMs have just a 0.9% (95% CI, 0% to 2.6%) risk for constitutional NF1.⁵

Freckles are also observed in 90% of patients with NF1; these tend to develop after the third year of life. The breast and trunk are the most commonly affected areas in adults. The pathophysiology is unknown, but this freckling is believed to be related to skin friction, high humidity, and ambient temperature.⁶

Continue to: Neurofibromas are benign...

Some patients show disfiguration when hundreds of neurofibromas are present.

Neurofibromas are benign subcutaneous palpable lesions that grow within peripheral nerve tissue, including spinal, subcutaneous, plexiform, or dermal encapsulated nerves. Originating in Schwann cells, they are composed of fibroblasts, mast cells, macrophages, endothelial cells, and other perineural cells. Some patients show disfiguration when hundreds of these masses are present (FIGURE). These tumors increase in number as the patient ages or during pregnancy, which is thought to be secondary to hormonal changes.⁷ They are sometimes painful and can be pruritic. Their appearance can also cause patient distress.

The diagnosis is a clinical one

Suspicion for NF1 should be high in patients presenting with the dermatologic findings described, although CALMs and freckling are not exclusive to NF1. Diagnostic criteria for NF1, which distinguish it from other conditions, were first outlined in a National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement in 1987.⁸ The list of criteria has subsequently been expanded.

While the presence of at least 2 criteria is required for diagnosis,² NF1 should be suspected in individuals who have any of the following findings^8,9:

• the presence of at least 6 CALMs that are > 5 mm in prepubertal children and > 15 mm in adults
• 2 or more neurofibromas of any type, or at least one plexiform neurofibroma
• axillary or groin freckling
• optic pathway glioma
• 2 or more Lisch nodules (iris hamartomas seen on slit-lamp examination)
• bony dysplasia (sphenoid wing dysplasia, bowing of long bone ± pseudarthrosis)
• first-degree relative with NF1.

What you’ll see as the disease progresses

NF1 can affect a variety of systems, and potential complications of the disease are numerous and varied (see TABLE⁹). Here is some of what you may see as the patient’s disease progresses to various organ systems:

Learning disabilities and other cognitive and behavioral problems, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, may affect up to 70% of children with NF1. Additionally, children with NF1 have visual/spatial problems, impaired visual motor integration, and language deficits.¹⁰ The etiology of cognitive impairment in NF1 is unknown.¹¹  

Continue to: Hypertension

Hypertension is common and may contribute to premature death in patients with NF1. Up to 27% of patients will have significant cardiovascular anomalies, including pulmonary valve stenosis, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in patients with complete deletions of the NF1 gene, intracardiac neurofibromas, renal artery stenosis, coarctation of the aorta, and cerebral infarctions.¹² Renal artery stenosis occurs in approximately 2% of the NF1 population, and the diagnosis should be considered in hypertensive children, young adults, pregnant women, older individuals with refractory hypertension, and those with an abdominal bruit.¹³

Psychological issues. The disfigurement caused by neurofibromas and the uncertainty of an unpredictable disease course can cause psychological manifestations for patients with NF1. Anxiety and depression are common. Not surprisingly, patients with more severe disease report more adverse psychological effects.

Orthopedic deformities. Spinal deformities are the most common skeletal manifestation of NF1, with an incidence estimated from 10% to 25% in various studies. Bone mineral density, as measured by age- and gender-adjusted Z-scores, is significantly lower in NF1 patients than in the general population.¹⁴ Children may develop bowing of the long bones, particularly the tibia, and pseudarthrosis, a false joint in a long bone. Children with NF1 need yearly assessment of the spine. Patients with clinical evidence of scoliosis should be referred to Orthopedics for further evaluation.

Eye issues. A majority of adult patients develop neurofibroma-like nodules in the iris known as Lisch nodules. The nodules are not thought to cause any ophthalmologic complications. Patients may also develop palpebral neurofibroma, which may become large and sporadically show malignant transformation. Optic nerve glioma may cause strabismus and proptosis, and a large number of patients will also develop glaucoma and globe enlargement.¹⁵

Gastrointestinal lesions and cancer. Neurofibromas can grow in the stomach, liver, mesentery, retroperitoneum, and bowel. Adenocarcinoma developed in 23% of patients.¹⁶ Gastrointestinal tract bleeding, pseudo-obstruction, and protein-losing enteropathy also may occur.¹⁷

Continue to: Central nervous system manifestations

Central nervous system manifestations. Neurological manifestations have been observed in 55% of patients with NF1.¹⁸ These include headache, hydrocephalus, epilepsy, lacunar stroke, white matter disease, intraspinal neurofibroma, facial palsy, radiculopathy, and polyneuropathy. Tumors include optic pathway tumors, meningioma, and cerebral glioma. Glioma is the predominant tumor type in NF1 and occurs in all parts of the nervous system, with a predilection for the optic pathways, brainstem, and cerebellum.¹⁸

Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors. There is an 8% to 13% lifetime risk for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST), predominantly in individuals between the ages of 20 and 35.^19,20 Any change in neurofibroma from soft to hard, or a rapid increase in the size, is suspicious for MPNST. Other symptoms include persistent pain lasting for longer than a month, pain that disturbs sleep, and new neurological deficits. These cancers can be hard to detect, leading to poor prognosis secondary to metastasis.^19,20 The greatest risk factors for MPNST are pain associated with a mass and the presence of cutaneous and subcutaneous neurofibromas.²¹

Treatment is symptom based, but there is a new option

Treatment is individualized to the patient’s symptoms. Neurofibromas that are disfiguring, disruptive, or malignant may be surgically removed.

In April 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved selumetinib (Koselugo) for the treatment of pediatric patients (ages ≥ 2 years) with NF1 who have symptomatic, inoperable plexiform neurofibromas (PNs).²² In a clinical trial, patients received selumetinib 25 mg/m² orally twice a day until they demonstrated disease progression or experienced “unacceptable” adverse events.^22,23 The overall response rate was 66%, defined as “the percentage of patients with a complete response and those who experienced more than a 20% reduction in PN volume on MRI that was confirmed on a subsequent MRI within 3 to 6 months.”²²

In light of the condition’s heterogeneity, the goals of care include early recognition and treatment of complications, especially neoplasms.

Of note, all patients had a partial, not complete, response. Common adverse effects included vomiting, rash, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and nausea.²³ Selumetinib may also cause more serious adverse effects, including cardiomyopathy and ocular toxicity. Prior to treatment initiation and at regular intervals during treatment, patients should undergo cardiac and ophthalmic evaluation.^22,23 Selumetinib was granted priority review and orphan drug status by the FDA.²²

Continue to: You play a key role in ongoing monitoring

In light of the condition’s heterogeneity, the goals of care include early recognition and treatment of complications, especially neoplasms; optimization of quality of life; and identification and treatment of comorbidities. Family physicians are well positioned to monitor patients with NF1 for age-specific disease manifestations and potential complications.⁹ All patients require:

• an annual physical examination by a physician who is familiar with the individual and with the disease
• annual ophthalmologic examination in early childhood; less frequent examination in older children and adults
• regular blood pressure monitoring
• other studies (eg, MRI) only as indicated on the basis of clinically apparent signs or symptoms
• monitoring by an appropriate specialist if there are abnormalities of the central nervous, skeletal, or cardiovascular systems
• referral to a neurologist for any unexplained neurological signs and symptoms. Referral should be urgent if there are acute symptoms of progressive sensory disturbance, motor deficit and incoordination, or sphincter disturbances since these might indicate an intracranial lesion or spinal cord compression. Headaches on waking, morning vomiting, and altered consciousness are suggestive of raised intracranial pressure.

Children with NF1 benefit from coordinated care between the FP and a pediatrician or other specialist familiar with the disease. In addition to providing usual well care, perform regular assessment of development and school performance. Pay careful attention to the cardiovascular system (particularly blood pressure) and evaluate for scoliosis.

Young adults should be continually monitored for all complications, especially hypertension. This population requires continued education about NF1 and its possible complications and may benefit from counseling about disease inheritance. Screen for anxiety and depression; offer psychological support.

Provide adult patients with education about complications, especially malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors and spinal cord compression.

Adults require monitoring based on patient preference and disease severity. For this population, blood pressure should be measured annually, or more frequently if the patient’s values indicate borderline hypertension. Provide education about complications, especially MPNSTs and spinal cord compression. Patients who have abnormalities of the central nervous, skeletal, or cardiovascular systems should be monitored by an appropriate specialist. If desired, the patient may be referred to a geneticist, especially if he or she expresses concern about inheritance. Cutaneous neurofibromas can be removed if they cause discomfort, although removal occasionally results in neurological deficit.

CORRESPONDENCE
T. Grant Phillips, MD, Associate Director, UPMC Altoona Family Physicians Residency, 501 Howard Avenue, Altoona, PA 16601-4899; [email protected]

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is an autosomal dominant inherited disorder that is estimated to occur in 1:2500 births and to have a prevalence of 1:2000 to 1:4000.^1,2 It was first described in 1882 by Friedrich Daniel Von Recklinghausen, who identified patients and their relatives with signs of neuroectodermal abnormalities (café-au-lait macules [CALMs], axillary and inguinal freckling, and neurofibromas).

NF1 may begin insidiously in childhood and evolves as the patient ages. It is associated with intracranial, intraspinal, and intraorbital neoplasms, although other organs and tissues can also be involved.

The family physician might be the first one to recognize the signs of this condition during a well-child exam and is in a unique position to coordinate a multidisciplinary approach to care.

A mutated allele and early manifestations on the skin

NF1 has been attributed to genetic mosaicism and is classified as segmental, generalized, or (less frequently) gonadal. The disorder results from germline mutations in the NF1 tumor-suppressor gene on chromosome 17, known to codify the cytoplasmic protein called neurofibromin.³ The penetrance of NF1 is complete, which means that 100% of patients with the mutated allele will develop the disease.

Patients typically have symptoms by the third decade of life, although many will show signs of the disease in early childhood. CALMs are the earliest expression of NF1. They manifest in the first 2 years of life and are found in almost all affected patients. The lesions are well defined and measure 10 to 40 mm. They are typically light brown, although they may darken with sun exposure.

Histologically, the lesions will show macromelanosomes and high concentrations of melanin but do not represent an increased risk for malignancy.⁴ Not all isolated CALMs are a sign of NF1. While children younger than 29 months with 6 or more CALMs have a high risk for NF1 (80.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 74.6% to 86.2%), those who are older than 29 months with at least 1 atypical CALM or fewer than 6 CALMs have just a 0.9% (95% CI, 0% to 2.6%) risk for constitutional NF1.⁵

Freckles are also observed in 90% of patients with NF1; these tend to develop after the third year of life. The breast and trunk are the most commonly affected areas in adults. The pathophysiology is unknown, but this freckling is believed to be related to skin friction, high humidity, and ambient temperature.⁶

Continue to: Neurofibromas are benign...

Some patients show disfiguration when hundreds of neurofibromas are present.

Neurofibromas are benign subcutaneous palpable lesions that grow within peripheral nerve tissue, including spinal, subcutaneous, plexiform, or dermal encapsulated nerves. Originating in Schwann cells, they are composed of fibroblasts, mast cells, macrophages, endothelial cells, and other perineural cells. Some patients show disfiguration when hundreds of these masses are present (FIGURE). These tumors increase in number as the patient ages or during pregnancy, which is thought to be secondary to hormonal changes.⁷ They are sometimes painful and can be pruritic. Their appearance can also cause patient distress.

The diagnosis is a clinical one

Suspicion for NF1 should be high in patients presenting with the dermatologic findings described, although CALMs and freckling are not exclusive to NF1. Diagnostic criteria for NF1, which distinguish it from other conditions, were first outlined in a National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement in 1987.⁸ The list of criteria has subsequently been expanded.

While the presence of at least 2 criteria is required for diagnosis,² NF1 should be suspected in individuals who have any of the following findings^8,9:

• the presence of at least 6 CALMs that are > 5 mm in prepubertal children and > 15 mm in adults
• 2 or more neurofibromas of any type, or at least one plexiform neurofibroma
• axillary or groin freckling
• optic pathway glioma
• 2 or more Lisch nodules (iris hamartomas seen on slit-lamp examination)
• bony dysplasia (sphenoid wing dysplasia, bowing of long bone ± pseudarthrosis)
• first-degree relative with NF1.

What you’ll see as the disease progresses

NF1 can affect a variety of systems, and potential complications of the disease are numerous and varied (see TABLE⁹). Here is some of what you may see as the patient’s disease progresses to various organ systems:

Learning disabilities and other cognitive and behavioral problems, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, may affect up to 70% of children with NF1. Additionally, children with NF1 have visual/spatial problems, impaired visual motor integration, and language deficits.¹⁰ The etiology of cognitive impairment in NF1 is unknown.¹¹  

Continue to: Hypertension

Hypertension is common and may contribute to premature death in patients with NF1. Up to 27% of patients will have significant cardiovascular anomalies, including pulmonary valve stenosis, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in patients with complete deletions of the NF1 gene, intracardiac neurofibromas, renal artery stenosis, coarctation of the aorta, and cerebral infarctions.¹² Renal artery stenosis occurs in approximately 2% of the NF1 population, and the diagnosis should be considered in hypertensive children, young adults, pregnant women, older individuals with refractory hypertension, and those with an abdominal bruit.¹³

Psychological issues. The disfigurement caused by neurofibromas and the uncertainty of an unpredictable disease course can cause psychological manifestations for patients with NF1. Anxiety and depression are common. Not surprisingly, patients with more severe disease report more adverse psychological effects.

Orthopedic deformities. Spinal deformities are the most common skeletal manifestation of NF1, with an incidence estimated from 10% to 25% in various studies. Bone mineral density, as measured by age- and gender-adjusted Z-scores, is significantly lower in NF1 patients than in the general population.¹⁴ Children may develop bowing of the long bones, particularly the tibia, and pseudarthrosis, a false joint in a long bone. Children with NF1 need yearly assessment of the spine. Patients with clinical evidence of scoliosis should be referred to Orthopedics for further evaluation.

Eye issues. A majority of adult patients develop neurofibroma-like nodules in the iris known as Lisch nodules. The nodules are not thought to cause any ophthalmologic complications. Patients may also develop palpebral neurofibroma, which may become large and sporadically show malignant transformation. Optic nerve glioma may cause strabismus and proptosis, and a large number of patients will also develop glaucoma and globe enlargement.¹⁵

Gastrointestinal lesions and cancer. Neurofibromas can grow in the stomach, liver, mesentery, retroperitoneum, and bowel. Adenocarcinoma developed in 23% of patients.¹⁶ Gastrointestinal tract bleeding, pseudo-obstruction, and protein-losing enteropathy also may occur.¹⁷

Continue to: Central nervous system manifestations

Central nervous system manifestations. Neurological manifestations have been observed in 55% of patients with NF1.¹⁸ These include headache, hydrocephalus, epilepsy, lacunar stroke, white matter disease, intraspinal neurofibroma, facial palsy, radiculopathy, and polyneuropathy. Tumors include optic pathway tumors, meningioma, and cerebral glioma. Glioma is the predominant tumor type in NF1 and occurs in all parts of the nervous system, with a predilection for the optic pathways, brainstem, and cerebellum.¹⁸

Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors. There is an 8% to 13% lifetime risk for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST), predominantly in individuals between the ages of 20 and 35.^19,20 Any change in neurofibroma from soft to hard, or a rapid increase in the size, is suspicious for MPNST. Other symptoms include persistent pain lasting for longer than a month, pain that disturbs sleep, and new neurological deficits. These cancers can be hard to detect, leading to poor prognosis secondary to metastasis.^19,20 The greatest risk factors for MPNST are pain associated with a mass and the presence of cutaneous and subcutaneous neurofibromas.²¹

Treatment is symptom based, but there is a new option

Treatment is individualized to the patient’s symptoms. Neurofibromas that are disfiguring, disruptive, or malignant may be surgically removed.

In April 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved selumetinib (Koselugo) for the treatment of pediatric patients (ages ≥ 2 years) with NF1 who have symptomatic, inoperable plexiform neurofibromas (PNs).²² In a clinical trial, patients received selumetinib 25 mg/m² orally twice a day until they demonstrated disease progression or experienced “unacceptable” adverse events.^22,23 The overall response rate was 66%, defined as “the percentage of patients with a complete response and those who experienced more than a 20% reduction in PN volume on MRI that was confirmed on a subsequent MRI within 3 to 6 months.”²²

In light of the condition’s heterogeneity, the goals of care include early recognition and treatment of complications, especially neoplasms.

Of note, all patients had a partial, not complete, response. Common adverse effects included vomiting, rash, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and nausea.²³ Selumetinib may also cause more serious adverse effects, including cardiomyopathy and ocular toxicity. Prior to treatment initiation and at regular intervals during treatment, patients should undergo cardiac and ophthalmic evaluation.^22,23 Selumetinib was granted priority review and orphan drug status by the FDA.²²

Continue to: You play a key role in ongoing monitoring

In light of the condition’s heterogeneity, the goals of care include early recognition and treatment of complications, especially neoplasms; optimization of quality of life; and identification and treatment of comorbidities. Family physicians are well positioned to monitor patients with NF1 for age-specific disease manifestations and potential complications.⁹ All patients require:

• an annual physical examination by a physician who is familiar with the individual and with the disease
• annual ophthalmologic examination in early childhood; less frequent examination in older children and adults
• regular blood pressure monitoring
• other studies (eg, MRI) only as indicated on the basis of clinically apparent signs or symptoms
• monitoring by an appropriate specialist if there are abnormalities of the central nervous, skeletal, or cardiovascular systems
• referral to a neurologist for any unexplained neurological signs and symptoms. Referral should be urgent if there are acute symptoms of progressive sensory disturbance, motor deficit and incoordination, or sphincter disturbances since these might indicate an intracranial lesion or spinal cord compression. Headaches on waking, morning vomiting, and altered consciousness are suggestive of raised intracranial pressure.

Children with NF1 benefit from coordinated care between the FP and a pediatrician or other specialist familiar with the disease. In addition to providing usual well care, perform regular assessment of development and school performance. Pay careful attention to the cardiovascular system (particularly blood pressure) and evaluate for scoliosis.

Young adults should be continually monitored for all complications, especially hypertension. This population requires continued education about NF1 and its possible complications and may benefit from counseling about disease inheritance. Screen for anxiety and depression; offer psychological support.

Provide adult patients with education about complications, especially malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors and spinal cord compression.

Adults require monitoring based on patient preference and disease severity. For this population, blood pressure should be measured annually, or more frequently if the patient’s values indicate borderline hypertension. Provide education about complications, especially MPNSTs and spinal cord compression. Patients who have abnormalities of the central nervous, skeletal, or cardiovascular systems should be monitored by an appropriate specialist. If desired, the patient may be referred to a geneticist, especially if he or she expresses concern about inheritance. Cutaneous neurofibromas can be removed if they cause discomfort, although removal occasionally results in neurological deficit.

CORRESPONDENCE
T. Grant Phillips, MD, Associate Director, UPMC Altoona Family Physicians Residency, 501 Howard Avenue, Altoona, PA 16601-4899; [email protected]

Looking back at the calendar, I realized that the insane year of 2020 will be the first in memory that I never took a vacation. Not a single trip outside the Phoenix metropolitan area. For that matter, there were only a handful of times I even ventured beyond the borders of Scottsdale.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Looking back at the calendar, I realized that the insane year of 2020 will be the first in memory that I never took a vacation. Not a single trip outside the Phoenix metropolitan area. For that matter, there were only a handful of times I even ventured beyond the borders of Scottsdale.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Looking back at the calendar, I realized that the insane year of 2020 will be the first in memory that I never took a vacation. Not a single trip outside the Phoenix metropolitan area. For that matter, there were only a handful of times I even ventured beyond the borders of Scottsdale.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

It was no surprise that updated guidelines recently published by the European Society of Cardiology for managing cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes highlighted optimized treatment from a cardiovascular disease perspective, while a nearly concurrent update from two major diabetes societies saw the same issue from a more glycemic point of view.

This difference led to divergent approaches to managing hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The two diabetes societies that wrote one set of recommendations, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, put metformin at the pinnacle of their drug hierarchy. Patients with T2D and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease, or heart failure should all receive metformin first unless contraindicated or not tolerated, their updated consensus report said.

Once metformin is on board, a clinician can then add a second diabetes agent from among the two drug classes recently proven to also reduce cardiovascular and renal events, either the SGLT2 (sodium-glucose transporter 2) inhibitors, or GLP-1 (glucagonlike peptide–1) receptor agonists, they advised.
 

Cardiovascular disease focus represents a ‘major paradigm shift’

In contrast, the ESC guidelines called for upfront, systematic assessment of CVD risk in patients with T2D before treatment starts, and for patients in high- or very high–risk strata, the guidelines recommended starting the patient first on an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, and only adding metformin in patients who need additional glycemic control.

The guidelines also recommended starting treatment-naive patients with moderate CVD risk on metformin. For patients already on metformin, the new ESC guidelines called for adding an agent from at least one of these two drug classes with proven CVD benefits for those at high or very high CVD risk. The guidelines also note that the CVD benefits of the two newer drug classes differ and hence require further individualization depending on the risks faced by each patient, such as the risk for heart failure hospitalizations.

It’s an approach “driven by data from the cardiovascular outcome trials,” that showed several drugs from both the SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist classes have substantial benefit for preventing cardiovascular events, renal events, hospitalizations for heart failure, and in some studies all-cause mortality, said Francesco Cosentino, MD, during a discussion of the guideline differences at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The ESC approach also represents “a major paradigm shift,” a “change from a glucose-centric approach to an approach driven by cardiovascular disease events,” summed up Dr. Cosentino, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and chair of the task force that wrote the ESC’s 2019 updated guidelines. The ESC approach advocates initiating drugs for treating patients with T2D “based on cardiovascular disease risk classification,” he highlighted. Results from some SGLT2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcome trials showed that the CVD benefit was similar regardless of whether or not patients also received metformin.

ADA, EASD call for ‘a different emphasis’

“There is a different emphasis” in the statement issued by the diabetologists of the ADA and EASD, admitted Peter J. Grant, MD, a professor of diabetes and endocrinology at the University of Leeds (England) and cochair of the ESC guidelines task force. Dr. Grant represented the EASD on the task force, and the Association collaborated with the ESC in producing its guidelines.

“The ADA and EASD recommendations “look primarily at glucose control, with cardiovascular disease management as secondary.” In contrast, the ESC guidelines “are primarily cardiovascular disease risk guidelines, with a glucose interest,” Dr. Grant declared.

Despite his involvement in writing the ESC guidelines, Dr. Grant tilted toward the ADA/EASD statement as more globally relevant.

“There is much more to vasculopathy in diabetes than just macrovascular disease. Many patients with type 2 diabetes without macrovascular complications have microvascular disease,” including the potential for retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy, he said. These complications can also have a strong impact on psychological well being and treatment satisfaction.

“It’s important that we’re not glucocentric any more, but it’s equally important that we treat glucose because it has such a benefit for microvascular disease.” Dr. Grant also cited metformin’s long history of safety and good tolerance, clinician comfort prescribing it, and its low price. Heavier reliance on SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists will be expensive for the short term while the cost of these drugs remains high, which places a higher burden on “knowing we’re doing it right,” said Dr. Grant.

Dr. Cosentino pointed out that the higher cost of the drugs in the two classes shown to exert important cardiovascular and renal effects needs to be considered in a cost-effectiveness context, not just by cost alone.
 

‘Clinical inertia’ could be a danger

Dr. Cosentino played down a major disagreement between the two guidelines, suggesting that “focusing on the differences leads to clinical inertia” by the practicing community when they are unsure how to reconcile the two positions.

Dr. Grant agreed that adding a second drug to metformin right away made sense in at least selected patients. “Look at each patient and decide whether they need glycemic control. If so, and if they also have cardiovascular disease, use both drugs,” metformin, plus one agent from one of the two newer classes.

Something both experts agreed on is that it’s time to generally steer clear of sulfonylurea drugs. “We have evidence for harmful effects from sulfonylureas,” Dr. Cosentino said.

“I’d dump sulfonylureas,” was Dr. Grant’s assessment, but he added that they still have a role for patients who need additional glycemic control but can’t afford the newer drugs.

Dr. Cosentino has had financial relationships with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer, Dr. Grant has lectured on behalf of AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novo Nordisk, the Medicines Company, and Takeda, and he has been an adviser to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Synexus.

[email protected]

It was no surprise that updated guidelines recently published by the European Society of Cardiology for managing cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes highlighted optimized treatment from a cardiovascular disease perspective, while a nearly concurrent update from two major diabetes societies saw the same issue from a more glycemic point of view.

This difference led to divergent approaches to managing hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The two diabetes societies that wrote one set of recommendations, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, put metformin at the pinnacle of their drug hierarchy. Patients with T2D and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease, or heart failure should all receive metformin first unless contraindicated or not tolerated, their updated consensus report said.

Once metformin is on board, a clinician can then add a second diabetes agent from among the two drug classes recently proven to also reduce cardiovascular and renal events, either the SGLT2 (sodium-glucose transporter 2) inhibitors, or GLP-1 (glucagonlike peptide–1) receptor agonists, they advised.
 

Cardiovascular disease focus represents a ‘major paradigm shift’

In contrast, the ESC guidelines called for upfront, systematic assessment of CVD risk in patients with T2D before treatment starts, and for patients in high- or very high–risk strata, the guidelines recommended starting the patient first on an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, and only adding metformin in patients who need additional glycemic control.

The guidelines also recommended starting treatment-naive patients with moderate CVD risk on metformin. For patients already on metformin, the new ESC guidelines called for adding an agent from at least one of these two drug classes with proven CVD benefits for those at high or very high CVD risk. The guidelines also note that the CVD benefits of the two newer drug classes differ and hence require further individualization depending on the risks faced by each patient, such as the risk for heart failure hospitalizations.

It’s an approach “driven by data from the cardiovascular outcome trials,” that showed several drugs from both the SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist classes have substantial benefit for preventing cardiovascular events, renal events, hospitalizations for heart failure, and in some studies all-cause mortality, said Francesco Cosentino, MD, during a discussion of the guideline differences at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The ESC approach also represents “a major paradigm shift,” a “change from a glucose-centric approach to an approach driven by cardiovascular disease events,” summed up Dr. Cosentino, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and chair of the task force that wrote the ESC’s 2019 updated guidelines. The ESC approach advocates initiating drugs for treating patients with T2D “based on cardiovascular disease risk classification,” he highlighted. Results from some SGLT2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcome trials showed that the CVD benefit was similar regardless of whether or not patients also received metformin.

ADA, EASD call for ‘a different emphasis’

“There is a different emphasis” in the statement issued by the diabetologists of the ADA and EASD, admitted Peter J. Grant, MD, a professor of diabetes and endocrinology at the University of Leeds (England) and cochair of the ESC guidelines task force. Dr. Grant represented the EASD on the task force, and the Association collaborated with the ESC in producing its guidelines.

“The ADA and EASD recommendations “look primarily at glucose control, with cardiovascular disease management as secondary.” In contrast, the ESC guidelines “are primarily cardiovascular disease risk guidelines, with a glucose interest,” Dr. Grant declared.

Despite his involvement in writing the ESC guidelines, Dr. Grant tilted toward the ADA/EASD statement as more globally relevant.

“There is much more to vasculopathy in diabetes than just macrovascular disease. Many patients with type 2 diabetes without macrovascular complications have microvascular disease,” including the potential for retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy, he said. These complications can also have a strong impact on psychological well being and treatment satisfaction.

“It’s important that we’re not glucocentric any more, but it’s equally important that we treat glucose because it has such a benefit for microvascular disease.” Dr. Grant also cited metformin’s long history of safety and good tolerance, clinician comfort prescribing it, and its low price. Heavier reliance on SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists will be expensive for the short term while the cost of these drugs remains high, which places a higher burden on “knowing we’re doing it right,” said Dr. Grant.

Dr. Cosentino pointed out that the higher cost of the drugs in the two classes shown to exert important cardiovascular and renal effects needs to be considered in a cost-effectiveness context, not just by cost alone.
 

‘Clinical inertia’ could be a danger

Dr. Cosentino played down a major disagreement between the two guidelines, suggesting that “focusing on the differences leads to clinical inertia” by the practicing community when they are unsure how to reconcile the two positions.

Dr. Grant agreed that adding a second drug to metformin right away made sense in at least selected patients. “Look at each patient and decide whether they need glycemic control. If so, and if they also have cardiovascular disease, use both drugs,” metformin, plus one agent from one of the two newer classes.

Something both experts agreed on is that it’s time to generally steer clear of sulfonylurea drugs. “We have evidence for harmful effects from sulfonylureas,” Dr. Cosentino said.

“I’d dump sulfonylureas,” was Dr. Grant’s assessment, but he added that they still have a role for patients who need additional glycemic control but can’t afford the newer drugs.

Dr. Cosentino has had financial relationships with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer, Dr. Grant has lectured on behalf of AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novo Nordisk, the Medicines Company, and Takeda, and he has been an adviser to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Synexus.

[email protected]

It was no surprise that updated guidelines recently published by the European Society of Cardiology for managing cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes highlighted optimized treatment from a cardiovascular disease perspective, while a nearly concurrent update from two major diabetes societies saw the same issue from a more glycemic point of view.

This difference led to divergent approaches to managing hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The two diabetes societies that wrote one set of recommendations, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, put metformin at the pinnacle of their drug hierarchy. Patients with T2D and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease, or heart failure should all receive metformin first unless contraindicated or not tolerated, their updated consensus report said.

Once metformin is on board, a clinician can then add a second diabetes agent from among the two drug classes recently proven to also reduce cardiovascular and renal events, either the SGLT2 (sodium-glucose transporter 2) inhibitors, or GLP-1 (glucagonlike peptide–1) receptor agonists, they advised.
 

Cardiovascular disease focus represents a ‘major paradigm shift’

In contrast, the ESC guidelines called for upfront, systematic assessment of CVD risk in patients with T2D before treatment starts, and for patients in high- or very high–risk strata, the guidelines recommended starting the patient first on an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, and only adding metformin in patients who need additional glycemic control.

The guidelines also recommended starting treatment-naive patients with moderate CVD risk on metformin. For patients already on metformin, the new ESC guidelines called for adding an agent from at least one of these two drug classes with proven CVD benefits for those at high or very high CVD risk. The guidelines also note that the CVD benefits of the two newer drug classes differ and hence require further individualization depending on the risks faced by each patient, such as the risk for heart failure hospitalizations.

It’s an approach “driven by data from the cardiovascular outcome trials,” that showed several drugs from both the SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist classes have substantial benefit for preventing cardiovascular events, renal events, hospitalizations for heart failure, and in some studies all-cause mortality, said Francesco Cosentino, MD, during a discussion of the guideline differences at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The ESC approach also represents “a major paradigm shift,” a “change from a glucose-centric approach to an approach driven by cardiovascular disease events,” summed up Dr. Cosentino, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and chair of the task force that wrote the ESC’s 2019 updated guidelines. The ESC approach advocates initiating drugs for treating patients with T2D “based on cardiovascular disease risk classification,” he highlighted. Results from some SGLT2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcome trials showed that the CVD benefit was similar regardless of whether or not patients also received metformin.

ADA, EASD call for ‘a different emphasis’

“There is a different emphasis” in the statement issued by the diabetologists of the ADA and EASD, admitted Peter J. Grant, MD, a professor of diabetes and endocrinology at the University of Leeds (England) and cochair of the ESC guidelines task force. Dr. Grant represented the EASD on the task force, and the Association collaborated with the ESC in producing its guidelines.

“The ADA and EASD recommendations “look primarily at glucose control, with cardiovascular disease management as secondary.” In contrast, the ESC guidelines “are primarily cardiovascular disease risk guidelines, with a glucose interest,” Dr. Grant declared.

Despite his involvement in writing the ESC guidelines, Dr. Grant tilted toward the ADA/EASD statement as more globally relevant.

“There is much more to vasculopathy in diabetes than just macrovascular disease. Many patients with type 2 diabetes without macrovascular complications have microvascular disease,” including the potential for retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy, he said. These complications can also have a strong impact on psychological well being and treatment satisfaction.

“It’s important that we’re not glucocentric any more, but it’s equally important that we treat glucose because it has such a benefit for microvascular disease.” Dr. Grant also cited metformin’s long history of safety and good tolerance, clinician comfort prescribing it, and its low price. Heavier reliance on SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists will be expensive for the short term while the cost of these drugs remains high, which places a higher burden on “knowing we’re doing it right,” said Dr. Grant.

Dr. Cosentino pointed out that the higher cost of the drugs in the two classes shown to exert important cardiovascular and renal effects needs to be considered in a cost-effectiveness context, not just by cost alone.
 

‘Clinical inertia’ could be a danger

Dr. Cosentino played down a major disagreement between the two guidelines, suggesting that “focusing on the differences leads to clinical inertia” by the practicing community when they are unsure how to reconcile the two positions.

Dr. Grant agreed that adding a second drug to metformin right away made sense in at least selected patients. “Look at each patient and decide whether they need glycemic control. If so, and if they also have cardiovascular disease, use both drugs,” metformin, plus one agent from one of the two newer classes.

Something both experts agreed on is that it’s time to generally steer clear of sulfonylurea drugs. “We have evidence for harmful effects from sulfonylureas,” Dr. Cosentino said.

“I’d dump sulfonylureas,” was Dr. Grant’s assessment, but he added that they still have a role for patients who need additional glycemic control but can’t afford the newer drugs.

Dr. Cosentino has had financial relationships with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer, Dr. Grant has lectured on behalf of AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novo Nordisk, the Medicines Company, and Takeda, and he has been an adviser to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Synexus.

[email protected]

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and dangerous disease, affecting 0.1%-0.2% of the population annually—a rate that might be underreported.¹ VTE is a collective term for venous blood clots, including (1) deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of peripheral veins and (2) pulmonary embolism, which occurs after a clot travels through the heart and becomes lodged in the pulmonary vasculature. Two-thirds of VTE cases present clinically as DVT²; most mortality from VTE disease is caused by the 20% of cases of pulmonary embolism that present as sudden death.¹

VTE is comparable to myocardial infarction (MI) in incidence and severity. In 2008, 208 of every 100,000 people had an MI, with a 30-day mortality of 16/100,000³; VTE disease has an annual incidence of 161 of every 100,000 people and a 28-day mortality of 18/100,000.⁴ Although the incidence and severity of MI are steadily decreasing, the rate of VTE appears constant.^3,5 The high mortality of VTE suggests that primary prevention, which we discuss in this article, is valuable (see “Key points: Primary prevention of venous thromboembolism”).

Risk factors

Virchow’s triad of venous stasis, vascular injury, and hypercoagulability describes predisposing factors for VTE.⁶ Although venous valves promote blood flow, they produce isolated low-flow areas adjacent to valves that become concentrated and locally hypoxic, increasing the risk of clotting.⁷ The great majority of DVTs (≥ 96%) occur in the lower extremity,⁸ starting in the calf; there, 75% of cases resolve spontaneously before they extend into the deep veins of the proximal leg.⁷ One-half of DVTs that do move into the proximal leg eventually embolize.⁷

Major risk factors for VTE comprise inherited conditions, medical history, medical therapeutics, and behaviors (TABLE 1).^9-11 Unlike the preventive management of coronary artery disease (CAD), there is no simple, generalized prevention algorithm to address VTE risk factors.

Risk factors for VTE and CAD overlap. Risk factors for atherosclerosis—­obesity, diabetes, smoking, hypertension, ­hyperlipidemia—also increase the risk of VTE (TABLE 1).^9-11 The association between risk factors for VTE and atherosclerosis is demonstrated by a doubling of the risk of MI and stroke in the year following VTE.¹¹ Lifestyle changes are expected to reduce the risk of VTE, as they do for acute CAD, but studies are lacking to confirm this connection. There is no prospective evidence showing that weight loss or control of diabetes or hypertension reduces the risk of VTE.¹² Smoking cessation does appear to reduce risk: Former smokers have the same VTE risk as never-smokers.¹³

Thrombophilia testing: Not generally useful

Inherited and acquired thrombophilic conditions define a group of disorders in which the risk of VTE is increased. Although thrombophilia testing was once considered for primary and secondary prevention of VTE, such testing is rarely used now because proof of benefit is lacking: A large case–control study showed that thrombophilia testing did not predict recurrence after a first VTE.¹⁴ Guidelines of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) do not address thrombophilia, and the American Society of Hematology recommends against thrombophilia testing after a provoked VTE.^15,16

Primary prophylaxis of patients with a family history of VTE and inherited thrombophilia is controversial. Patients with both a family history of VTE and demonstrated thrombophilia do have double the average incidence of VTE, but this increased risk does not offset the significant bleeding risk associated with anticoagulation.¹⁷ Recommendations for thrombophilia testing are limited to certain situations in pregnancy, discussed in a bit.^16,18,19

Continue to: Primary prevention of VTE in the clinic

There is no single, overarching preventive strategy for VTE in an ambulatory patient (although statins, discussed in a moment, offer some benefit, broadly). There are, however, distinct behavioral characteristics and medical circumstances for which opportunities exist to reduce VTE risk—for example, when a person engages in long-distance travel, receives hormonal therapy, is pregnant, or has cancer. In each scenario, recognizing and mitigating risk are important.

Statins offer a (slight) benefit

There is evidence that statins reduce the risk of VTE—slightly^20-23:

• A large randomized, controlled trial showed that rosuvastatin, 20 mg/d, reduced the rate of VTE, compared to placebo; however, the 2-year number needed to treat (NNT) was 349.²⁰ The VTE benefit is minimal, however, compared to primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with statins (5-year NNT = 56).²¹ The sole significant adverse event associated with statins was new-onset type 2 diabetes (5-year number needed to harm = 235).²¹
• A subsequent meta-analysis confirmed a small reduction in VTE risk with statins.²² In its 2012 guidelines, ACCP declined to issue a recommendation on the use of statins for VTE prevention.²³ When considering statins for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, take the additional VTE prevention into account.

Simple strategies can help prevent travel-related VTE

Travel is a common inciting factor for VTE. A systematic review showed that VTE risk triples after travel of ≥ 4 hours, increasing by 20% with each additional 2 hours.²⁴ Most VTE occurs in travelers who have other VTE risk factors.²⁵ Based on case–control studies,²³ guidelines recommend these preventive measures:

• frequent calf exercises
• sitting in an aisle seat during air travel
• keeping hydrated.

A Cochrane review showed that graded compression stockings reduce asymptomatic DVT in travelers by a factor of 10, in high- and low-risk patients.²⁶

VTE risk varies with type of hormonal contraception

Most contraceptives increase VTE risk (TABLE 2^27,28). Risk with combined oral contraceptives varies with the amount of estrogen and progesterone. To reduce VTE risk with oral contraceptives, patients can use an agent that contains a lower dose of estrogen or one in which levonorgestrel replaces other progesterones.²⁷

Continue to: Studies suggest that the levonorgestrel-releasing...

Studies suggest that the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device and progestin-only pills are not associated with an increase in VTE risk.²⁷ Although the quality of evidence varies, most nonoral hormonal contraceptives have been determined to carry a risk of VTE that is similar to that of combined oral contraceptives.²⁸

In hormone replacement, avoid pills to lower risk

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for postmenopausal women increases VTE risk when administered in oral form, with combined estrogen and progestin HRT doubling the risk and estrogen-only formulations having a lower risk.²⁹ VTE risk is highest in the first 6 months of HRT, declining to that of a non-HRT user within 5 years.²⁹ Neither transdermal HRT nor estrogen creams increase the risk of VTE, according to a systematic review.³⁰ The estradiol-containing vaginal ring also does not confer increased risk.²⁹

Pregnancy, thrombophilia, and VTE prevention

VTE affects as many as 0.2% of pregnancies but causes 9% of pregnancy-related deaths.¹⁸ The severity of VTE in pregnancy led the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to recommend primary VTE prophylaxis in patients with certain thrombophilias.¹⁸ Thrombophilia testing is recommended in patients with proven high-risk thrombophilia in a first-degree relative.¹⁸ ACOG recognizes 5 thrombophilias considered to carry a high risk of VTE in pregnancy¹⁸:

• homozygous Factor V Leiden
• homozygous prothrombin G20210A mutation
• antithrombin deficiency
• heterozygous Factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A mutation
• antiphospholipid antibody syndrome.

ACOG recommends limiting thrombophilia testing to (1) any specific thrombophilia carried by a relative and (2) possibly, the antiphospholipid antibodies anticardiolipin and lupus anticoagulant.^18,19 Antiphospholipid testing is recommended when there is a history of stillbirth, 3 early pregnancy losses, or delivery earlier than 34 weeks secondary to preeclampsia.¹⁹

Primary VTE prophylaxis is recommended for pregnant patients with a high-risk thrombophilia; low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is safe and its effects are predictable.¹⁸ Because postpartum risk of VTE is higher than antepartum risk, postpartum prophylaxis is also recommended with lower-risk thrombophilias¹⁸; a vitamin K antagonist or LMWH can be used.¹⁸ ACCP and ACOG recommendations for VTE prophylaxis in pregnancy differ slightly (TABLE 3^16,18,19).

Continue to: Cancer increases risks of VTE and bleeding

Cancer increases VTE risk > 6-fold³¹; metastases, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy further increase risk. Cancer also greatly increases the risk of bleeding: Cancer patients with VTE have an annual major bleeding rate ≥ 20%.³² Guidelines do not recommend primary VTE prophylaxis for cancer, although American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines discuss consideration of prophylaxis for select, high-risk patients,^33,34 including those with multiple myeloma, metastatic gastrointestinal cancer, or metastatic brain cancer.^31,34 Recent evidence (discussed in a moment) supports the use of apixaban for primary VTE prevention during chemotherapy for high-risk cancer.

The Khorana Risk Score (TABLE 4^35,36) for VTE was developed and validated for use in patients with solid cancer³⁵: A score of 2 conveys nearly a 10% risk of VTE over 6 months.³⁶ A recent study of 550 cancer patients with a Khorana score of ≥ 2—the first evidence of risk-guided primary VTE prevention in cancer—showed that primary prophylaxis with 2.5 mg of apixaban, bid, reduced the risk of VTE (NNT = 17); however, the number needed to harm (for major bleeding) was 59.³⁷ Mortality was not changed with apixaban treatment.³⁷

Primary VTE prevention in med-surg hospitalizations

The risk of VTE increases significantly during hospitalization, although not enough to justify universal prophylaxis. Recommended prevention strategies for different classes of hospitalized patients are summarized below.

In medically hospitalized patients, risk is stratified with a risk-assessment model. Medically hospitalized patients have, on average, a VTE risk of 1.2%²³; 12 risk-assessment models designed to stratify risk were recently compared.³⁸ Two models, the Caprini Score (TABLE 5)³⁹ and the IMPROVE VTE Risk Calculator,⁴⁰ were best able to identify low-risk patients (negative predictive value, > 99%).³⁸ American Society of Hematology guidelines recommend IMPROVE VTE or the Padua Prediction Score for risk stratification.⁴¹ While the Caprini score only designates 11% of eventual VTE cases as low risk, both the IMPROVE VTE and Padua scores miss more than 35% of eventual VTE.³⁸

There is no prospective evidence that weight loss or control of diabetes or hypertension reduces the risk of VTE; smoking cessation does appear to reduce risk.

Because LMWH prophylaxis has been shown to reduce VTE by 40% without increasing the risk of major bleeding, using Caprini should prevent 2 VTEs for every 1000 patients, without an increase in major bleeding and with 13 additional minor bleeding events.⁴²

Continue to: Critically ill patients

Critically ill patients are assumed to be at high risk of VTE and do not require stratification.²³ For high-risk patients, prophylaxis with LMWH, low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH), or fondaparinux is recommended for the duration of admission.²³ For patients at high risk of both VTE and bleeding, mechanical prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is recommended instead of LMWH, LDUH, or fondaparinux.²³

Surgery, like trauma (see next page), increases the risk of VTE and has been well studied. Prophylaxis after orthopedic surgery differs from that of other types of surgery.

In orthopedic surgery, risk depends on the procedure. For major orthopedic surgery, including total hip or knee arthroplasty and hip fracture surgery, VTE prophylaxis is recommended for 35 days postsurgically.⁴³ LMWH is the preferred agent, although many other means have been shown to be beneficial.⁴⁴ A recent systematic review demonstrated that aspirin is not inferior to other medications after hip or knee arthroplasty.⁴⁵ No mechanical or pharmacotherapeutic prophylaxis is generally recommended after nonmajor orthopedic surgery.⁴³

Taking a statin can reduce the risk of VTE— slightly.

Nonorthopedic surgery is stratified by risk factors, using Caprini⁴⁴ (TABLE 5³⁹). For medium-risk patients (Caprini score, 3-4) LDUH, LMWH, or IPC is recommended; for high-risk patients (Caprini score, ≥ 5) preventive treatment should combine pharmacotherapeutic and mechanical prophylaxis.⁴⁶ A recent meta-analysis, comprising 14,776 patients, showed that surgical patients with a Caprini score ≥ 7 had a reduced incidence of VTE when given chemoprophylaxis, whereas patients whose score is < 7 do not benefit from chemoprophylaxis.⁴³ When bleeding risk is high, IPC is recommended as sole therapy.⁴³ Prophylaxis is not recommended when risk (determined by the Caprini score) is low.⁴⁶

Post-hospitalization. Risk of VTE can persist for as long as 90 days after hospitalization; this finding has led to evaluation of the benefit of prolonged chemoprophylaxis.²³ Extended-duration LMWH prophylaxis decreases the incidence of VTE, but at the cost of increased risk of major bleeding.⁴⁷ Based on this evidence, guidelines recommend against prolonged-duration anticoagulation.²³ A 2016 trial showed that 35 days of the direct-acting anticoagulant betrixaban reduced the risk of symptomatic VTE events, compared to 10 days of LMWH (NNT = 167), without increased risk of bleeding.⁴⁸ This is a limited benefit, however, that is unlikely to change guideline recommendations.

Continue to: Trauma

Trauma: VTE risk increases with severity

Trauma increases the risk of VTE considerably. A national study showed that 1.5% of admitted trauma patients experienced VTE during hospitalization and that 1.2% were readmitted for VTE within 1 year.⁴⁹ As many as 32% of trauma patients admitted to the intensive care unit experience VTE despite appropriate prophylaxis.⁵⁰ A Cochrane Review⁵¹ found that:

• prophylaxis significantly reduces DVT risk
• pharmacotherapeutic prophylaxis is more effective than mechanical prophylaxis
• LMWH is more effective than LDUH.

Guidelines recommend that major trauma patients receive prophylaxis with LMWH, LDUH, or IPC.⁴⁶

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael J. Arnold, MD, CDR, MC, USN; Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Jacksonville, FL 32214; [email protected].

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and dangerous disease, affecting 0.1%-0.2% of the population annually—a rate that might be underreported.¹ VTE is a collective term for venous blood clots, including (1) deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of peripheral veins and (2) pulmonary embolism, which occurs after a clot travels through the heart and becomes lodged in the pulmonary vasculature. Two-thirds of VTE cases present clinically as DVT²; most mortality from VTE disease is caused by the 20% of cases of pulmonary embolism that present as sudden death.¹

VTE is comparable to myocardial infarction (MI) in incidence and severity. In 2008, 208 of every 100,000 people had an MI, with a 30-day mortality of 16/100,000³; VTE disease has an annual incidence of 161 of every 100,000 people and a 28-day mortality of 18/100,000.⁴ Although the incidence and severity of MI are steadily decreasing, the rate of VTE appears constant.^3,5 The high mortality of VTE suggests that primary prevention, which we discuss in this article, is valuable (see “Key points: Primary prevention of venous thromboembolism”).

Risk factors

Virchow’s triad of venous stasis, vascular injury, and hypercoagulability describes predisposing factors for VTE.⁶ Although venous valves promote blood flow, they produce isolated low-flow areas adjacent to valves that become concentrated and locally hypoxic, increasing the risk of clotting.⁷ The great majority of DVTs (≥ 96%) occur in the lower extremity,⁸ starting in the calf; there, 75% of cases resolve spontaneously before they extend into the deep veins of the proximal leg.⁷ One-half of DVTs that do move into the proximal leg eventually embolize.⁷

Major risk factors for VTE comprise inherited conditions, medical history, medical therapeutics, and behaviors (TABLE 1).^9-11 Unlike the preventive management of coronary artery disease (CAD), there is no simple, generalized prevention algorithm to address VTE risk factors.

Risk factors for VTE and CAD overlap. Risk factors for atherosclerosis—­obesity, diabetes, smoking, hypertension, ­hyperlipidemia—also increase the risk of VTE (TABLE 1).^9-11 The association between risk factors for VTE and atherosclerosis is demonstrated by a doubling of the risk of MI and stroke in the year following VTE.¹¹ Lifestyle changes are expected to reduce the risk of VTE, as they do for acute CAD, but studies are lacking to confirm this connection. There is no prospective evidence showing that weight loss or control of diabetes or hypertension reduces the risk of VTE.¹² Smoking cessation does appear to reduce risk: Former smokers have the same VTE risk as never-smokers.¹³

Thrombophilia testing: Not generally useful

Inherited and acquired thrombophilic conditions define a group of disorders in which the risk of VTE is increased. Although thrombophilia testing was once considered for primary and secondary prevention of VTE, such testing is rarely used now because proof of benefit is lacking: A large case–control study showed that thrombophilia testing did not predict recurrence after a first VTE.¹⁴ Guidelines of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) do not address thrombophilia, and the American Society of Hematology recommends against thrombophilia testing after a provoked VTE.^15,16

Primary prophylaxis of patients with a family history of VTE and inherited thrombophilia is controversial. Patients with both a family history of VTE and demonstrated thrombophilia do have double the average incidence of VTE, but this increased risk does not offset the significant bleeding risk associated with anticoagulation.¹⁷ Recommendations for thrombophilia testing are limited to certain situations in pregnancy, discussed in a bit.^16,18,19

Continue to: Primary prevention of VTE in the clinic

There is no single, overarching preventive strategy for VTE in an ambulatory patient (although statins, discussed in a moment, offer some benefit, broadly). There are, however, distinct behavioral characteristics and medical circumstances for which opportunities exist to reduce VTE risk—for example, when a person engages in long-distance travel, receives hormonal therapy, is pregnant, or has cancer. In each scenario, recognizing and mitigating risk are important.

Statins offer a (slight) benefit

There is evidence that statins reduce the risk of VTE—slightly^20-23:

• A large randomized, controlled trial showed that rosuvastatin, 20 mg/d, reduced the rate of VTE, compared to placebo; however, the 2-year number needed to treat (NNT) was 349.²⁰ The VTE benefit is minimal, however, compared to primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with statins (5-year NNT = 56).²¹ The sole significant adverse event associated with statins was new-onset type 2 diabetes (5-year number needed to harm = 235).²¹
• A subsequent meta-analysis confirmed a small reduction in VTE risk with statins.²² In its 2012 guidelines, ACCP declined to issue a recommendation on the use of statins for VTE prevention.²³ When considering statins for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, take the additional VTE prevention into account.

Simple strategies can help prevent travel-related VTE

Travel is a common inciting factor for VTE. A systematic review showed that VTE risk triples after travel of ≥ 4 hours, increasing by 20% with each additional 2 hours.²⁴ Most VTE occurs in travelers who have other VTE risk factors.²⁵ Based on case–control studies,²³ guidelines recommend these preventive measures:

• frequent calf exercises
• sitting in an aisle seat during air travel
• keeping hydrated.

A Cochrane review showed that graded compression stockings reduce asymptomatic DVT in travelers by a factor of 10, in high- and low-risk patients.²⁶

VTE risk varies with type of hormonal contraception

Most contraceptives increase VTE risk (TABLE 2^27,28). Risk with combined oral contraceptives varies with the amount of estrogen and progesterone. To reduce VTE risk with oral contraceptives, patients can use an agent that contains a lower dose of estrogen or one in which levonorgestrel replaces other progesterones.²⁷

Continue to: Studies suggest that the levonorgestrel-releasing...

Studies suggest that the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device and progestin-only pills are not associated with an increase in VTE risk.²⁷ Although the quality of evidence varies, most nonoral hormonal contraceptives have been determined to carry a risk of VTE that is similar to that of combined oral contraceptives.²⁸

In hormone replacement, avoid pills to lower risk

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for postmenopausal women increases VTE risk when administered in oral form, with combined estrogen and progestin HRT doubling the risk and estrogen-only formulations having a lower risk.²⁹ VTE risk is highest in the first 6 months of HRT, declining to that of a non-HRT user within 5 years.²⁹ Neither transdermal HRT nor estrogen creams increase the risk of VTE, according to a systematic review.³⁰ The estradiol-containing vaginal ring also does not confer increased risk.²⁹

Pregnancy, thrombophilia, and VTE prevention

VTE affects as many as 0.2% of pregnancies but causes 9% of pregnancy-related deaths.¹⁸ The severity of VTE in pregnancy led the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to recommend primary VTE prophylaxis in patients with certain thrombophilias.¹⁸ Thrombophilia testing is recommended in patients with proven high-risk thrombophilia in a first-degree relative.¹⁸ ACOG recognizes 5 thrombophilias considered to carry a high risk of VTE in pregnancy¹⁸:

• homozygous Factor V Leiden
• homozygous prothrombin G20210A mutation
• antithrombin deficiency
• heterozygous Factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A mutation
• antiphospholipid antibody syndrome.

ACOG recommends limiting thrombophilia testing to (1) any specific thrombophilia carried by a relative and (2) possibly, the antiphospholipid antibodies anticardiolipin and lupus anticoagulant.^18,19 Antiphospholipid testing is recommended when there is a history of stillbirth, 3 early pregnancy losses, or delivery earlier than 34 weeks secondary to preeclampsia.¹⁹

Primary VTE prophylaxis is recommended for pregnant patients with a high-risk thrombophilia; low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is safe and its effects are predictable.¹⁸ Because postpartum risk of VTE is higher than antepartum risk, postpartum prophylaxis is also recommended with lower-risk thrombophilias¹⁸; a vitamin K antagonist or LMWH can be used.¹⁸ ACCP and ACOG recommendations for VTE prophylaxis in pregnancy differ slightly (TABLE 3^16,18,19).

Continue to: Cancer increases risks of VTE and bleeding

Cancer increases VTE risk > 6-fold³¹; metastases, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy further increase risk. Cancer also greatly increases the risk of bleeding: Cancer patients with VTE have an annual major bleeding rate ≥ 20%.³² Guidelines do not recommend primary VTE prophylaxis for cancer, although American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines discuss consideration of prophylaxis for select, high-risk patients,^33,34 including those with multiple myeloma, metastatic gastrointestinal cancer, or metastatic brain cancer.^31,34 Recent evidence (discussed in a moment) supports the use of apixaban for primary VTE prevention during chemotherapy for high-risk cancer.

The Khorana Risk Score (TABLE 4^35,36) for VTE was developed and validated for use in patients with solid cancer³⁵: A score of 2 conveys nearly a 10% risk of VTE over 6 months.³⁶ A recent study of 550 cancer patients with a Khorana score of ≥ 2—the first evidence of risk-guided primary VTE prevention in cancer—showed that primary prophylaxis with 2.5 mg of apixaban, bid, reduced the risk of VTE (NNT = 17); however, the number needed to harm (for major bleeding) was 59.³⁷ Mortality was not changed with apixaban treatment.³⁷

Primary VTE prevention in med-surg hospitalizations

The risk of VTE increases significantly during hospitalization, although not enough to justify universal prophylaxis. Recommended prevention strategies for different classes of hospitalized patients are summarized below.

In medically hospitalized patients, risk is stratified with a risk-assessment model. Medically hospitalized patients have, on average, a VTE risk of 1.2%²³; 12 risk-assessment models designed to stratify risk were recently compared.³⁸ Two models, the Caprini Score (TABLE 5)³⁹ and the IMPROVE VTE Risk Calculator,⁴⁰ were best able to identify low-risk patients (negative predictive value, > 99%).³⁸ American Society of Hematology guidelines recommend IMPROVE VTE or the Padua Prediction Score for risk stratification.⁴¹ While the Caprini score only designates 11% of eventual VTE cases as low risk, both the IMPROVE VTE and Padua scores miss more than 35% of eventual VTE.³⁸

There is no prospective evidence that weight loss or control of diabetes or hypertension reduces the risk of VTE; smoking cessation does appear to reduce risk.

Because LMWH prophylaxis has been shown to reduce VTE by 40% without increasing the risk of major bleeding, using Caprini should prevent 2 VTEs for every 1000 patients, without an increase in major bleeding and with 13 additional minor bleeding events.⁴²

Continue to: Critically ill patients

Critically ill patients are assumed to be at high risk of VTE and do not require stratification.²³ For high-risk patients, prophylaxis with LMWH, low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH), or fondaparinux is recommended for the duration of admission.²³ For patients at high risk of both VTE and bleeding, mechanical prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is recommended instead of LMWH, LDUH, or fondaparinux.²³

Surgery, like trauma (see next page), increases the risk of VTE and has been well studied. Prophylaxis after orthopedic surgery differs from that of other types of surgery.

In orthopedic surgery, risk depends on the procedure. For major orthopedic surgery, including total hip or knee arthroplasty and hip fracture surgery, VTE prophylaxis is recommended for 35 days postsurgically.⁴³ LMWH is the preferred agent, although many other means have been shown to be beneficial.⁴⁴ A recent systematic review demonstrated that aspirin is not inferior to other medications after hip or knee arthroplasty.⁴⁵ No mechanical or pharmacotherapeutic prophylaxis is generally recommended after nonmajor orthopedic surgery.⁴³

Taking a statin can reduce the risk of VTE— slightly.

Nonorthopedic surgery is stratified by risk factors, using Caprini⁴⁴ (TABLE 5³⁹). For medium-risk patients (Caprini score, 3-4) LDUH, LMWH, or IPC is recommended; for high-risk patients (Caprini score, ≥ 5) preventive treatment should combine pharmacotherapeutic and mechanical prophylaxis.⁴⁶ A recent meta-analysis, comprising 14,776 patients, showed that surgical patients with a Caprini score ≥ 7 had a reduced incidence of VTE when given chemoprophylaxis, whereas patients whose score is < 7 do not benefit from chemoprophylaxis.⁴³ When bleeding risk is high, IPC is recommended as sole therapy.⁴³ Prophylaxis is not recommended when risk (determined by the Caprini score) is low.⁴⁶

Post-hospitalization. Risk of VTE can persist for as long as 90 days after hospitalization; this finding has led to evaluation of the benefit of prolonged chemoprophylaxis.²³ Extended-duration LMWH prophylaxis decreases the incidence of VTE, but at the cost of increased risk of major bleeding.⁴⁷ Based on this evidence, guidelines recommend against prolonged-duration anticoagulation.²³ A 2016 trial showed that 35 days of the direct-acting anticoagulant betrixaban reduced the risk of symptomatic VTE events, compared to 10 days of LMWH (NNT = 167), without increased risk of bleeding.⁴⁸ This is a limited benefit, however, that is unlikely to change guideline recommendations.

Continue to: Trauma

Trauma: VTE risk increases with severity

Trauma increases the risk of VTE considerably. A national study showed that 1.5% of admitted trauma patients experienced VTE during hospitalization and that 1.2% were readmitted for VTE within 1 year.⁴⁹ As many as 32% of trauma patients admitted to the intensive care unit experience VTE despite appropriate prophylaxis.⁵⁰ A Cochrane Review⁵¹ found that:

• prophylaxis significantly reduces DVT risk
• pharmacotherapeutic prophylaxis is more effective than mechanical prophylaxis
• LMWH is more effective than LDUH.

Guidelines recommend that major trauma patients receive prophylaxis with LMWH, LDUH, or IPC.⁴⁶

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael J. Arnold, MD, CDR, MC, USN; Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Jacksonville, FL 32214; [email protected].

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and dangerous disease, affecting 0.1%-0.2% of the population annually—a rate that might be underreported.¹ VTE is a collective term for venous blood clots, including (1) deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of peripheral veins and (2) pulmonary embolism, which occurs after a clot travels through the heart and becomes lodged in the pulmonary vasculature. Two-thirds of VTE cases present clinically as DVT²; most mortality from VTE disease is caused by the 20% of cases of pulmonary embolism that present as sudden death.¹

VTE is comparable to myocardial infarction (MI) in incidence and severity. In 2008, 208 of every 100,000 people had an MI, with a 30-day mortality of 16/100,000³; VTE disease has an annual incidence of 161 of every 100,000 people and a 28-day mortality of 18/100,000.⁴ Although the incidence and severity of MI are steadily decreasing, the rate of VTE appears constant.^3,5 The high mortality of VTE suggests that primary prevention, which we discuss in this article, is valuable (see “Key points: Primary prevention of venous thromboembolism”).

Risk factors

Virchow’s triad of venous stasis, vascular injury, and hypercoagulability describes predisposing factors for VTE.⁶ Although venous valves promote blood flow, they produce isolated low-flow areas adjacent to valves that become concentrated and locally hypoxic, increasing the risk of clotting.⁷ The great majority of DVTs (≥ 96%) occur in the lower extremity,⁸ starting in the calf; there, 75% of cases resolve spontaneously before they extend into the deep veins of the proximal leg.⁷ One-half of DVTs that do move into the proximal leg eventually embolize.⁷

Major risk factors for VTE comprise inherited conditions, medical history, medical therapeutics, and behaviors (TABLE 1).^9-11 Unlike the preventive management of coronary artery disease (CAD), there is no simple, generalized prevention algorithm to address VTE risk factors.

Risk factors for VTE and CAD overlap. Risk factors for atherosclerosis—­obesity, diabetes, smoking, hypertension, ­hyperlipidemia—also increase the risk of VTE (TABLE 1).^9-11 The association between risk factors for VTE and atherosclerosis is demonstrated by a doubling of the risk of MI and stroke in the year following VTE.¹¹ Lifestyle changes are expected to reduce the risk of VTE, as they do for acute CAD, but studies are lacking to confirm this connection. There is no prospective evidence showing that weight loss or control of diabetes or hypertension reduces the risk of VTE.¹² Smoking cessation does appear to reduce risk: Former smokers have the same VTE risk as never-smokers.¹³

Thrombophilia testing: Not generally useful

Inherited and acquired thrombophilic conditions define a group of disorders in which the risk of VTE is increased. Although thrombophilia testing was once considered for primary and secondary prevention of VTE, such testing is rarely used now because proof of benefit is lacking: A large case–control study showed that thrombophilia testing did not predict recurrence after a first VTE.¹⁴ Guidelines of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) do not address thrombophilia, and the American Society of Hematology recommends against thrombophilia testing after a provoked VTE.^15,16

Primary prophylaxis of patients with a family history of VTE and inherited thrombophilia is controversial. Patients with both a family history of VTE and demonstrated thrombophilia do have double the average incidence of VTE, but this increased risk does not offset the significant bleeding risk associated with anticoagulation.¹⁷ Recommendations for thrombophilia testing are limited to certain situations in pregnancy, discussed in a bit.^16,18,19

Continue to: Primary prevention of VTE in the clinic

There is no single, overarching preventive strategy for VTE in an ambulatory patient (although statins, discussed in a moment, offer some benefit, broadly). There are, however, distinct behavioral characteristics and medical circumstances for which opportunities exist to reduce VTE risk—for example, when a person engages in long-distance travel, receives hormonal therapy, is pregnant, or has cancer. In each scenario, recognizing and mitigating risk are important.

Statins offer a (slight) benefit

There is evidence that statins reduce the risk of VTE—slightly^20-23:

• A large randomized, controlled trial showed that rosuvastatin, 20 mg/d, reduced the rate of VTE, compared to placebo; however, the 2-year number needed to treat (NNT) was 349.²⁰ The VTE benefit is minimal, however, compared to primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with statins (5-year NNT = 56).²¹ The sole significant adverse event associated with statins was new-onset type 2 diabetes (5-year number needed to harm = 235).²¹
• A subsequent meta-analysis confirmed a small reduction in VTE risk with statins.²² In its 2012 guidelines, ACCP declined to issue a recommendation on the use of statins for VTE prevention.²³ When considering statins for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, take the additional VTE prevention into account.

Simple strategies can help prevent travel-related VTE

Travel is a common inciting factor for VTE. A systematic review showed that VTE risk triples after travel of ≥ 4 hours, increasing by 20% with each additional 2 hours.²⁴ Most VTE occurs in travelers who have other VTE risk factors.²⁵ Based on case–control studies,²³ guidelines recommend these preventive measures:

• frequent calf exercises
• sitting in an aisle seat during air travel
• keeping hydrated.

A Cochrane review showed that graded compression stockings reduce asymptomatic DVT in travelers by a factor of 10, in high- and low-risk patients.²⁶

VTE risk varies with type of hormonal contraception

Most contraceptives increase VTE risk (TABLE 2^27,28). Risk with combined oral contraceptives varies with the amount of estrogen and progesterone. To reduce VTE risk with oral contraceptives, patients can use an agent that contains a lower dose of estrogen or one in which levonorgestrel replaces other progesterones.²⁷

Continue to: Studies suggest that the levonorgestrel-releasing...

Studies suggest that the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device and progestin-only pills are not associated with an increase in VTE risk.²⁷ Although the quality of evidence varies, most nonoral hormonal contraceptives have been determined to carry a risk of VTE that is similar to that of combined oral contraceptives.²⁸

In hormone replacement, avoid pills to lower risk

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for postmenopausal women increases VTE risk when administered in oral form, with combined estrogen and progestin HRT doubling the risk and estrogen-only formulations having a lower risk.²⁹ VTE risk is highest in the first 6 months of HRT, declining to that of a non-HRT user within 5 years.²⁹ Neither transdermal HRT nor estrogen creams increase the risk of VTE, according to a systematic review.³⁰ The estradiol-containing vaginal ring also does not confer increased risk.²⁹

Pregnancy, thrombophilia, and VTE prevention

VTE affects as many as 0.2% of pregnancies but causes 9% of pregnancy-related deaths.¹⁸ The severity of VTE in pregnancy led the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to recommend primary VTE prophylaxis in patients with certain thrombophilias.¹⁸ Thrombophilia testing is recommended in patients with proven high-risk thrombophilia in a first-degree relative.¹⁸ ACOG recognizes 5 thrombophilias considered to carry a high risk of VTE in pregnancy¹⁸:

• homozygous Factor V Leiden
• homozygous prothrombin G20210A mutation
• antithrombin deficiency
• heterozygous Factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A mutation
• antiphospholipid antibody syndrome.

ACOG recommends limiting thrombophilia testing to (1) any specific thrombophilia carried by a relative and (2) possibly, the antiphospholipid antibodies anticardiolipin and lupus anticoagulant.^18,19 Antiphospholipid testing is recommended when there is a history of stillbirth, 3 early pregnancy losses, or delivery earlier than 34 weeks secondary to preeclampsia.¹⁹

Primary VTE prophylaxis is recommended for pregnant patients with a high-risk thrombophilia; low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is safe and its effects are predictable.¹⁸ Because postpartum risk of VTE is higher than antepartum risk, postpartum prophylaxis is also recommended with lower-risk thrombophilias¹⁸; a vitamin K antagonist or LMWH can be used.¹⁸ ACCP and ACOG recommendations for VTE prophylaxis in pregnancy differ slightly (TABLE 3^16,18,19).

Continue to: Cancer increases risks of VTE and bleeding

Cancer increases VTE risk > 6-fold³¹; metastases, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy further increase risk. Cancer also greatly increases the risk of bleeding: Cancer patients with VTE have an annual major bleeding rate ≥ 20%.³² Guidelines do not recommend primary VTE prophylaxis for cancer, although American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines discuss consideration of prophylaxis for select, high-risk patients,^33,34 including those with multiple myeloma, metastatic gastrointestinal cancer, or metastatic brain cancer.^31,34 Recent evidence (discussed in a moment) supports the use of apixaban for primary VTE prevention during chemotherapy for high-risk cancer.

The Khorana Risk Score (TABLE 4^35,36) for VTE was developed and validated for use in patients with solid cancer³⁵: A score of 2 conveys nearly a 10% risk of VTE over 6 months.³⁶ A recent study of 550 cancer patients with a Khorana score of ≥ 2—the first evidence of risk-guided primary VTE prevention in cancer—showed that primary prophylaxis with 2.5 mg of apixaban, bid, reduced the risk of VTE (NNT = 17); however, the number needed to harm (for major bleeding) was 59.³⁷ Mortality was not changed with apixaban treatment.³⁷

Primary VTE prevention in med-surg hospitalizations

The risk of VTE increases significantly during hospitalization, although not enough to justify universal prophylaxis. Recommended prevention strategies for different classes of hospitalized patients are summarized below.

In medically hospitalized patients, risk is stratified with a risk-assessment model. Medically hospitalized patients have, on average, a VTE risk of 1.2%²³; 12 risk-assessment models designed to stratify risk were recently compared.³⁸ Two models, the Caprini Score (TABLE 5)³⁹ and the IMPROVE VTE Risk Calculator,⁴⁰ were best able to identify low-risk patients (negative predictive value, > 99%).³⁸ American Society of Hematology guidelines recommend IMPROVE VTE or the Padua Prediction Score for risk stratification.⁴¹ While the Caprini score only designates 11% of eventual VTE cases as low risk, both the IMPROVE VTE and Padua scores miss more than 35% of eventual VTE.³⁸

There is no prospective evidence that weight loss or control of diabetes or hypertension reduces the risk of VTE; smoking cessation does appear to reduce risk.

Because LMWH prophylaxis has been shown to reduce VTE by 40% without increasing the risk of major bleeding, using Caprini should prevent 2 VTEs for every 1000 patients, without an increase in major bleeding and with 13 additional minor bleeding events.⁴²

Continue to: Critically ill patients

Critically ill patients are assumed to be at high risk of VTE and do not require stratification.²³ For high-risk patients, prophylaxis with LMWH, low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH), or fondaparinux is recommended for the duration of admission.²³ For patients at high risk of both VTE and bleeding, mechanical prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is recommended instead of LMWH, LDUH, or fondaparinux.²³

Surgery, like trauma (see next page), increases the risk of VTE and has been well studied. Prophylaxis after orthopedic surgery differs from that of other types of surgery.

In orthopedic surgery, risk depends on the procedure. For major orthopedic surgery, including total hip or knee arthroplasty and hip fracture surgery, VTE prophylaxis is recommended for 35 days postsurgically.⁴³ LMWH is the preferred agent, although many other means have been shown to be beneficial.⁴⁴ A recent systematic review demonstrated that aspirin is not inferior to other medications after hip or knee arthroplasty.⁴⁵ No mechanical or pharmacotherapeutic prophylaxis is generally recommended after nonmajor orthopedic surgery.⁴³

Taking a statin can reduce the risk of VTE— slightly.

Nonorthopedic surgery is stratified by risk factors, using Caprini⁴⁴ (TABLE 5³⁹). For medium-risk patients (Caprini score, 3-4) LDUH, LMWH, or IPC is recommended; for high-risk patients (Caprini score, ≥ 5) preventive treatment should combine pharmacotherapeutic and mechanical prophylaxis.⁴⁶ A recent meta-analysis, comprising 14,776 patients, showed that surgical patients with a Caprini score ≥ 7 had a reduced incidence of VTE when given chemoprophylaxis, whereas patients whose score is < 7 do not benefit from chemoprophylaxis.⁴³ When bleeding risk is high, IPC is recommended as sole therapy.⁴³ Prophylaxis is not recommended when risk (determined by the Caprini score) is low.⁴⁶

Post-hospitalization. Risk of VTE can persist for as long as 90 days after hospitalization; this finding has led to evaluation of the benefit of prolonged chemoprophylaxis.²³ Extended-duration LMWH prophylaxis decreases the incidence of VTE, but at the cost of increased risk of major bleeding.⁴⁷ Based on this evidence, guidelines recommend against prolonged-duration anticoagulation.²³ A 2016 trial showed that 35 days of the direct-acting anticoagulant betrixaban reduced the risk of symptomatic VTE events, compared to 10 days of LMWH (NNT = 167), without increased risk of bleeding.⁴⁸ This is a limited benefit, however, that is unlikely to change guideline recommendations.

Continue to: Trauma

Trauma: VTE risk increases with severity

Trauma increases the risk of VTE considerably. A national study showed that 1.5% of admitted trauma patients experienced VTE during hospitalization and that 1.2% were readmitted for VTE within 1 year.⁴⁹ As many as 32% of trauma patients admitted to the intensive care unit experience VTE despite appropriate prophylaxis.⁵⁰ A Cochrane Review⁵¹ found that:

• prophylaxis significantly reduces DVT risk
• pharmacotherapeutic prophylaxis is more effective than mechanical prophylaxis
• LMWH is more effective than LDUH.

Guidelines recommend that major trauma patients receive prophylaxis with LMWH, LDUH, or IPC.⁴⁶

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael J. Arnold, MD, CDR, MC, USN; Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Jacksonville, FL 32214; [email protected].