User login
Profile of respiratory bacteria in children younger than 6 months
In this column, I will describe the results of a recently published study from my group.1 We sought to profile Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Haemophilus influenzae (Hflu) and Moraxella catarrhalis (Mcat) in the nasopharynx among 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13)-immunized children, with a focus on the first 6 months of life. The rationale was to provide heretofore unreported contemporary data in a highly PCV13-immunized, community-based child population in the United States. A secondary objective was to assess nasopharyngeal bacterial density because higher density associates with greater likelihood of progression to infection. Thirdly, the serotype distribution and antibiotic susceptibility of pneumococci among children seen in primary care settings in the United States had not been evaluated for strains circulating among infants less than 6 months old and they may differ from strains recovered from older children. Therefore, comparisons were made within the same cohort of children to later child age time points.
Risk factors identified
The study was prospective and collected from a cohort of 101 children in Rochester, N.Y., during 2018-2020. Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken for study at age 1, 2 and 3 weeks, then 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 24 months. All children had received PCV13 vaccine according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended schedule.
We found two significant risk factors in the first 6 months of life for detection of nasopharyngeal colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat. They were daycare attendance and one or more siblings aged 1-5 years at home.
Colonization by one or more of the three bacteria was detected in only 5% of infants before age 2 months. None of the five children attended daycare but all five had young siblings at home. Pneumococcal colonization was detected in 12%, Hflu in 3%, and Mcat in 21% of nasopharyngeal swabs collected during the first 6 months of life. Nasopharyngeal colonization with the bacteria increased rapidly between age 4 and 6 months of life, coincident with infants going to daycare and other social interaction opportunities. Bacterial density of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat during the first 6 months of life was significantly lower in the nasopharynx compared with bacterial density when samples were collected during child age 7-24 months.
The prevalent pneumococcal serotypes in children up to 6 months old were 23B (17%), 22F (13%), 15B/C (11%), 16F (9%), and 21 (7%), 19F (7%), which differed from those isolated from children age 7-24 months, where serotypes 35B (15%), 21 (10%), 15B (9%), and 23B (7%), 23A (7%) were most commonly observed. Antibiotic resistance among isolates did not significantly differ in comparisons between infants younger than 6 months versus 7- to 24-month-olds.
What is the clinical significance?
Colonization of the nasopharynx is a necessary first step in infection pathogenesis (Figure).
Prevalence of colonization varies among settings and countries, with generally much higher prevalence soon after birth and persisting at high rates in children living in low/middle-income countries versus high-income countries. This is one explanation for higher respiratory infection rates in low/middle-income countries compared with the United States, Europe, and other high-income countries. Environmental risk factors for early life colonization include household crowding, young siblings, no breastfeeding, daycare attendance, antibiotic usage, and passive exposure to smoke.
In a prior study of a different cohort of 358 prospectively-enrolled children, we sought associations between physician-attended illness visits and bacterial colonization in the first 5 years of life.2 We showed that early age of first colonization with pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat was associated with respiratory infection proneness and asthma among the children.
Multiple demographic and risk factors may contribute to early life and high-density colonization that in turn may increase risk of infections. High densities and early life pneumococcal colonization in low/middle-income countries might impact PCV responses by induction of immunity tolerance. While it is appealing to study new vaccines in low/middle-income populations with high infection incidence, there are reasons that infection incidence is higher compared with high-income countries like the United States, among them may be early life nasopharyngeal colonization and density of colonization.
Prevalent pneumococcal serotype appear to differ with age. The most common serotypes in the first 6 months of life for the children were 23B> 22F> 16F and 21=19F, but in children 7-24 months, serotypes 35B> 21>15B>23A=23B were most commonly observed. This difference might be due to the impact of antibiotics.3 Pneumococci expressing serotypes 22F and 16F were oxacillin susceptible and antibiotic exposure in the first 6 months of life is very uncommon in our study cohorts. In contrast, all pneumococci expressing 35B capsule were oxacillin resistant and in our cohorts antibiotic exposures are common among 7- to 24-month-olds.
In conclusion, we determined that children in the first 6 months of life seen in pediatric primary care settings in Rochester, N.Y., have very low prevalence and low-density colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat compared with 7- to 24-month olds. Our results may explain the significantly lower rates of infections caused by pneumococci, Hflu, and Mcat in infants younger than 6 months old compared with low/middle-income countries.
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
1. Kaur R and Pichichero M. Colonization, density, and antibiotic resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus Influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis among PCV13 vaccinated infants in the first six months of life in Rochester, New York. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2023 Apr 18;12(3):135-42.
2. Chapman T et al. Nasopharyngeal colonization with pathobionts is associated with susceptibility to respiratory illnesses in young children. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 11;15(12):e0243942. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243942.
3. Chapman TJ et al. Antibiotic use and vaccine antibody levels. Pediatrics 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.
In this column, I will describe the results of a recently published study from my group.1 We sought to profile Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Haemophilus influenzae (Hflu) and Moraxella catarrhalis (Mcat) in the nasopharynx among 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13)-immunized children, with a focus on the first 6 months of life. The rationale was to provide heretofore unreported contemporary data in a highly PCV13-immunized, community-based child population in the United States. A secondary objective was to assess nasopharyngeal bacterial density because higher density associates with greater likelihood of progression to infection. Thirdly, the serotype distribution and antibiotic susceptibility of pneumococci among children seen in primary care settings in the United States had not been evaluated for strains circulating among infants less than 6 months old and they may differ from strains recovered from older children. Therefore, comparisons were made within the same cohort of children to later child age time points.
Risk factors identified
The study was prospective and collected from a cohort of 101 children in Rochester, N.Y., during 2018-2020. Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken for study at age 1, 2 and 3 weeks, then 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 24 months. All children had received PCV13 vaccine according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended schedule.
We found two significant risk factors in the first 6 months of life for detection of nasopharyngeal colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat. They were daycare attendance and one or more siblings aged 1-5 years at home.
Colonization by one or more of the three bacteria was detected in only 5% of infants before age 2 months. None of the five children attended daycare but all five had young siblings at home. Pneumococcal colonization was detected in 12%, Hflu in 3%, and Mcat in 21% of nasopharyngeal swabs collected during the first 6 months of life. Nasopharyngeal colonization with the bacteria increased rapidly between age 4 and 6 months of life, coincident with infants going to daycare and other social interaction opportunities. Bacterial density of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat during the first 6 months of life was significantly lower in the nasopharynx compared with bacterial density when samples were collected during child age 7-24 months.
The prevalent pneumococcal serotypes in children up to 6 months old were 23B (17%), 22F (13%), 15B/C (11%), 16F (9%), and 21 (7%), 19F (7%), which differed from those isolated from children age 7-24 months, where serotypes 35B (15%), 21 (10%), 15B (9%), and 23B (7%), 23A (7%) were most commonly observed. Antibiotic resistance among isolates did not significantly differ in comparisons between infants younger than 6 months versus 7- to 24-month-olds.
What is the clinical significance?
Colonization of the nasopharynx is a necessary first step in infection pathogenesis (Figure).
Prevalence of colonization varies among settings and countries, with generally much higher prevalence soon after birth and persisting at high rates in children living in low/middle-income countries versus high-income countries. This is one explanation for higher respiratory infection rates in low/middle-income countries compared with the United States, Europe, and other high-income countries. Environmental risk factors for early life colonization include household crowding, young siblings, no breastfeeding, daycare attendance, antibiotic usage, and passive exposure to smoke.
In a prior study of a different cohort of 358 prospectively-enrolled children, we sought associations between physician-attended illness visits and bacterial colonization in the first 5 years of life.2 We showed that early age of first colonization with pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat was associated with respiratory infection proneness and asthma among the children.
Multiple demographic and risk factors may contribute to early life and high-density colonization that in turn may increase risk of infections. High densities and early life pneumococcal colonization in low/middle-income countries might impact PCV responses by induction of immunity tolerance. While it is appealing to study new vaccines in low/middle-income populations with high infection incidence, there are reasons that infection incidence is higher compared with high-income countries like the United States, among them may be early life nasopharyngeal colonization and density of colonization.
Prevalent pneumococcal serotype appear to differ with age. The most common serotypes in the first 6 months of life for the children were 23B> 22F> 16F and 21=19F, but in children 7-24 months, serotypes 35B> 21>15B>23A=23B were most commonly observed. This difference might be due to the impact of antibiotics.3 Pneumococci expressing serotypes 22F and 16F were oxacillin susceptible and antibiotic exposure in the first 6 months of life is very uncommon in our study cohorts. In contrast, all pneumococci expressing 35B capsule were oxacillin resistant and in our cohorts antibiotic exposures are common among 7- to 24-month-olds.
In conclusion, we determined that children in the first 6 months of life seen in pediatric primary care settings in Rochester, N.Y., have very low prevalence and low-density colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat compared with 7- to 24-month olds. Our results may explain the significantly lower rates of infections caused by pneumococci, Hflu, and Mcat in infants younger than 6 months old compared with low/middle-income countries.
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
1. Kaur R and Pichichero M. Colonization, density, and antibiotic resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus Influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis among PCV13 vaccinated infants in the first six months of life in Rochester, New York. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2023 Apr 18;12(3):135-42.
2. Chapman T et al. Nasopharyngeal colonization with pathobionts is associated with susceptibility to respiratory illnesses in young children. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 11;15(12):e0243942. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243942.
3. Chapman TJ et al. Antibiotic use and vaccine antibody levels. Pediatrics 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.
In this column, I will describe the results of a recently published study from my group.1 We sought to profile Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Haemophilus influenzae (Hflu) and Moraxella catarrhalis (Mcat) in the nasopharynx among 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13)-immunized children, with a focus on the first 6 months of life. The rationale was to provide heretofore unreported contemporary data in a highly PCV13-immunized, community-based child population in the United States. A secondary objective was to assess nasopharyngeal bacterial density because higher density associates with greater likelihood of progression to infection. Thirdly, the serotype distribution and antibiotic susceptibility of pneumococci among children seen in primary care settings in the United States had not been evaluated for strains circulating among infants less than 6 months old and they may differ from strains recovered from older children. Therefore, comparisons were made within the same cohort of children to later child age time points.
Risk factors identified
The study was prospective and collected from a cohort of 101 children in Rochester, N.Y., during 2018-2020. Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken for study at age 1, 2 and 3 weeks, then 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 24 months. All children had received PCV13 vaccine according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended schedule.
We found two significant risk factors in the first 6 months of life for detection of nasopharyngeal colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat. They were daycare attendance and one or more siblings aged 1-5 years at home.
Colonization by one or more of the three bacteria was detected in only 5% of infants before age 2 months. None of the five children attended daycare but all five had young siblings at home. Pneumococcal colonization was detected in 12%, Hflu in 3%, and Mcat in 21% of nasopharyngeal swabs collected during the first 6 months of life. Nasopharyngeal colonization with the bacteria increased rapidly between age 4 and 6 months of life, coincident with infants going to daycare and other social interaction opportunities. Bacterial density of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat during the first 6 months of life was significantly lower in the nasopharynx compared with bacterial density when samples were collected during child age 7-24 months.
The prevalent pneumococcal serotypes in children up to 6 months old were 23B (17%), 22F (13%), 15B/C (11%), 16F (9%), and 21 (7%), 19F (7%), which differed from those isolated from children age 7-24 months, where serotypes 35B (15%), 21 (10%), 15B (9%), and 23B (7%), 23A (7%) were most commonly observed. Antibiotic resistance among isolates did not significantly differ in comparisons between infants younger than 6 months versus 7- to 24-month-olds.
What is the clinical significance?
Colonization of the nasopharynx is a necessary first step in infection pathogenesis (Figure).
Prevalence of colonization varies among settings and countries, with generally much higher prevalence soon after birth and persisting at high rates in children living in low/middle-income countries versus high-income countries. This is one explanation for higher respiratory infection rates in low/middle-income countries compared with the United States, Europe, and other high-income countries. Environmental risk factors for early life colonization include household crowding, young siblings, no breastfeeding, daycare attendance, antibiotic usage, and passive exposure to smoke.
In a prior study of a different cohort of 358 prospectively-enrolled children, we sought associations between physician-attended illness visits and bacterial colonization in the first 5 years of life.2 We showed that early age of first colonization with pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat was associated with respiratory infection proneness and asthma among the children.
Multiple demographic and risk factors may contribute to early life and high-density colonization that in turn may increase risk of infections. High densities and early life pneumococcal colonization in low/middle-income countries might impact PCV responses by induction of immunity tolerance. While it is appealing to study new vaccines in low/middle-income populations with high infection incidence, there are reasons that infection incidence is higher compared with high-income countries like the United States, among them may be early life nasopharyngeal colonization and density of colonization.
Prevalent pneumococcal serotype appear to differ with age. The most common serotypes in the first 6 months of life for the children were 23B> 22F> 16F and 21=19F, but in children 7-24 months, serotypes 35B> 21>15B>23A=23B were most commonly observed. This difference might be due to the impact of antibiotics.3 Pneumococci expressing serotypes 22F and 16F were oxacillin susceptible and antibiotic exposure in the first 6 months of life is very uncommon in our study cohorts. In contrast, all pneumococci expressing 35B capsule were oxacillin resistant and in our cohorts antibiotic exposures are common among 7- to 24-month-olds.
In conclusion, we determined that children in the first 6 months of life seen in pediatric primary care settings in Rochester, N.Y., have very low prevalence and low-density colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat compared with 7- to 24-month olds. Our results may explain the significantly lower rates of infections caused by pneumococci, Hflu, and Mcat in infants younger than 6 months old compared with low/middle-income countries.
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
1. Kaur R and Pichichero M. Colonization, density, and antibiotic resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus Influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis among PCV13 vaccinated infants in the first six months of life in Rochester, New York. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2023 Apr 18;12(3):135-42.
2. Chapman T et al. Nasopharyngeal colonization with pathobionts is associated with susceptibility to respiratory illnesses in young children. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 11;15(12):e0243942. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243942.
3. Chapman TJ et al. Antibiotic use and vaccine antibody levels. Pediatrics 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.
Antibiotic prophylaxis may lower SSIs in skin cancer surgery
Delivering s, compared with not using incision site antibiotics.
The rate of postoperative SSIs was 2.1% in the clindamycin arm, vs. 5.7% in the control arm and 5.3% in the flucloxacillin arm.
“Based on these results, we recommend the routine adoption of incisional microdosed clindamycin for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery,” Maple Goh, MBChB, of the Auckland Regional Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Auckland, New Zealand, and the coauthors conclude. “This strategy appears suitable for widespread implementation because of the magnitude of the effect observed and the absence of adverse events.”
The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
Skin cancer surgery carries a high risk of SSIs, which represent costly yet largely preventable complications of surgery. Despite the risk, there’s a lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials of the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing SSI rates among patients undergoing skin cancer surgery. Previous studies have investigated incisional antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce SSIs with Mohs micrographic surgery, but these surgeries represent a relatively small proportion of overall skin cancer surgeries.
To understand whether this benefit extends to more general skin cancer surgeries, investigators recruited patients from a high-volume skin cancer center in New Zealand who were treated from February to July 2019. In the double-blind, prospective PICASSo trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive an incision site injection of buffered local anesthetic alone (control group), buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of flucloxacillin (500 mcg/mL), or buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of clindamycin (500 mcg/mL). The most common surgery type was excision and direct closure (approximately 80% in all arms), and the mean volume injected per length of direct closure was 1.5 mL/cm.
The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative SSIs, defined as a postoperative wound infection score of 5 or more. The SSI rate was calculated as the number of lesions with SSIs per total number of lesions in the group.
Overall, 681 patients with 1,133 total lesions were included in the study. Compared with the control arm, the rate of postoperative SSIs was nearly threefold lower among patients who received clindamycin, –2.1% (9 of 422) vs. 5.7% (22 of 388) in the control arm (P = .01 for clindamycin vs. control).
However, flucloxacillin did not demonstrate the same effectiveness. The flucloxacillin arm and the control arm demonstrated similar postoperative SSI rates – 5.3% (17 of 323) vs. 5.7%.
The results were similar after adjusting for baseline differences and lesion ulceration.
The researchers also found that the proportion of lesions that required postoperative systemic antibiotics was four times higher among the control arm, in comparison with the clindamycin arm (8% vs. 2.1%; P < .001). It was two times higher than in the flucloxacillin arm (8% vs. 4%; P = .03).
Treatment with microdoses of incisional flucloxacillin and clindamycin was safe and well tolerated.
The researchers speculated that clindamycin’s greater effectiveness may come down to its slightly broader coverage of commonly cultured bacteria in skin and soft tissue infections, including community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clindamycin is known to have more efficacy against anaerobic bacteria that may be lurking in chronically ulcerated skin lesions and is associated with less local tissue inflammation, compared with flucloxacillin.
Overall, “clindamycin was significantly more effective at preventing SSI than flucloxacillin in our study,” the authors conclude. They note that the use of clindamycin as a first-line prophylaxis agent against SSIs for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery is a practical option.
“These results establish evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in one of the most common surgical interventions performed worldwide, where they have been previously absent,” the researchers say.
The authors of an editorial published with the study underscore other advantages of incisional microdosing with antibiotics.
“One advantage of cutaneous antibiotic administration is improved drug delivery to poorly perfused tissue, which would have limited reach by the systemic circulation,” wrote Amanda R. Sergesketter, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Scott T. Hollenbeck, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
“While not evaluated in this study, local antibiotic delivery may be especially relevant to larger and more complex wounds,” the editorialists say. They note that the next step for future studies should be to evaluate prophylaxis in more complex situations.
“Such studies should be considered enthusiastically, given the clearly favorable impact on surgical site infections demonstrated in the PICASSo trial,” Dr. Sergesketter and Dr. Hollenbeck said.
The study was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Health Research Council. Dr. Hollenbeck reported educational grants to Duke University from Allergan, Acelity, Synovis, Integra, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Cook, KLs Martin, Bard, VOptix, Scanlan, True Digital Surgery, Nautilus, Mitaka, Checkpoint Surgical, and Omniguide, and he is a founder and equity holder for InSoma Bio, a premarket company focused on tissue regeneration.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Delivering s, compared with not using incision site antibiotics.
The rate of postoperative SSIs was 2.1% in the clindamycin arm, vs. 5.7% in the control arm and 5.3% in the flucloxacillin arm.
“Based on these results, we recommend the routine adoption of incisional microdosed clindamycin for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery,” Maple Goh, MBChB, of the Auckland Regional Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Auckland, New Zealand, and the coauthors conclude. “This strategy appears suitable for widespread implementation because of the magnitude of the effect observed and the absence of adverse events.”
The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
Skin cancer surgery carries a high risk of SSIs, which represent costly yet largely preventable complications of surgery. Despite the risk, there’s a lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials of the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing SSI rates among patients undergoing skin cancer surgery. Previous studies have investigated incisional antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce SSIs with Mohs micrographic surgery, but these surgeries represent a relatively small proportion of overall skin cancer surgeries.
To understand whether this benefit extends to more general skin cancer surgeries, investigators recruited patients from a high-volume skin cancer center in New Zealand who were treated from February to July 2019. In the double-blind, prospective PICASSo trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive an incision site injection of buffered local anesthetic alone (control group), buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of flucloxacillin (500 mcg/mL), or buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of clindamycin (500 mcg/mL). The most common surgery type was excision and direct closure (approximately 80% in all arms), and the mean volume injected per length of direct closure was 1.5 mL/cm.
The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative SSIs, defined as a postoperative wound infection score of 5 or more. The SSI rate was calculated as the number of lesions with SSIs per total number of lesions in the group.
Overall, 681 patients with 1,133 total lesions were included in the study. Compared with the control arm, the rate of postoperative SSIs was nearly threefold lower among patients who received clindamycin, –2.1% (9 of 422) vs. 5.7% (22 of 388) in the control arm (P = .01 for clindamycin vs. control).
However, flucloxacillin did not demonstrate the same effectiveness. The flucloxacillin arm and the control arm demonstrated similar postoperative SSI rates – 5.3% (17 of 323) vs. 5.7%.
The results were similar after adjusting for baseline differences and lesion ulceration.
The researchers also found that the proportion of lesions that required postoperative systemic antibiotics was four times higher among the control arm, in comparison with the clindamycin arm (8% vs. 2.1%; P < .001). It was two times higher than in the flucloxacillin arm (8% vs. 4%; P = .03).
Treatment with microdoses of incisional flucloxacillin and clindamycin was safe and well tolerated.
The researchers speculated that clindamycin’s greater effectiveness may come down to its slightly broader coverage of commonly cultured bacteria in skin and soft tissue infections, including community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clindamycin is known to have more efficacy against anaerobic bacteria that may be lurking in chronically ulcerated skin lesions and is associated with less local tissue inflammation, compared with flucloxacillin.
Overall, “clindamycin was significantly more effective at preventing SSI than flucloxacillin in our study,” the authors conclude. They note that the use of clindamycin as a first-line prophylaxis agent against SSIs for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery is a practical option.
“These results establish evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in one of the most common surgical interventions performed worldwide, where they have been previously absent,” the researchers say.
The authors of an editorial published with the study underscore other advantages of incisional microdosing with antibiotics.
“One advantage of cutaneous antibiotic administration is improved drug delivery to poorly perfused tissue, which would have limited reach by the systemic circulation,” wrote Amanda R. Sergesketter, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Scott T. Hollenbeck, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
“While not evaluated in this study, local antibiotic delivery may be especially relevant to larger and more complex wounds,” the editorialists say. They note that the next step for future studies should be to evaluate prophylaxis in more complex situations.
“Such studies should be considered enthusiastically, given the clearly favorable impact on surgical site infections demonstrated in the PICASSo trial,” Dr. Sergesketter and Dr. Hollenbeck said.
The study was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Health Research Council. Dr. Hollenbeck reported educational grants to Duke University from Allergan, Acelity, Synovis, Integra, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Cook, KLs Martin, Bard, VOptix, Scanlan, True Digital Surgery, Nautilus, Mitaka, Checkpoint Surgical, and Omniguide, and he is a founder and equity holder for InSoma Bio, a premarket company focused on tissue regeneration.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Delivering s, compared with not using incision site antibiotics.
The rate of postoperative SSIs was 2.1% in the clindamycin arm, vs. 5.7% in the control arm and 5.3% in the flucloxacillin arm.
“Based on these results, we recommend the routine adoption of incisional microdosed clindamycin for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery,” Maple Goh, MBChB, of the Auckland Regional Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Auckland, New Zealand, and the coauthors conclude. “This strategy appears suitable for widespread implementation because of the magnitude of the effect observed and the absence of adverse events.”
The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
Skin cancer surgery carries a high risk of SSIs, which represent costly yet largely preventable complications of surgery. Despite the risk, there’s a lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials of the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing SSI rates among patients undergoing skin cancer surgery. Previous studies have investigated incisional antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce SSIs with Mohs micrographic surgery, but these surgeries represent a relatively small proportion of overall skin cancer surgeries.
To understand whether this benefit extends to more general skin cancer surgeries, investigators recruited patients from a high-volume skin cancer center in New Zealand who were treated from February to July 2019. In the double-blind, prospective PICASSo trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive an incision site injection of buffered local anesthetic alone (control group), buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of flucloxacillin (500 mcg/mL), or buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of clindamycin (500 mcg/mL). The most common surgery type was excision and direct closure (approximately 80% in all arms), and the mean volume injected per length of direct closure was 1.5 mL/cm.
The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative SSIs, defined as a postoperative wound infection score of 5 or more. The SSI rate was calculated as the number of lesions with SSIs per total number of lesions in the group.
Overall, 681 patients with 1,133 total lesions were included in the study. Compared with the control arm, the rate of postoperative SSIs was nearly threefold lower among patients who received clindamycin, –2.1% (9 of 422) vs. 5.7% (22 of 388) in the control arm (P = .01 for clindamycin vs. control).
However, flucloxacillin did not demonstrate the same effectiveness. The flucloxacillin arm and the control arm demonstrated similar postoperative SSI rates – 5.3% (17 of 323) vs. 5.7%.
The results were similar after adjusting for baseline differences and lesion ulceration.
The researchers also found that the proportion of lesions that required postoperative systemic antibiotics was four times higher among the control arm, in comparison with the clindamycin arm (8% vs. 2.1%; P < .001). It was two times higher than in the flucloxacillin arm (8% vs. 4%; P = .03).
Treatment with microdoses of incisional flucloxacillin and clindamycin was safe and well tolerated.
The researchers speculated that clindamycin’s greater effectiveness may come down to its slightly broader coverage of commonly cultured bacteria in skin and soft tissue infections, including community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clindamycin is known to have more efficacy against anaerobic bacteria that may be lurking in chronically ulcerated skin lesions and is associated with less local tissue inflammation, compared with flucloxacillin.
Overall, “clindamycin was significantly more effective at preventing SSI than flucloxacillin in our study,” the authors conclude. They note that the use of clindamycin as a first-line prophylaxis agent against SSIs for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery is a practical option.
“These results establish evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in one of the most common surgical interventions performed worldwide, where they have been previously absent,” the researchers say.
The authors of an editorial published with the study underscore other advantages of incisional microdosing with antibiotics.
“One advantage of cutaneous antibiotic administration is improved drug delivery to poorly perfused tissue, which would have limited reach by the systemic circulation,” wrote Amanda R. Sergesketter, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Scott T. Hollenbeck, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
“While not evaluated in this study, local antibiotic delivery may be especially relevant to larger and more complex wounds,” the editorialists say. They note that the next step for future studies should be to evaluate prophylaxis in more complex situations.
“Such studies should be considered enthusiastically, given the clearly favorable impact on surgical site infections demonstrated in the PICASSo trial,” Dr. Sergesketter and Dr. Hollenbeck said.
The study was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Health Research Council. Dr. Hollenbeck reported educational grants to Duke University from Allergan, Acelity, Synovis, Integra, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Cook, KLs Martin, Bard, VOptix, Scanlan, True Digital Surgery, Nautilus, Mitaka, Checkpoint Surgical, and Omniguide, and he is a founder and equity holder for InSoma Bio, a premarket company focused on tissue regeneration.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA SURGERY
Advising patients on AD treatment options: Expert pearls
WASHINGTON –
The question was top of mind for experts who shared their advice during a “Tips and Tricks” session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting. Dupilumab dosing and dupilumab-associated facial redness and ocular disease, self-image issues, topical regimen adherence, and the quantification of disease were among the other topics raised by the experts.
Here are some of their practice pearls.
Treatment decisions, safety concerns
Deciding on a treatment is “kind of confusing ... particularly in the last year ... and it will only get more complicated,” said Raj J. Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “We’re all about some version of shared decision-making, but if all else is equal, sometimes it pays to explicitly ask the patient, what do you want to do?”
Questions about how long a systemic treatment should be tried, both initially and in the long run, are common. “I think that oftentimes we all get antsy about making changes when we’re not getting to the endpoint we want to. And at least in my real-world experience, late responders are a real thing. Sometimes 3-4 months ... isn’t enough,” he said.
Trial extension data show that patients who were nonresponders for various endpoints at 16 weeks are “captured continuously as you go further and further out,” Dr. Chovatiya said. Regarding the long term, “realistically, there’s no perfect time to call it quits.”
Addressing fears about Janus kinase inhibitors can be challenging, he said. “When you’ve identified the right patient and labs are done ... have them take the medication in front of you and hang out,” he advised. “It may sound ridiculous, but for the extremely anxious person it can be a big stress reducer for everyone involved.”
Regarding treatment fears more generally, “asking patients ‘what is the biggest risk of not treating your disease?’ sometimes gets people thinking,” Dr. Chovatiya said.
For parents of children with AD, said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, risks of not treating can become apparent once treatments are started and benefits are realized. “It’s so easy to focus on the risks of any treatment because they’re right there in black and white, and the risks of not treating are not always as apparent, even though – or maybe because – they live with them every day.”
When treatment is underway, “they see [how] everyone sleeps better, how school performance gets better, how concentration gets better,” said Dr. Sidbury, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington. Seattle, and chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
“Always contextualize,” he advised. “As dermatologists, we’re savvy with navigating boxed warnings.”
David Rosmarin, MD, chair of dermatology, at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and formerly vice chair for research and education at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, said he addresses questions about the length of systemic treatment by advising patients: “Why don’t we start taking [the medication] for 3 months and then we’ll take it from there.”
In some pediatric cases, Dr. Rosmarin said, having the child express “what their AD means to them – how it affects them,” and then acknowledging and validating what the child says, is helpful to parents who are concerned about systemic treatments.
Dupilumab in the real world
Some patients on dupilumab do not have a complete response with dosing every 2 weeks and may benefit from more frequent dosing, said Dr. Rosmarin.
“We know from the SOLO-1 and SOLO-2 studies that dupilumab weekly dosing was evaluated. It was only the every-other-week dosing that was approved, and we can see why – in terms of the changes in EASI [Eczema Area and Severity Index] score they’re close to overlapping,” he said.
In real life, however, “some patients benefit from different dosing. It’s important to realize that. I think we all have some patients who may dose more frequently and some who may dose less frequently,” Dr. Rosmarin said.
For a patient who “gets absolutely no response from dupilumab after 3-4 months, I’d switch them to something else. But for those who are partial responders, particularly those who tell me they’re getting itchy before their next dose, they’re the ones who benefit most from doubling the dose to dupilumab weekly,” he said.
For patients who experience dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis, itraconazole may help, Dr. Rosmarin added. “We’re using 200 mg daily for 2 weeks and weekly thereafter, and it helps some of our patients.” The average self-reported improvement was 52% for patients with dupilumab-associated facial redness treated with itraconazole in a retrospective medical record review that he and his colleagues published in 2022.
Dr. Rosmarin pointed to a multicenter prospective cohort study also published in 2022 showing that baseline/pretreatment levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were associated with the development of dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis. The median levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were 32 kUL–1 versus 2.3 kUL–1 in patients who experienced dupilumab-associated facial redness, compared with those who did not.
He said that, while there “may be multiple reasons” for dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis and that “plenty of patients” who don’t have Malassezia-specific IgE develop head and neck dermatitis, “this could be one cause.”
Itraconazole has been shown in his practice to be superior to fluconazole, likely because it has greater anti-inflammatory effects and provides better coverage of Malassezia because it is more lipophilic, said Dr. Rosmarin, who does not test for Malassezia-specific IgE before trying itraconazole.
For dupilumab-associated ocular surface disease, Elaine C. Siegfried, MD, offered her first-line suggestions: warm compresses (such as a microwaved bean bag), bland ocular lubricant (such as preservative-free artificial tears), oral hydration, and if needed and accessible, the prescription ophthalmic solution lifitegrast.
“It’s become an issue – what the dermatologist can do first line,” said Dr. Siegfried, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University and director of the division of pediatric dermatology at Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital, St. Louis.
“If these don’t work, then I’ll identify an ophthalmologist who’s knowledgeable about Dupixent-related ocular surface disease,” she said. Selection is “important because they’re not all knowledgeable ... corneal specialists typically have the most knowledge.”
Topical adherence with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD
For patients with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD, especially those who are older and having difficulty with topical regimens, Anna De Benedetto, MD, said she tries to enhance adherence by simplifying the regimen. She asks patients to buy a pound jar of base cream (ceramide base) – “whatever emollient they like” – and mixes into it a high-potency steroid solution. They’re instructed to apply the combined cream once daily for 1-2 weeks, and then three times a week alternating with a nonmedicated cream.
“This way they’re using one [cream] to target the immune system and the skin barrier,” said Dr. De Benedetto, associate professor of dermatology and director of the dermatology clinical trial unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
‘Wet wrap’ pajamas; self-image for children, teens
Dermatologist Melinda Gooderham, MSc, MD, assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology, said that, for widespread and troublesome AD, she advises patients or parents to wet a thin cotton pajama top and bottom and spin it in the dryer “so it’s almost dry but still moist.” Dry, looser pajamas or a light track suit can then be worn over the damp pajamas. “I usually tell [patients] to buy one size up,” she said.
Body dysmorphia is common with skin disease, and its incidence is six times higher in people with eczema than those without the disease, said Dr. Siegfried. “I’ve found that, for patients subjected to AD for a long time,” this is still an issue, “even when you clear their skin.”
For children, teens and their families, the nonprofit organization Made a Masterpiece can be valuable, Dr. Siegfried said. It offers resources from parents, children, psychologists, dermatologists, and others to help manage the emotional, social and spiritual aspects of living with a skin condition.
To use or not to use BSA; environmental counseling
“I think [assessing] body surface area [BSA] is very important in pediatrics and for adolescents [especially in those with moderate to severe disease] because it quantifies the disease for the family,” said Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.
“Families live with the disease, but quantification really matters” for understanding the extent and impact of the disease and for motivating families to treat, said Dr. Eichenfield.
(When the disease is markedly diminished in follow-up, knowing the BSA then “helps families to register the improvement and gives positive reinforcement,” Dr. Eichenfeld said after the meeting.)
Young patients can participate, he noted at the meeting. “When I do telemedicine visits, kids can tell me how many hands of eczema they have.”
Dr. Eichenfield also said that he now routinely counsels on the environmental impacts on eczema. For example, “I explain to people that we’re probably going to have a bad wildfire season in California, and it’s the kind of environmental perturbation that may impact some eczema patients,” he said, noting the 2021 study documenting an association of wildfire air pollution from the 2018 California Camp fire with an increase in dermatology clinic visits for AD and itch in San Francisco.
“It helps to keep an eye out for that, and also to be aware of some of the environmental changes,” he said.
Dr. Chovatiya reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, and Lilly, among others. Dr. Rosmarin reported ties with AbbVie, Incyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, AbbVie, Incyte, Leo, and Pfizer, among others. Dr. De Benedetto reported ties with Incyte, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Sanofi Advent, among others. Dr. Gooderham reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, among others. Dr. Eichenfield disclosed ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others.
WASHINGTON –
The question was top of mind for experts who shared their advice during a “Tips and Tricks” session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting. Dupilumab dosing and dupilumab-associated facial redness and ocular disease, self-image issues, topical regimen adherence, and the quantification of disease were among the other topics raised by the experts.
Here are some of their practice pearls.
Treatment decisions, safety concerns
Deciding on a treatment is “kind of confusing ... particularly in the last year ... and it will only get more complicated,” said Raj J. Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “We’re all about some version of shared decision-making, but if all else is equal, sometimes it pays to explicitly ask the patient, what do you want to do?”
Questions about how long a systemic treatment should be tried, both initially and in the long run, are common. “I think that oftentimes we all get antsy about making changes when we’re not getting to the endpoint we want to. And at least in my real-world experience, late responders are a real thing. Sometimes 3-4 months ... isn’t enough,” he said.
Trial extension data show that patients who were nonresponders for various endpoints at 16 weeks are “captured continuously as you go further and further out,” Dr. Chovatiya said. Regarding the long term, “realistically, there’s no perfect time to call it quits.”
Addressing fears about Janus kinase inhibitors can be challenging, he said. “When you’ve identified the right patient and labs are done ... have them take the medication in front of you and hang out,” he advised. “It may sound ridiculous, but for the extremely anxious person it can be a big stress reducer for everyone involved.”
Regarding treatment fears more generally, “asking patients ‘what is the biggest risk of not treating your disease?’ sometimes gets people thinking,” Dr. Chovatiya said.
For parents of children with AD, said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, risks of not treating can become apparent once treatments are started and benefits are realized. “It’s so easy to focus on the risks of any treatment because they’re right there in black and white, and the risks of not treating are not always as apparent, even though – or maybe because – they live with them every day.”
When treatment is underway, “they see [how] everyone sleeps better, how school performance gets better, how concentration gets better,” said Dr. Sidbury, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington. Seattle, and chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
“Always contextualize,” he advised. “As dermatologists, we’re savvy with navigating boxed warnings.”
David Rosmarin, MD, chair of dermatology, at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and formerly vice chair for research and education at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, said he addresses questions about the length of systemic treatment by advising patients: “Why don’t we start taking [the medication] for 3 months and then we’ll take it from there.”
In some pediatric cases, Dr. Rosmarin said, having the child express “what their AD means to them – how it affects them,” and then acknowledging and validating what the child says, is helpful to parents who are concerned about systemic treatments.
Dupilumab in the real world
Some patients on dupilumab do not have a complete response with dosing every 2 weeks and may benefit from more frequent dosing, said Dr. Rosmarin.
“We know from the SOLO-1 and SOLO-2 studies that dupilumab weekly dosing was evaluated. It was only the every-other-week dosing that was approved, and we can see why – in terms of the changes in EASI [Eczema Area and Severity Index] score they’re close to overlapping,” he said.
In real life, however, “some patients benefit from different dosing. It’s important to realize that. I think we all have some patients who may dose more frequently and some who may dose less frequently,” Dr. Rosmarin said.
For a patient who “gets absolutely no response from dupilumab after 3-4 months, I’d switch them to something else. But for those who are partial responders, particularly those who tell me they’re getting itchy before their next dose, they’re the ones who benefit most from doubling the dose to dupilumab weekly,” he said.
For patients who experience dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis, itraconazole may help, Dr. Rosmarin added. “We’re using 200 mg daily for 2 weeks and weekly thereafter, and it helps some of our patients.” The average self-reported improvement was 52% for patients with dupilumab-associated facial redness treated with itraconazole in a retrospective medical record review that he and his colleagues published in 2022.
Dr. Rosmarin pointed to a multicenter prospective cohort study also published in 2022 showing that baseline/pretreatment levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were associated with the development of dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis. The median levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were 32 kUL–1 versus 2.3 kUL–1 in patients who experienced dupilumab-associated facial redness, compared with those who did not.
He said that, while there “may be multiple reasons” for dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis and that “plenty of patients” who don’t have Malassezia-specific IgE develop head and neck dermatitis, “this could be one cause.”
Itraconazole has been shown in his practice to be superior to fluconazole, likely because it has greater anti-inflammatory effects and provides better coverage of Malassezia because it is more lipophilic, said Dr. Rosmarin, who does not test for Malassezia-specific IgE before trying itraconazole.
For dupilumab-associated ocular surface disease, Elaine C. Siegfried, MD, offered her first-line suggestions: warm compresses (such as a microwaved bean bag), bland ocular lubricant (such as preservative-free artificial tears), oral hydration, and if needed and accessible, the prescription ophthalmic solution lifitegrast.
“It’s become an issue – what the dermatologist can do first line,” said Dr. Siegfried, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University and director of the division of pediatric dermatology at Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital, St. Louis.
“If these don’t work, then I’ll identify an ophthalmologist who’s knowledgeable about Dupixent-related ocular surface disease,” she said. Selection is “important because they’re not all knowledgeable ... corneal specialists typically have the most knowledge.”
Topical adherence with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD
For patients with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD, especially those who are older and having difficulty with topical regimens, Anna De Benedetto, MD, said she tries to enhance adherence by simplifying the regimen. She asks patients to buy a pound jar of base cream (ceramide base) – “whatever emollient they like” – and mixes into it a high-potency steroid solution. They’re instructed to apply the combined cream once daily for 1-2 weeks, and then three times a week alternating with a nonmedicated cream.
“This way they’re using one [cream] to target the immune system and the skin barrier,” said Dr. De Benedetto, associate professor of dermatology and director of the dermatology clinical trial unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
‘Wet wrap’ pajamas; self-image for children, teens
Dermatologist Melinda Gooderham, MSc, MD, assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology, said that, for widespread and troublesome AD, she advises patients or parents to wet a thin cotton pajama top and bottom and spin it in the dryer “so it’s almost dry but still moist.” Dry, looser pajamas or a light track suit can then be worn over the damp pajamas. “I usually tell [patients] to buy one size up,” she said.
Body dysmorphia is common with skin disease, and its incidence is six times higher in people with eczema than those without the disease, said Dr. Siegfried. “I’ve found that, for patients subjected to AD for a long time,” this is still an issue, “even when you clear their skin.”
For children, teens and their families, the nonprofit organization Made a Masterpiece can be valuable, Dr. Siegfried said. It offers resources from parents, children, psychologists, dermatologists, and others to help manage the emotional, social and spiritual aspects of living with a skin condition.
To use or not to use BSA; environmental counseling
“I think [assessing] body surface area [BSA] is very important in pediatrics and for adolescents [especially in those with moderate to severe disease] because it quantifies the disease for the family,” said Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.
“Families live with the disease, but quantification really matters” for understanding the extent and impact of the disease and for motivating families to treat, said Dr. Eichenfield.
(When the disease is markedly diminished in follow-up, knowing the BSA then “helps families to register the improvement and gives positive reinforcement,” Dr. Eichenfeld said after the meeting.)
Young patients can participate, he noted at the meeting. “When I do telemedicine visits, kids can tell me how many hands of eczema they have.”
Dr. Eichenfield also said that he now routinely counsels on the environmental impacts on eczema. For example, “I explain to people that we’re probably going to have a bad wildfire season in California, and it’s the kind of environmental perturbation that may impact some eczema patients,” he said, noting the 2021 study documenting an association of wildfire air pollution from the 2018 California Camp fire with an increase in dermatology clinic visits for AD and itch in San Francisco.
“It helps to keep an eye out for that, and also to be aware of some of the environmental changes,” he said.
Dr. Chovatiya reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, and Lilly, among others. Dr. Rosmarin reported ties with AbbVie, Incyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, AbbVie, Incyte, Leo, and Pfizer, among others. Dr. De Benedetto reported ties with Incyte, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Sanofi Advent, among others. Dr. Gooderham reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, among others. Dr. Eichenfield disclosed ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others.
WASHINGTON –
The question was top of mind for experts who shared their advice during a “Tips and Tricks” session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting. Dupilumab dosing and dupilumab-associated facial redness and ocular disease, self-image issues, topical regimen adherence, and the quantification of disease were among the other topics raised by the experts.
Here are some of their practice pearls.
Treatment decisions, safety concerns
Deciding on a treatment is “kind of confusing ... particularly in the last year ... and it will only get more complicated,” said Raj J. Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “We’re all about some version of shared decision-making, but if all else is equal, sometimes it pays to explicitly ask the patient, what do you want to do?”
Questions about how long a systemic treatment should be tried, both initially and in the long run, are common. “I think that oftentimes we all get antsy about making changes when we’re not getting to the endpoint we want to. And at least in my real-world experience, late responders are a real thing. Sometimes 3-4 months ... isn’t enough,” he said.
Trial extension data show that patients who were nonresponders for various endpoints at 16 weeks are “captured continuously as you go further and further out,” Dr. Chovatiya said. Regarding the long term, “realistically, there’s no perfect time to call it quits.”
Addressing fears about Janus kinase inhibitors can be challenging, he said. “When you’ve identified the right patient and labs are done ... have them take the medication in front of you and hang out,” he advised. “It may sound ridiculous, but for the extremely anxious person it can be a big stress reducer for everyone involved.”
Regarding treatment fears more generally, “asking patients ‘what is the biggest risk of not treating your disease?’ sometimes gets people thinking,” Dr. Chovatiya said.
For parents of children with AD, said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, risks of not treating can become apparent once treatments are started and benefits are realized. “It’s so easy to focus on the risks of any treatment because they’re right there in black and white, and the risks of not treating are not always as apparent, even though – or maybe because – they live with them every day.”
When treatment is underway, “they see [how] everyone sleeps better, how school performance gets better, how concentration gets better,” said Dr. Sidbury, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington. Seattle, and chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
“Always contextualize,” he advised. “As dermatologists, we’re savvy with navigating boxed warnings.”
David Rosmarin, MD, chair of dermatology, at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and formerly vice chair for research and education at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, said he addresses questions about the length of systemic treatment by advising patients: “Why don’t we start taking [the medication] for 3 months and then we’ll take it from there.”
In some pediatric cases, Dr. Rosmarin said, having the child express “what their AD means to them – how it affects them,” and then acknowledging and validating what the child says, is helpful to parents who are concerned about systemic treatments.
Dupilumab in the real world
Some patients on dupilumab do not have a complete response with dosing every 2 weeks and may benefit from more frequent dosing, said Dr. Rosmarin.
“We know from the SOLO-1 and SOLO-2 studies that dupilumab weekly dosing was evaluated. It was only the every-other-week dosing that was approved, and we can see why – in terms of the changes in EASI [Eczema Area and Severity Index] score they’re close to overlapping,” he said.
In real life, however, “some patients benefit from different dosing. It’s important to realize that. I think we all have some patients who may dose more frequently and some who may dose less frequently,” Dr. Rosmarin said.
For a patient who “gets absolutely no response from dupilumab after 3-4 months, I’d switch them to something else. But for those who are partial responders, particularly those who tell me they’re getting itchy before their next dose, they’re the ones who benefit most from doubling the dose to dupilumab weekly,” he said.
For patients who experience dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis, itraconazole may help, Dr. Rosmarin added. “We’re using 200 mg daily for 2 weeks and weekly thereafter, and it helps some of our patients.” The average self-reported improvement was 52% for patients with dupilumab-associated facial redness treated with itraconazole in a retrospective medical record review that he and his colleagues published in 2022.
Dr. Rosmarin pointed to a multicenter prospective cohort study also published in 2022 showing that baseline/pretreatment levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were associated with the development of dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis. The median levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were 32 kUL–1 versus 2.3 kUL–1 in patients who experienced dupilumab-associated facial redness, compared with those who did not.
He said that, while there “may be multiple reasons” for dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis and that “plenty of patients” who don’t have Malassezia-specific IgE develop head and neck dermatitis, “this could be one cause.”
Itraconazole has been shown in his practice to be superior to fluconazole, likely because it has greater anti-inflammatory effects and provides better coverage of Malassezia because it is more lipophilic, said Dr. Rosmarin, who does not test for Malassezia-specific IgE before trying itraconazole.
For dupilumab-associated ocular surface disease, Elaine C. Siegfried, MD, offered her first-line suggestions: warm compresses (such as a microwaved bean bag), bland ocular lubricant (such as preservative-free artificial tears), oral hydration, and if needed and accessible, the prescription ophthalmic solution lifitegrast.
“It’s become an issue – what the dermatologist can do first line,” said Dr. Siegfried, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University and director of the division of pediatric dermatology at Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital, St. Louis.
“If these don’t work, then I’ll identify an ophthalmologist who’s knowledgeable about Dupixent-related ocular surface disease,” she said. Selection is “important because they’re not all knowledgeable ... corneal specialists typically have the most knowledge.”
Topical adherence with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD
For patients with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD, especially those who are older and having difficulty with topical regimens, Anna De Benedetto, MD, said she tries to enhance adherence by simplifying the regimen. She asks patients to buy a pound jar of base cream (ceramide base) – “whatever emollient they like” – and mixes into it a high-potency steroid solution. They’re instructed to apply the combined cream once daily for 1-2 weeks, and then three times a week alternating with a nonmedicated cream.
“This way they’re using one [cream] to target the immune system and the skin barrier,” said Dr. De Benedetto, associate professor of dermatology and director of the dermatology clinical trial unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
‘Wet wrap’ pajamas; self-image for children, teens
Dermatologist Melinda Gooderham, MSc, MD, assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology, said that, for widespread and troublesome AD, she advises patients or parents to wet a thin cotton pajama top and bottom and spin it in the dryer “so it’s almost dry but still moist.” Dry, looser pajamas or a light track suit can then be worn over the damp pajamas. “I usually tell [patients] to buy one size up,” she said.
Body dysmorphia is common with skin disease, and its incidence is six times higher in people with eczema than those without the disease, said Dr. Siegfried. “I’ve found that, for patients subjected to AD for a long time,” this is still an issue, “even when you clear their skin.”
For children, teens and their families, the nonprofit organization Made a Masterpiece can be valuable, Dr. Siegfried said. It offers resources from parents, children, psychologists, dermatologists, and others to help manage the emotional, social and spiritual aspects of living with a skin condition.
To use or not to use BSA; environmental counseling
“I think [assessing] body surface area [BSA] is very important in pediatrics and for adolescents [especially in those with moderate to severe disease] because it quantifies the disease for the family,” said Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.
“Families live with the disease, but quantification really matters” for understanding the extent and impact of the disease and for motivating families to treat, said Dr. Eichenfield.
(When the disease is markedly diminished in follow-up, knowing the BSA then “helps families to register the improvement and gives positive reinforcement,” Dr. Eichenfeld said after the meeting.)
Young patients can participate, he noted at the meeting. “When I do telemedicine visits, kids can tell me how many hands of eczema they have.”
Dr. Eichenfield also said that he now routinely counsels on the environmental impacts on eczema. For example, “I explain to people that we’re probably going to have a bad wildfire season in California, and it’s the kind of environmental perturbation that may impact some eczema patients,” he said, noting the 2021 study documenting an association of wildfire air pollution from the 2018 California Camp fire with an increase in dermatology clinic visits for AD and itch in San Francisco.
“It helps to keep an eye out for that, and also to be aware of some of the environmental changes,” he said.
Dr. Chovatiya reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, and Lilly, among others. Dr. Rosmarin reported ties with AbbVie, Incyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, AbbVie, Incyte, Leo, and Pfizer, among others. Dr. De Benedetto reported ties with Incyte, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Sanofi Advent, among others. Dr. Gooderham reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, among others. Dr. Eichenfield disclosed ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others.
AT RAD 2023
FDA panel unanimously endorses lecanemab for Alzheimer’s
“Overall, the study demonstrated clearly that this is an effective treatment,” said acting chair Robert C. Alexander, MD, chief scientific officer, Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative, Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, and research professor, department of psychiatry, University of Arizona, Phoenix, during the meeting.
An intravenous infusion targeting amyloid-beta, lecanemab received accelerated FDA approved earlier in 2023 for the treatment of early Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The company was required to complete a confirmatory study to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit.
The Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee met to discuss this phase 3 study (CLARITY-AD). The multicenter, double-blind study included 1,795 patients (mean age, 71 years) who had mild cognitive impairment caused by AD or mild AD dementia.
Delayed progression
Study participants had a broad range of comorbidities, and many were concomitantly receiving other medications. Black people were underrepresented in the study at just 3% of the total cohort.
Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly. In addition to a placebo-controlled period and safety follow-up, the study has an ongoing extension phase of up to 4 years.
The study met its primary endpoint, showing a highly statistically significant 27% less decline on the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes at 18 months (difference in adjusted mean, –0.45; 95% CI, –0.67 to –0.23; P = .00005).
This was supported by a significant 26% difference on the AD Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale with 14 tasks (ADAS-Cog 14).
The drug also affected function, with a 37% decrease, compared with placebo, on the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment.
Committee members heard that the results signal delays in disease progression by about 5 months, giving patients more time to live independently and participate in hobbies and interests.
Patients who received the active drug also experienced quality of life benefits. Compared with patients who received placebo, those who took lecanemab had 49% less decline as measured with the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions scale and 56% less decline as measured by the Quality of Life in AD scale, and caregivers reported less burden.
Lecanemab also affected biomarkers of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration, providing a biological basis for the treatment effects consistent with slowing of disease progression.
Unanimous support
All six committee members agreed by vote that the study provides evidence of clinical benefit. They variously descried the study and results as “robust,” “compelling,” “well conducted,” “clear and consistent,” and “clinically meaningful.”
In the active treatment group, there was a higher incidence of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIAs), which can be serious and life-threatening but are usually asymptomatic. In this study, most ARIAs had resolved by 3 months.
Deaths occurred in 0.8% of the placebo and 0.7% of the treatment group. Dean Follmann, PhD, assistant director for biostatistics, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md., noted that the numbers of deaths and serious adverse events were “quite similar” in the two groups.
“And for serious ARIA, there was an imbalance favoring placebo, but overall, these were pretty rare,” he said.
Subgroup concerns
Committee members discussed the risk/benefit profile for three subgroups of patients – those with apolipoprotein E4 (apo E4) allele, patients taking an anticoagulant, and those with cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA).
In the apo E4 group, the study’s primary endpoint did not favor the drug, but secondary endpoints did.
“I think the general feeling [for apo E4 status] is that the risk/benefit still remains favorable, especially when looking across multiple endpoints,” said Dr. Alexander.
However, some members supported recommending genetic testing before initiating the drug.
The views were more diverse for the use of lecanemab in the presence of an anticoagulant, which may increase the risk for cerebral hemorrhage. Some committee members strongly recommended that these patients not receive lecanemab, while others highlighted the need for more information, owing to uncertainties about the risks.
With respect to CAA, most members supported the idea of considering use of the drug in the presence of this condition, but only after discussing the risks with patients and their families and in the presence of a robust reporting system.
An Alzheimer’s Association representative was in attendance during the public hearing portion of the meeting to express support for traditional approval of lecanemab for people with early AD.
The association strongly favors full Medicare coverage for FDA-approved AD treatments. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has determined that AD treatments receiving traditional FDA approval will be covered if clinicians register and enter data in a registry.
“While this is an important signal that CMS wants to improve access to FDA-approved treatments, registry as a condition of coverage is an unnecessary and potentially harmful barrier,” said the Alzheimer’s Association in a press release following the meeting.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Overall, the study demonstrated clearly that this is an effective treatment,” said acting chair Robert C. Alexander, MD, chief scientific officer, Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative, Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, and research professor, department of psychiatry, University of Arizona, Phoenix, during the meeting.
An intravenous infusion targeting amyloid-beta, lecanemab received accelerated FDA approved earlier in 2023 for the treatment of early Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The company was required to complete a confirmatory study to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit.
The Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee met to discuss this phase 3 study (CLARITY-AD). The multicenter, double-blind study included 1,795 patients (mean age, 71 years) who had mild cognitive impairment caused by AD or mild AD dementia.
Delayed progression
Study participants had a broad range of comorbidities, and many were concomitantly receiving other medications. Black people were underrepresented in the study at just 3% of the total cohort.
Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly. In addition to a placebo-controlled period and safety follow-up, the study has an ongoing extension phase of up to 4 years.
The study met its primary endpoint, showing a highly statistically significant 27% less decline on the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes at 18 months (difference in adjusted mean, –0.45; 95% CI, –0.67 to –0.23; P = .00005).
This was supported by a significant 26% difference on the AD Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale with 14 tasks (ADAS-Cog 14).
The drug also affected function, with a 37% decrease, compared with placebo, on the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment.
Committee members heard that the results signal delays in disease progression by about 5 months, giving patients more time to live independently and participate in hobbies and interests.
Patients who received the active drug also experienced quality of life benefits. Compared with patients who received placebo, those who took lecanemab had 49% less decline as measured with the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions scale and 56% less decline as measured by the Quality of Life in AD scale, and caregivers reported less burden.
Lecanemab also affected biomarkers of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration, providing a biological basis for the treatment effects consistent with slowing of disease progression.
Unanimous support
All six committee members agreed by vote that the study provides evidence of clinical benefit. They variously descried the study and results as “robust,” “compelling,” “well conducted,” “clear and consistent,” and “clinically meaningful.”
In the active treatment group, there was a higher incidence of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIAs), which can be serious and life-threatening but are usually asymptomatic. In this study, most ARIAs had resolved by 3 months.
Deaths occurred in 0.8% of the placebo and 0.7% of the treatment group. Dean Follmann, PhD, assistant director for biostatistics, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md., noted that the numbers of deaths and serious adverse events were “quite similar” in the two groups.
“And for serious ARIA, there was an imbalance favoring placebo, but overall, these were pretty rare,” he said.
Subgroup concerns
Committee members discussed the risk/benefit profile for three subgroups of patients – those with apolipoprotein E4 (apo E4) allele, patients taking an anticoagulant, and those with cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA).
In the apo E4 group, the study’s primary endpoint did not favor the drug, but secondary endpoints did.
“I think the general feeling [for apo E4 status] is that the risk/benefit still remains favorable, especially when looking across multiple endpoints,” said Dr. Alexander.
However, some members supported recommending genetic testing before initiating the drug.
The views were more diverse for the use of lecanemab in the presence of an anticoagulant, which may increase the risk for cerebral hemorrhage. Some committee members strongly recommended that these patients not receive lecanemab, while others highlighted the need for more information, owing to uncertainties about the risks.
With respect to CAA, most members supported the idea of considering use of the drug in the presence of this condition, but only after discussing the risks with patients and their families and in the presence of a robust reporting system.
An Alzheimer’s Association representative was in attendance during the public hearing portion of the meeting to express support for traditional approval of lecanemab for people with early AD.
The association strongly favors full Medicare coverage for FDA-approved AD treatments. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has determined that AD treatments receiving traditional FDA approval will be covered if clinicians register and enter data in a registry.
“While this is an important signal that CMS wants to improve access to FDA-approved treatments, registry as a condition of coverage is an unnecessary and potentially harmful barrier,” said the Alzheimer’s Association in a press release following the meeting.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Overall, the study demonstrated clearly that this is an effective treatment,” said acting chair Robert C. Alexander, MD, chief scientific officer, Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative, Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, and research professor, department of psychiatry, University of Arizona, Phoenix, during the meeting.
An intravenous infusion targeting amyloid-beta, lecanemab received accelerated FDA approved earlier in 2023 for the treatment of early Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The company was required to complete a confirmatory study to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit.
The Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee met to discuss this phase 3 study (CLARITY-AD). The multicenter, double-blind study included 1,795 patients (mean age, 71 years) who had mild cognitive impairment caused by AD or mild AD dementia.
Delayed progression
Study participants had a broad range of comorbidities, and many were concomitantly receiving other medications. Black people were underrepresented in the study at just 3% of the total cohort.
Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly. In addition to a placebo-controlled period and safety follow-up, the study has an ongoing extension phase of up to 4 years.
The study met its primary endpoint, showing a highly statistically significant 27% less decline on the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes at 18 months (difference in adjusted mean, –0.45; 95% CI, –0.67 to –0.23; P = .00005).
This was supported by a significant 26% difference on the AD Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale with 14 tasks (ADAS-Cog 14).
The drug also affected function, with a 37% decrease, compared with placebo, on the AD Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment.
Committee members heard that the results signal delays in disease progression by about 5 months, giving patients more time to live independently and participate in hobbies and interests.
Patients who received the active drug also experienced quality of life benefits. Compared with patients who received placebo, those who took lecanemab had 49% less decline as measured with the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions scale and 56% less decline as measured by the Quality of Life in AD scale, and caregivers reported less burden.
Lecanemab also affected biomarkers of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration, providing a biological basis for the treatment effects consistent with slowing of disease progression.
Unanimous support
All six committee members agreed by vote that the study provides evidence of clinical benefit. They variously descried the study and results as “robust,” “compelling,” “well conducted,” “clear and consistent,” and “clinically meaningful.”
In the active treatment group, there was a higher incidence of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIAs), which can be serious and life-threatening but are usually asymptomatic. In this study, most ARIAs had resolved by 3 months.
Deaths occurred in 0.8% of the placebo and 0.7% of the treatment group. Dean Follmann, PhD, assistant director for biostatistics, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md., noted that the numbers of deaths and serious adverse events were “quite similar” in the two groups.
“And for serious ARIA, there was an imbalance favoring placebo, but overall, these were pretty rare,” he said.
Subgroup concerns
Committee members discussed the risk/benefit profile for three subgroups of patients – those with apolipoprotein E4 (apo E4) allele, patients taking an anticoagulant, and those with cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA).
In the apo E4 group, the study’s primary endpoint did not favor the drug, but secondary endpoints did.
“I think the general feeling [for apo E4 status] is that the risk/benefit still remains favorable, especially when looking across multiple endpoints,” said Dr. Alexander.
However, some members supported recommending genetic testing before initiating the drug.
The views were more diverse for the use of lecanemab in the presence of an anticoagulant, which may increase the risk for cerebral hemorrhage. Some committee members strongly recommended that these patients not receive lecanemab, while others highlighted the need for more information, owing to uncertainties about the risks.
With respect to CAA, most members supported the idea of considering use of the drug in the presence of this condition, but only after discussing the risks with patients and their families and in the presence of a robust reporting system.
An Alzheimer’s Association representative was in attendance during the public hearing portion of the meeting to express support for traditional approval of lecanemab for people with early AD.
The association strongly favors full Medicare coverage for FDA-approved AD treatments. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has determined that AD treatments receiving traditional FDA approval will be covered if clinicians register and enter data in a registry.
“While this is an important signal that CMS wants to improve access to FDA-approved treatments, registry as a condition of coverage is an unnecessary and potentially harmful barrier,” said the Alzheimer’s Association in a press release following the meeting.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A 7-year-old male has a bumpy rash on the chin for several months
Given the presentation and the unique location of the lesions he was diagnosed with follicular keratosis of the chin (FKC).
This is a rare and poorly understood condition that can be present in older children and young teenagers. In the cases reported by Kanzaki et al.1 were two boys who presented with the condition; it was thought to be associated with rubbing of the chin with their hands when watching TV or reading. The author described improvement with habit change. This condition is usually described in boys, and some cases presented in brothers,2 suggesting a genetic predisposition. Some reports lack a history of rubbing or trauma to the area.
Histopathologic evaluation of the lesions demonstrates dilated hair follicles containing keratotic basophilic material without any signs of inflammation.
The lesions can be confused with keratosis pilaris (KP). Keratosis pilaris can be described in association with atopic dermatitis and ichthyosis, which were not present in our patient. The lesions usually present on the sides of the cheeks and lateral region of the arms and legs. Compared with follicular keratosis, KP lesions usually present with associated perifollicular erythema. Our patient did not present with lesions on the cheeks or the sides of the arms or legs. Milia can present on the chin of children, usually if there is history of rubbing or trauma, or on a scar. Milia are micro keratin cysts, usually seen in areas of the face. Lichen spinulous is described as rough small follicular papules that present in oval or circular patches that can grow up to 5 cm and spread rapidly. They usually present on the extensor surfaces of the extremities, neck, abdomen, and knees. These lesions are thought to be secondary to infections, have been associated with atopy, and have been seen in patients with atopic dermatitis. There is a probable genetic predisposition. The lesions are usually treated with gentle soaps and moisturizer containing keratolytics like urea or salicylic acid, and in some cases topical retinoids can also be tried. Follicular mucinosis can also present similarly to keratosis follicularis. The lesions present as scaly plaques or as grouped skin color papules on the face, scalp, or the neck that can also be associated with hair loss. Sometimes a biopsy needs to be done to be able to distinguish it from follicular keratosis. There is an increase of mucin around hair follicles and sebaceous glands with associated inflammation and degeneration of the follicular structures. In patients with primary follicular mucinosis the lesions can resolve spontaneously in a couple of years. Lesions can be treated with topical corticosteroids, oral antibiotics like macrolides or tetracyclines, dapsone, and phototherapy.
KFC can be treated with vitamin D analogues. It is usually unresponsive to corticosteroids, keratolytic lotions, and retinoids. Our patient was prescribed calcipotriene.
Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego
References
1. Kanzaki T et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992;26(1):134-5.
2. Buechner AA et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2018 Jan 1;154(1):111-2.
Given the presentation and the unique location of the lesions he was diagnosed with follicular keratosis of the chin (FKC).
This is a rare and poorly understood condition that can be present in older children and young teenagers. In the cases reported by Kanzaki et al.1 were two boys who presented with the condition; it was thought to be associated with rubbing of the chin with their hands when watching TV or reading. The author described improvement with habit change. This condition is usually described in boys, and some cases presented in brothers,2 suggesting a genetic predisposition. Some reports lack a history of rubbing or trauma to the area.
Histopathologic evaluation of the lesions demonstrates dilated hair follicles containing keratotic basophilic material without any signs of inflammation.
The lesions can be confused with keratosis pilaris (KP). Keratosis pilaris can be described in association with atopic dermatitis and ichthyosis, which were not present in our patient. The lesions usually present on the sides of the cheeks and lateral region of the arms and legs. Compared with follicular keratosis, KP lesions usually present with associated perifollicular erythema. Our patient did not present with lesions on the cheeks or the sides of the arms or legs. Milia can present on the chin of children, usually if there is history of rubbing or trauma, or on a scar. Milia are micro keratin cysts, usually seen in areas of the face. Lichen spinulous is described as rough small follicular papules that present in oval or circular patches that can grow up to 5 cm and spread rapidly. They usually present on the extensor surfaces of the extremities, neck, abdomen, and knees. These lesions are thought to be secondary to infections, have been associated with atopy, and have been seen in patients with atopic dermatitis. There is a probable genetic predisposition. The lesions are usually treated with gentle soaps and moisturizer containing keratolytics like urea or salicylic acid, and in some cases topical retinoids can also be tried. Follicular mucinosis can also present similarly to keratosis follicularis. The lesions present as scaly plaques or as grouped skin color papules on the face, scalp, or the neck that can also be associated with hair loss. Sometimes a biopsy needs to be done to be able to distinguish it from follicular keratosis. There is an increase of mucin around hair follicles and sebaceous glands with associated inflammation and degeneration of the follicular structures. In patients with primary follicular mucinosis the lesions can resolve spontaneously in a couple of years. Lesions can be treated with topical corticosteroids, oral antibiotics like macrolides or tetracyclines, dapsone, and phototherapy.
KFC can be treated with vitamin D analogues. It is usually unresponsive to corticosteroids, keratolytic lotions, and retinoids. Our patient was prescribed calcipotriene.
Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego
References
1. Kanzaki T et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992;26(1):134-5.
2. Buechner AA et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2018 Jan 1;154(1):111-2.
Given the presentation and the unique location of the lesions he was diagnosed with follicular keratosis of the chin (FKC).
This is a rare and poorly understood condition that can be present in older children and young teenagers. In the cases reported by Kanzaki et al.1 were two boys who presented with the condition; it was thought to be associated with rubbing of the chin with their hands when watching TV or reading. The author described improvement with habit change. This condition is usually described in boys, and some cases presented in brothers,2 suggesting a genetic predisposition. Some reports lack a history of rubbing or trauma to the area.
Histopathologic evaluation of the lesions demonstrates dilated hair follicles containing keratotic basophilic material without any signs of inflammation.
The lesions can be confused with keratosis pilaris (KP). Keratosis pilaris can be described in association with atopic dermatitis and ichthyosis, which were not present in our patient. The lesions usually present on the sides of the cheeks and lateral region of the arms and legs. Compared with follicular keratosis, KP lesions usually present with associated perifollicular erythema. Our patient did not present with lesions on the cheeks or the sides of the arms or legs. Milia can present on the chin of children, usually if there is history of rubbing or trauma, or on a scar. Milia are micro keratin cysts, usually seen in areas of the face. Lichen spinulous is described as rough small follicular papules that present in oval or circular patches that can grow up to 5 cm and spread rapidly. They usually present on the extensor surfaces of the extremities, neck, abdomen, and knees. These lesions are thought to be secondary to infections, have been associated with atopy, and have been seen in patients with atopic dermatitis. There is a probable genetic predisposition. The lesions are usually treated with gentle soaps and moisturizer containing keratolytics like urea or salicylic acid, and in some cases topical retinoids can also be tried. Follicular mucinosis can also present similarly to keratosis follicularis. The lesions present as scaly plaques or as grouped skin color papules on the face, scalp, or the neck that can also be associated with hair loss. Sometimes a biopsy needs to be done to be able to distinguish it from follicular keratosis. There is an increase of mucin around hair follicles and sebaceous glands with associated inflammation and degeneration of the follicular structures. In patients with primary follicular mucinosis the lesions can resolve spontaneously in a couple of years. Lesions can be treated with topical corticosteroids, oral antibiotics like macrolides or tetracyclines, dapsone, and phototherapy.
KFC can be treated with vitamin D analogues. It is usually unresponsive to corticosteroids, keratolytic lotions, and retinoids. Our patient was prescribed calcipotriene.
Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego
References
1. Kanzaki T et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992;26(1):134-5.
2. Buechner AA et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2018 Jan 1;154(1):111-2.
He is a healthy child with no past medical history. He is not taking any medications.
On physical exam he has follicular hyperkeratotic papules on the chin. No lesions on the axilla or thighs.
Dazodalibep may mitigate Sjögren’s syndrome, but more data are needed
MILAN – Dazodalibep, an intravenously administered inhibitor of CD40 ligand, shows promise in reducing disease activity and alleviating key subjective symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, compared with placebo. These preliminary findings are from the initial phase of the ALISS trial, a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial presented at the annul European Congress of Rheumatology.
Over the course of the 169-day trial, both the disease activity score and the patient-reported symptom score dropped significantly for patients who were treated with dazodalibep, also known as VIB4920 or HZN4920, compared with those treated with placebo, meeting both primary endpoints. This benefit was particularly evident for patients who had limited systemic organ involvement but substantial symptom burden.
Dazodalibep is a fusion protein that functions as an inhibitor by blocking the interaction between T cells and CD40-expressing B cells. This inhibition effectively suppresses costimulatory signaling between immune cells. Unlike previous CD40-targeting biologics, dazodalibep does not belong to the antibody class. According to Horizon Thereapeutics, this distinction is expected to help mitigate safety concerns, particularly those related to blood clot formation that were encountered with antibody-based biologics such as ruplizumab, according to Horizon, which acquired the trial’s sponsor, Viela Bio.
Patients with moderate to high systemic disease activity
The trial investigated dazodalibep in two patient populations. Wan-Fai Ng, MBBCh, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, England, presented results from the first group, which comprised 74 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome with moderate to high systemic disease activity. Disease activity was defined as a score of ≥ 5 on the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI).
A post hoc responder analysis demonstrated that dazodalibep outperformed placebo in patients who achieved a 5- or 6-point improvement on the ESSDAI. Response rates for these patients was 61.1% and 60.0%, respectively, compared with 35.1% and 34.3% for patients who received placebo. Patients who received dazodalibep experienced a reduction of –6.3 ± 0.6 points in ESSDAI score, whereas the placebo group experienced a reduction of –4.1 ± 0.6 points, a difference of –2.2 (P = .0167). However, there was no significant change in any symptom-related score in this population.
Patients with unacceptable symptom burden but limited systemic involvement
Also at EULAR 2023, Chiara Baldini, MD, of the University of Pisa, Italy, reported the results from the second group of 109 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome who had notable symptom burden but limited systemic organ involvement. “These patients represent a significant portion of individuals with reduced quality of life who are largely excluded from other clinical trials,” Dr. Baldini said in an interview. The study population was defined by having a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) ≥ 5 and, in contrast to the previous group, an ESSDAI score < 5.
In this case, treatment with dazodalibep correlated with a substantial reduction in symptom burden, compared with placebo. Among the patients who received dazodalibep, 66.7% achieved ≥ 1 point or ≥ 15% reduction in symptoms, as measured by ESSPRI, compared with 32.7% in the placebo group. The ESSPRI score decreased by –1.80 ± 0.23 points in the dazodalibep group, while it decreased by –0.53 ± 0.23 points in the placebo group, a difference of −1.27 ± 0.33 points favoring dazodalibep (P = .0002). The reduction in symptoms in the dazodalibep group was evident from the first data point on day 29 and was statistically significant for each of the three symptom components included in the ESSPRI score: dryness, pain, and fatigue.
Additionally, a significant improvement was observed in one of the secondary endpoints, namely, a reduction in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score. The dazodalibep group exhibited a considerably greater reduction (+8.1 ± 1.4, compared with baseline) than did the placebo group (+2.8 ± 1.4; P = .0095).
Dazodalibep safety
“Dazodalibep therapy was generally safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Baldini said in her presentation. Adverse events that were reported for both investigations were generally mild and occurred with similar frequency between the treatment groups. The most commonly reported adverse events, each occurring in more than 5% of patients who received dazodalibep, were COVID-19, diarrhea, anemia, dizziness, ligament sprain, upper respiratory tract infection, and nasopharyngitis. The incidence of COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis was comparable between the treatment and placebo arms.
However, in the patient group with moderate to high systemic disease activity, one patient who was treated with dazodalibep experienced two serious adverse events: a grade 3 SARS-CoV-2 infection, and subsequent death from an unknown cause, which occurred 46 days after the last administration of dazodalibep (12 days after COVID-19 diagnosis). Additionally, there was one case of herpes zoster in a patient treated with dazodalibep. In the group with limited systemic organ involvement, three serious adverse events were reported in the dazodalibep group (pneumonia influenza, postacute COVID-19 syndrome [long COVID], and gammopathy); one serious adverse event (neutropenia) was reported in the placebo group. One patient in the dazodalibep group discontinued participation in the study because of an adverse event, compared with two in the placebo group. Investigators determined that, thus far, all serious adverse events in both populations have been unrelated to the medication.
Throughout the trial, eligible participants in both populations were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous dazodalibep 1,500 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for three doses, followed by every 4 weeks for an additional four doses, up to day 169. The majority of participants in all populations and treatment arms were women (> 90%). Key inclusion criteria were being aged 18 years or older, meeting the 2016 American College of Rheumatology–EULAR classification criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome, and testing positive for anti-SSA and/or rheumatoid factors. Exclusion criteria were having a medical history of thrombosis or anticoagulant use, as well as prior treatment with B cell–depleting therapies. The proportions of patients who received glucocorticoids, antimalarials, or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were consistent between both arms of each population.
“Larger clinical trials are necessary to validate the clinical effectiveness and safety of dazodalibep therapy in this specific subgroup of patients,” Dr. Baldini concluded. Currently, dazodalibep is being studied for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and renal transplant rejection, and Horizon Therapeutics has plans to explore its use in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.
Dr. Ng has served as a consultant to Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, MedImmune, Resolves Therapeutics, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Baldini has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – Dazodalibep, an intravenously administered inhibitor of CD40 ligand, shows promise in reducing disease activity and alleviating key subjective symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, compared with placebo. These preliminary findings are from the initial phase of the ALISS trial, a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial presented at the annul European Congress of Rheumatology.
Over the course of the 169-day trial, both the disease activity score and the patient-reported symptom score dropped significantly for patients who were treated with dazodalibep, also known as VIB4920 or HZN4920, compared with those treated with placebo, meeting both primary endpoints. This benefit was particularly evident for patients who had limited systemic organ involvement but substantial symptom burden.
Dazodalibep is a fusion protein that functions as an inhibitor by blocking the interaction between T cells and CD40-expressing B cells. This inhibition effectively suppresses costimulatory signaling between immune cells. Unlike previous CD40-targeting biologics, dazodalibep does not belong to the antibody class. According to Horizon Thereapeutics, this distinction is expected to help mitigate safety concerns, particularly those related to blood clot formation that were encountered with antibody-based biologics such as ruplizumab, according to Horizon, which acquired the trial’s sponsor, Viela Bio.
Patients with moderate to high systemic disease activity
The trial investigated dazodalibep in two patient populations. Wan-Fai Ng, MBBCh, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, England, presented results from the first group, which comprised 74 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome with moderate to high systemic disease activity. Disease activity was defined as a score of ≥ 5 on the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI).
A post hoc responder analysis demonstrated that dazodalibep outperformed placebo in patients who achieved a 5- or 6-point improvement on the ESSDAI. Response rates for these patients was 61.1% and 60.0%, respectively, compared with 35.1% and 34.3% for patients who received placebo. Patients who received dazodalibep experienced a reduction of –6.3 ± 0.6 points in ESSDAI score, whereas the placebo group experienced a reduction of –4.1 ± 0.6 points, a difference of –2.2 (P = .0167). However, there was no significant change in any symptom-related score in this population.
Patients with unacceptable symptom burden but limited systemic involvement
Also at EULAR 2023, Chiara Baldini, MD, of the University of Pisa, Italy, reported the results from the second group of 109 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome who had notable symptom burden but limited systemic organ involvement. “These patients represent a significant portion of individuals with reduced quality of life who are largely excluded from other clinical trials,” Dr. Baldini said in an interview. The study population was defined by having a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) ≥ 5 and, in contrast to the previous group, an ESSDAI score < 5.
In this case, treatment with dazodalibep correlated with a substantial reduction in symptom burden, compared with placebo. Among the patients who received dazodalibep, 66.7% achieved ≥ 1 point or ≥ 15% reduction in symptoms, as measured by ESSPRI, compared with 32.7% in the placebo group. The ESSPRI score decreased by –1.80 ± 0.23 points in the dazodalibep group, while it decreased by –0.53 ± 0.23 points in the placebo group, a difference of −1.27 ± 0.33 points favoring dazodalibep (P = .0002). The reduction in symptoms in the dazodalibep group was evident from the first data point on day 29 and was statistically significant for each of the three symptom components included in the ESSPRI score: dryness, pain, and fatigue.
Additionally, a significant improvement was observed in one of the secondary endpoints, namely, a reduction in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score. The dazodalibep group exhibited a considerably greater reduction (+8.1 ± 1.4, compared with baseline) than did the placebo group (+2.8 ± 1.4; P = .0095).
Dazodalibep safety
“Dazodalibep therapy was generally safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Baldini said in her presentation. Adverse events that were reported for both investigations were generally mild and occurred with similar frequency between the treatment groups. The most commonly reported adverse events, each occurring in more than 5% of patients who received dazodalibep, were COVID-19, diarrhea, anemia, dizziness, ligament sprain, upper respiratory tract infection, and nasopharyngitis. The incidence of COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis was comparable between the treatment and placebo arms.
However, in the patient group with moderate to high systemic disease activity, one patient who was treated with dazodalibep experienced two serious adverse events: a grade 3 SARS-CoV-2 infection, and subsequent death from an unknown cause, which occurred 46 days after the last administration of dazodalibep (12 days after COVID-19 diagnosis). Additionally, there was one case of herpes zoster in a patient treated with dazodalibep. In the group with limited systemic organ involvement, three serious adverse events were reported in the dazodalibep group (pneumonia influenza, postacute COVID-19 syndrome [long COVID], and gammopathy); one serious adverse event (neutropenia) was reported in the placebo group. One patient in the dazodalibep group discontinued participation in the study because of an adverse event, compared with two in the placebo group. Investigators determined that, thus far, all serious adverse events in both populations have been unrelated to the medication.
Throughout the trial, eligible participants in both populations were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous dazodalibep 1,500 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for three doses, followed by every 4 weeks for an additional four doses, up to day 169. The majority of participants in all populations and treatment arms were women (> 90%). Key inclusion criteria were being aged 18 years or older, meeting the 2016 American College of Rheumatology–EULAR classification criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome, and testing positive for anti-SSA and/or rheumatoid factors. Exclusion criteria were having a medical history of thrombosis or anticoagulant use, as well as prior treatment with B cell–depleting therapies. The proportions of patients who received glucocorticoids, antimalarials, or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were consistent between both arms of each population.
“Larger clinical trials are necessary to validate the clinical effectiveness and safety of dazodalibep therapy in this specific subgroup of patients,” Dr. Baldini concluded. Currently, dazodalibep is being studied for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and renal transplant rejection, and Horizon Therapeutics has plans to explore its use in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.
Dr. Ng has served as a consultant to Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, MedImmune, Resolves Therapeutics, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Baldini has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MILAN – Dazodalibep, an intravenously administered inhibitor of CD40 ligand, shows promise in reducing disease activity and alleviating key subjective symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, compared with placebo. These preliminary findings are from the initial phase of the ALISS trial, a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial presented at the annul European Congress of Rheumatology.
Over the course of the 169-day trial, both the disease activity score and the patient-reported symptom score dropped significantly for patients who were treated with dazodalibep, also known as VIB4920 or HZN4920, compared with those treated with placebo, meeting both primary endpoints. This benefit was particularly evident for patients who had limited systemic organ involvement but substantial symptom burden.
Dazodalibep is a fusion protein that functions as an inhibitor by blocking the interaction between T cells and CD40-expressing B cells. This inhibition effectively suppresses costimulatory signaling between immune cells. Unlike previous CD40-targeting biologics, dazodalibep does not belong to the antibody class. According to Horizon Thereapeutics, this distinction is expected to help mitigate safety concerns, particularly those related to blood clot formation that were encountered with antibody-based biologics such as ruplizumab, according to Horizon, which acquired the trial’s sponsor, Viela Bio.
Patients with moderate to high systemic disease activity
The trial investigated dazodalibep in two patient populations. Wan-Fai Ng, MBBCh, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, England, presented results from the first group, which comprised 74 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome with moderate to high systemic disease activity. Disease activity was defined as a score of ≥ 5 on the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI).
A post hoc responder analysis demonstrated that dazodalibep outperformed placebo in patients who achieved a 5- or 6-point improvement on the ESSDAI. Response rates for these patients was 61.1% and 60.0%, respectively, compared with 35.1% and 34.3% for patients who received placebo. Patients who received dazodalibep experienced a reduction of –6.3 ± 0.6 points in ESSDAI score, whereas the placebo group experienced a reduction of –4.1 ± 0.6 points, a difference of –2.2 (P = .0167). However, there was no significant change in any symptom-related score in this population.
Patients with unacceptable symptom burden but limited systemic involvement
Also at EULAR 2023, Chiara Baldini, MD, of the University of Pisa, Italy, reported the results from the second group of 109 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome who had notable symptom burden but limited systemic organ involvement. “These patients represent a significant portion of individuals with reduced quality of life who are largely excluded from other clinical trials,” Dr. Baldini said in an interview. The study population was defined by having a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) ≥ 5 and, in contrast to the previous group, an ESSDAI score < 5.
In this case, treatment with dazodalibep correlated with a substantial reduction in symptom burden, compared with placebo. Among the patients who received dazodalibep, 66.7% achieved ≥ 1 point or ≥ 15% reduction in symptoms, as measured by ESSPRI, compared with 32.7% in the placebo group. The ESSPRI score decreased by –1.80 ± 0.23 points in the dazodalibep group, while it decreased by –0.53 ± 0.23 points in the placebo group, a difference of −1.27 ± 0.33 points favoring dazodalibep (P = .0002). The reduction in symptoms in the dazodalibep group was evident from the first data point on day 29 and was statistically significant for each of the three symptom components included in the ESSPRI score: dryness, pain, and fatigue.
Additionally, a significant improvement was observed in one of the secondary endpoints, namely, a reduction in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score. The dazodalibep group exhibited a considerably greater reduction (+8.1 ± 1.4, compared with baseline) than did the placebo group (+2.8 ± 1.4; P = .0095).
Dazodalibep safety
“Dazodalibep therapy was generally safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Baldini said in her presentation. Adverse events that were reported for both investigations were generally mild and occurred with similar frequency between the treatment groups. The most commonly reported adverse events, each occurring in more than 5% of patients who received dazodalibep, were COVID-19, diarrhea, anemia, dizziness, ligament sprain, upper respiratory tract infection, and nasopharyngitis. The incidence of COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis was comparable between the treatment and placebo arms.
However, in the patient group with moderate to high systemic disease activity, one patient who was treated with dazodalibep experienced two serious adverse events: a grade 3 SARS-CoV-2 infection, and subsequent death from an unknown cause, which occurred 46 days after the last administration of dazodalibep (12 days after COVID-19 diagnosis). Additionally, there was one case of herpes zoster in a patient treated with dazodalibep. In the group with limited systemic organ involvement, three serious adverse events were reported in the dazodalibep group (pneumonia influenza, postacute COVID-19 syndrome [long COVID], and gammopathy); one serious adverse event (neutropenia) was reported in the placebo group. One patient in the dazodalibep group discontinued participation in the study because of an adverse event, compared with two in the placebo group. Investigators determined that, thus far, all serious adverse events in both populations have been unrelated to the medication.
Throughout the trial, eligible participants in both populations were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous dazodalibep 1,500 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for three doses, followed by every 4 weeks for an additional four doses, up to day 169. The majority of participants in all populations and treatment arms were women (> 90%). Key inclusion criteria were being aged 18 years or older, meeting the 2016 American College of Rheumatology–EULAR classification criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome, and testing positive for anti-SSA and/or rheumatoid factors. Exclusion criteria were having a medical history of thrombosis or anticoagulant use, as well as prior treatment with B cell–depleting therapies. The proportions of patients who received glucocorticoids, antimalarials, or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were consistent between both arms of each population.
“Larger clinical trials are necessary to validate the clinical effectiveness and safety of dazodalibep therapy in this specific subgroup of patients,” Dr. Baldini concluded. Currently, dazodalibep is being studied for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and renal transplant rejection, and Horizon Therapeutics has plans to explore its use in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.
Dr. Ng has served as a consultant to Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, MedImmune, Resolves Therapeutics, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Baldini has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EULAR 2023
Why not both? Dual biologics for treatment-resistant RA and PsA
The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.
“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”
For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
Targeting multiple mechanisms of action
Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.
“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.
Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.
“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
Failed clinical trials
Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.
In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).
These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.
Promising combinations
But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.
Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.
“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.
While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.
In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.
“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”
The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.
“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”
The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
Finding the right patients
Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.
Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.
“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.
Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.
“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”
For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
Targeting multiple mechanisms of action
Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.
“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.
Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.
“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
Failed clinical trials
Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.
In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).
These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.
Promising combinations
But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.
Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.
“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.
While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.
In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.
“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”
The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.
“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”
The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
Finding the right patients
Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.
Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.
“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.
Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.
“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”
For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
Targeting multiple mechanisms of action
Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.
“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.
Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.
“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
Failed clinical trials
Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.
In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).
These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.
Promising combinations
But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.
Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.
“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.
While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.
In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.
“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”
The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.
“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”
The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
Finding the right patients
Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.
Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.
“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.
Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The STELLAR Travel to BMPR2-based therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertension
Pulmonary Vascular & Cardiovascular Network
Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section
The recently published STELLAR trial was a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate patients with PAH receiving stable vasodilator therapy after treatment with sotatercept, a first-in-class recombinant fusion protein with parts of the activin receptor type IIA, a member of the BMPR2/TGF-beta superfamily of receptors and ligands (Hoeper. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1478).
including changes in PVR, NT-ProBNP levels, functional class, French risk score, and time-to-clinical worsening when compared with placebo. However, many questions remain about the mechanisms whereby sotatercept achieved its clinical endpoints, the answers to which may lie within its basic molecular biology.
The focus on BMPR2/TGF-beta cell signaling pathways originated from the identification of loss-of-function mutations in the BMPR2 gene in patients with heritable and idiopathic PAH (Morrell, NW. Eur Respir J. 2019;53[3]: 1900078). An imbalance in BMPR2/TGF-beta signaling (low BMPR2/high TGF-beta function) has been proposed as a central mechanism in the development of PAH. Specifically, researchers have shown increased levels of Activin A, one of 33 ligands that can bind either BMPR2 or TGF-beta receptors, within vascular lesions in the lungs of patients with PAH. It has been thus hypothesized that reducing the amount of circulating Activin A could treat PAH by rebalancing BMPR2/TGF-beta signaling in lung vascular cells. In preclinical experimental models of PAH with elevated Activin A levels, sotatercept has been shown to reduce distal small vessel medial thickness/muscularization and increase the number of patent small vessels (Yung, LM. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12).
The exact mechanism by which sotatercept improves hemodynamics and outcomes remains unclear. Indeed, whether de-remodeling of the lung vasculature or new vessel formation occurs in humans is unknown. The results from STELLAR mark a new era in the development of potential “disease-modifying agents” for PAH; however, the question is: what exactly are we modifying?
Jose Gomez-Arroyo, MD, PhD – Section Fellow-in-Training
Dana Kay, DO – Section Member-at-Large
Pulmonary Vascular & Cardiovascular Network
Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section
The recently published STELLAR trial was a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate patients with PAH receiving stable vasodilator therapy after treatment with sotatercept, a first-in-class recombinant fusion protein with parts of the activin receptor type IIA, a member of the BMPR2/TGF-beta superfamily of receptors and ligands (Hoeper. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1478).
including changes in PVR, NT-ProBNP levels, functional class, French risk score, and time-to-clinical worsening when compared with placebo. However, many questions remain about the mechanisms whereby sotatercept achieved its clinical endpoints, the answers to which may lie within its basic molecular biology.
The focus on BMPR2/TGF-beta cell signaling pathways originated from the identification of loss-of-function mutations in the BMPR2 gene in patients with heritable and idiopathic PAH (Morrell, NW. Eur Respir J. 2019;53[3]: 1900078). An imbalance in BMPR2/TGF-beta signaling (low BMPR2/high TGF-beta function) has been proposed as a central mechanism in the development of PAH. Specifically, researchers have shown increased levels of Activin A, one of 33 ligands that can bind either BMPR2 or TGF-beta receptors, within vascular lesions in the lungs of patients with PAH. It has been thus hypothesized that reducing the amount of circulating Activin A could treat PAH by rebalancing BMPR2/TGF-beta signaling in lung vascular cells. In preclinical experimental models of PAH with elevated Activin A levels, sotatercept has been shown to reduce distal small vessel medial thickness/muscularization and increase the number of patent small vessels (Yung, LM. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12).
The exact mechanism by which sotatercept improves hemodynamics and outcomes remains unclear. Indeed, whether de-remodeling of the lung vasculature or new vessel formation occurs in humans is unknown. The results from STELLAR mark a new era in the development of potential “disease-modifying agents” for PAH; however, the question is: what exactly are we modifying?
Jose Gomez-Arroyo, MD, PhD – Section Fellow-in-Training
Dana Kay, DO – Section Member-at-Large
Pulmonary Vascular & Cardiovascular Network
Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section
The recently published STELLAR trial was a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate patients with PAH receiving stable vasodilator therapy after treatment with sotatercept, a first-in-class recombinant fusion protein with parts of the activin receptor type IIA, a member of the BMPR2/TGF-beta superfamily of receptors and ligands (Hoeper. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1478).
including changes in PVR, NT-ProBNP levels, functional class, French risk score, and time-to-clinical worsening when compared with placebo. However, many questions remain about the mechanisms whereby sotatercept achieved its clinical endpoints, the answers to which may lie within its basic molecular biology.
The focus on BMPR2/TGF-beta cell signaling pathways originated from the identification of loss-of-function mutations in the BMPR2 gene in patients with heritable and idiopathic PAH (Morrell, NW. Eur Respir J. 2019;53[3]: 1900078). An imbalance in BMPR2/TGF-beta signaling (low BMPR2/high TGF-beta function) has been proposed as a central mechanism in the development of PAH. Specifically, researchers have shown increased levels of Activin A, one of 33 ligands that can bind either BMPR2 or TGF-beta receptors, within vascular lesions in the lungs of patients with PAH. It has been thus hypothesized that reducing the amount of circulating Activin A could treat PAH by rebalancing BMPR2/TGF-beta signaling in lung vascular cells. In preclinical experimental models of PAH with elevated Activin A levels, sotatercept has been shown to reduce distal small vessel medial thickness/muscularization and increase the number of patent small vessels (Yung, LM. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12).
The exact mechanism by which sotatercept improves hemodynamics and outcomes remains unclear. Indeed, whether de-remodeling of the lung vasculature or new vessel formation occurs in humans is unknown. The results from STELLAR mark a new era in the development of potential “disease-modifying agents” for PAH; however, the question is: what exactly are we modifying?
Jose Gomez-Arroyo, MD, PhD – Section Fellow-in-Training
Dana Kay, DO – Section Member-at-Large
RSV: Current patterns and future directions
CHEST INFECTIONS & DISASTER RESPONSE NETWORK
Chest Infections Section
(Branche AR, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;74[6]:1004). A meta-analysis estimated an annual incidence rate of 37.6 per 1000 persons per year with a hospital case fatality rate of 11.7% (5.8%-23.4%) in industrialized countries (Shi T, et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226 [suppl 1]).
Recent work showed RSV to be quite pathogenic in adults (Begley KM, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2023:ciad031). In 10,311 hospitalized adults with an acute respiratory illness, 6% tested positive for RSV and 18.8% for influenza virus. Compared with influenza virus, patients infected with RSV were more likely to have COPD or CHF and had longer admission and more requirements for mechanical ventilation.
There have been new advances in the prevention of RSV-associated illness. Nirsevimab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody that locks the RSV F protein in prefusion stage, had an efficacy of 74.5% in preventing RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in infants up to 150 days, which is an improvement over palivizumab (Bergeron HC, et al. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2022;31 [No. 1]: 23). The FDA advisory committee just approved two RSV vaccines, both of which target prefusion F protein, for elderly adults. The RSVPreF3OA had 82.6% efficacy against LRTI in adults over 60 years of age (Papi A, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:595) and Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein vaccine had 80% efficacy in adults over 65 years of age (Falsey AR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:609).
Shekhar Ghamande, MD, MBBS, FCCP – Section Member-at-Large
Paige Marty, MD – Section Fellow-in-Training
CHEST INFECTIONS & DISASTER RESPONSE NETWORK
Chest Infections Section
(Branche AR, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;74[6]:1004). A meta-analysis estimated an annual incidence rate of 37.6 per 1000 persons per year with a hospital case fatality rate of 11.7% (5.8%-23.4%) in industrialized countries (Shi T, et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226 [suppl 1]).
Recent work showed RSV to be quite pathogenic in adults (Begley KM, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2023:ciad031). In 10,311 hospitalized adults with an acute respiratory illness, 6% tested positive for RSV and 18.8% for influenza virus. Compared with influenza virus, patients infected with RSV were more likely to have COPD or CHF and had longer admission and more requirements for mechanical ventilation.
There have been new advances in the prevention of RSV-associated illness. Nirsevimab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody that locks the RSV F protein in prefusion stage, had an efficacy of 74.5% in preventing RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in infants up to 150 days, which is an improvement over palivizumab (Bergeron HC, et al. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2022;31 [No. 1]: 23). The FDA advisory committee just approved two RSV vaccines, both of which target prefusion F protein, for elderly adults. The RSVPreF3OA had 82.6% efficacy against LRTI in adults over 60 years of age (Papi A, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:595) and Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein vaccine had 80% efficacy in adults over 65 years of age (Falsey AR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:609).
Shekhar Ghamande, MD, MBBS, FCCP – Section Member-at-Large
Paige Marty, MD – Section Fellow-in-Training
CHEST INFECTIONS & DISASTER RESPONSE NETWORK
Chest Infections Section
(Branche AR, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;74[6]:1004). A meta-analysis estimated an annual incidence rate of 37.6 per 1000 persons per year with a hospital case fatality rate of 11.7% (5.8%-23.4%) in industrialized countries (Shi T, et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226 [suppl 1]).
Recent work showed RSV to be quite pathogenic in adults (Begley KM, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2023:ciad031). In 10,311 hospitalized adults with an acute respiratory illness, 6% tested positive for RSV and 18.8% for influenza virus. Compared with influenza virus, patients infected with RSV were more likely to have COPD or CHF and had longer admission and more requirements for mechanical ventilation.
There have been new advances in the prevention of RSV-associated illness. Nirsevimab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody that locks the RSV F protein in prefusion stage, had an efficacy of 74.5% in preventing RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in infants up to 150 days, which is an improvement over palivizumab (Bergeron HC, et al. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2022;31 [No. 1]: 23). The FDA advisory committee just approved two RSV vaccines, both of which target prefusion F protein, for elderly adults. The RSVPreF3OA had 82.6% efficacy against LRTI in adults over 60 years of age (Papi A, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:595) and Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein vaccine had 80% efficacy in adults over 65 years of age (Falsey AR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:609).
Shekhar Ghamande, MD, MBBS, FCCP – Section Member-at-Large
Paige Marty, MD – Section Fellow-in-Training
WHO advises against nonsugar sweeteners for weight control
These sweeteners include aspartame, acesulfame K, advantame, saccharine, sucralose, stevia, and stevia derivatives.
The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review that collected data from 283 studies in adults, children, pregnant women, and mixed populations.
The findings suggest that use of NSSs does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. They also suggest that long-term use of NSSs may have potential undesirable effects.
To clarify, short-term NSS use results in a small reduction in body weight and body mass index in adults without significant effects on other measures of adiposity or cardiometabolic health, including fasting glucose, insulin, blood lipids, and blood pressure.
Conversely, on a long-term basis, results from prospective cohort studies suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality in adults (very low– to low-certainty evidence).
Regarding the risk for cancer, results from case-control studies suggest an association between saccharine intake and bladder cancer (very low certainty evidence), but significant associations for other types of cancer were not observed in case-control studies or meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
Relatively fewer studies were found for children, and results were largely inconclusive.
Finally, results for pregnant women suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for preterm birth (low-certainty evidence) and possibly adiposity in offspring (very low–certainty evidence).
Reducing sugar consumption
“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long-term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” Francesco Branca, MD, PhD, WHO director of the department of nutrition and food safety, said in a press release.
“NSSs are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health,” he added.
Applying the guideline
The recommendation applies to all people except individuals with preexisting diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified nonnutritive sweeteners, said the WHO.
The recommendation does not apply to personal care and hygiene products containing NSSs, such as toothpaste, skin cream, and medications, or to low-calorie sugars and sugar alcohols (polyols).
Because the link observed in the evidence between NSSs and disease outcomes might be confounded by the baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as “conditional” by the WHO.
“This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups,” said the WHO press release.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition . A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.
These sweeteners include aspartame, acesulfame K, advantame, saccharine, sucralose, stevia, and stevia derivatives.
The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review that collected data from 283 studies in adults, children, pregnant women, and mixed populations.
The findings suggest that use of NSSs does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. They also suggest that long-term use of NSSs may have potential undesirable effects.
To clarify, short-term NSS use results in a small reduction in body weight and body mass index in adults without significant effects on other measures of adiposity or cardiometabolic health, including fasting glucose, insulin, blood lipids, and blood pressure.
Conversely, on a long-term basis, results from prospective cohort studies suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality in adults (very low– to low-certainty evidence).
Regarding the risk for cancer, results from case-control studies suggest an association between saccharine intake and bladder cancer (very low certainty evidence), but significant associations for other types of cancer were not observed in case-control studies or meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
Relatively fewer studies were found for children, and results were largely inconclusive.
Finally, results for pregnant women suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for preterm birth (low-certainty evidence) and possibly adiposity in offspring (very low–certainty evidence).
Reducing sugar consumption
“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long-term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” Francesco Branca, MD, PhD, WHO director of the department of nutrition and food safety, said in a press release.
“NSSs are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health,” he added.
Applying the guideline
The recommendation applies to all people except individuals with preexisting diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified nonnutritive sweeteners, said the WHO.
The recommendation does not apply to personal care and hygiene products containing NSSs, such as toothpaste, skin cream, and medications, or to low-calorie sugars and sugar alcohols (polyols).
Because the link observed in the evidence between NSSs and disease outcomes might be confounded by the baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as “conditional” by the WHO.
“This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups,” said the WHO press release.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition . A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.
These sweeteners include aspartame, acesulfame K, advantame, saccharine, sucralose, stevia, and stevia derivatives.
The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review that collected data from 283 studies in adults, children, pregnant women, and mixed populations.
The findings suggest that use of NSSs does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. They also suggest that long-term use of NSSs may have potential undesirable effects.
To clarify, short-term NSS use results in a small reduction in body weight and body mass index in adults without significant effects on other measures of adiposity or cardiometabolic health, including fasting glucose, insulin, blood lipids, and blood pressure.
Conversely, on a long-term basis, results from prospective cohort studies suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality in adults (very low– to low-certainty evidence).
Regarding the risk for cancer, results from case-control studies suggest an association between saccharine intake and bladder cancer (very low certainty evidence), but significant associations for other types of cancer were not observed in case-control studies or meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
Relatively fewer studies were found for children, and results were largely inconclusive.
Finally, results for pregnant women suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for preterm birth (low-certainty evidence) and possibly adiposity in offspring (very low–certainty evidence).
Reducing sugar consumption
“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long-term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” Francesco Branca, MD, PhD, WHO director of the department of nutrition and food safety, said in a press release.
“NSSs are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health,” he added.
Applying the guideline
The recommendation applies to all people except individuals with preexisting diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified nonnutritive sweeteners, said the WHO.
The recommendation does not apply to personal care and hygiene products containing NSSs, such as toothpaste, skin cream, and medications, or to low-calorie sugars and sugar alcohols (polyols).
Because the link observed in the evidence between NSSs and disease outcomes might be confounded by the baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as “conditional” by the WHO.
“This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups,” said the WHO press release.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition . A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.