User login
Plant-based diets not always healthy; quality is key
The prospective cohort study used data from more than 120,000 middle-aged adults followed for over 10 years in the UK Biobank. Those who consumed a healthful plant-based diet – with higher amounts of foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts – and lower intakes of animal products, sugary drinks, and refined grains had a 16% lower risk of dying during follow-up, compared with those with the lowest intakes of the healthful plant-based foods.
By contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet was associated with a 23% higher total mortality risk.
“Not all plant-based diets are created equally. Our data provide evidence to support the notion that for health benefits the plant-based sources need to be whole grains, fruits and vegetables, legumes, nuts, etc., rather than processed plant-based foods,” study coauthor Aedín Cassidy, PhD, of Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, said in an interview.
She added: “We do not necessarily need to radically shift diets to vegan or vegetarian regimens, but rather to switch proportions on the plate to incorporate more healthful plant-based foods, fish, and leaner cuts of meat into our habitual diet. This would have benefits for both individual health and planetary health.”
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by Alysha S. Thompson, MSc, also at Queen’s University, and colleagues.
High- vs. low-quality plant-based diets linked to better outcomes
The UK Biobank is a population-based, prospective study that included more than 500,000 participants aged 40-69 years at the time of recruitment between 2006 and 2010 at 22 centers in England, Scotland, and Wales. The current study included 126,395 individuals; slightly over half (55.9%) are women.
Food intake data were collected for at least two 24-hour periods to create both “healthful” and “unhealthful” plant-based diet indexes (PDIs). These included 17 food groups: whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and vegetarian protein alternatives, tea and coffee, fruit juices, refined grains, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages, sweets and desserts, animal fat, dairy, eggs, fish or seafood, meat, and miscellaneous animal-derived foods. Data on oils weren’t available.
Higher scores on the healthful PDI and unhealthful PDI were scored positively or negatively based on quantities of those foods consumed.
Participants were then ranked in quartiles for portions of each food group and assigned scores between 2 (lowest-intake category) and 5 (highest).
During a follow-up of 10.6-12.2 years, there were 698 deaths attributed to cardiovascular disease, 3,275 deaths caused by cancer, 6,890 individuals who experienced a cardiovascular incident, and 8,939 with incident cancer.
Another 4,751 experienced an incident fracture, which was evaluated because of the concern that diets low in animal protein might lead to insufficient vitamin B and calcium intake.
After adjustment for confounding factors, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality in individuals with the highest healthful PDI score quartile compared with the lowest quartile was 0.84.
At the same time, the HR for all-cause mortality for those with the highest versus lowest unhealthful PDI scores was 1.23, and for cancer-related mortality was 1.19. All were statistically significant (P = .004).
Similarly, greater healthy plant-based diet adherence was associated with a significantly lower risk of being diagnosed with any cancer (HR, 0.93; P = .03), while higher unhealthful PDI scores yielded a higher risk (HR, 1.10; P = .004).
Moreover, higher healthy PDI scores were associated with lower risks for total cardiovascular incident risks (HR, 0.92; P = .007), as well as for the individual events of ischemic stroke (HR, 0.84; P = .08) and MI (HR, 0.86; P = .004). Higher unhealthy PDI scores were similarly associated with greater risks for those outcomes, with an overall HR of 1.21 (P = .004).
No associations were found between either healthful PDI or unhealthful PDI and total or site-specific fracture risk.
And because 91.3% of the UK Biobank study population was White, “future studies among more racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations are needed to assess the risk of major chronic disease in relation to [plant-based diets],” the authors wrote.
Dr. Cassidy and Ms. Thompson reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The prospective cohort study used data from more than 120,000 middle-aged adults followed for over 10 years in the UK Biobank. Those who consumed a healthful plant-based diet – with higher amounts of foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts – and lower intakes of animal products, sugary drinks, and refined grains had a 16% lower risk of dying during follow-up, compared with those with the lowest intakes of the healthful plant-based foods.
By contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet was associated with a 23% higher total mortality risk.
“Not all plant-based diets are created equally. Our data provide evidence to support the notion that for health benefits the plant-based sources need to be whole grains, fruits and vegetables, legumes, nuts, etc., rather than processed plant-based foods,” study coauthor Aedín Cassidy, PhD, of Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, said in an interview.
She added: “We do not necessarily need to radically shift diets to vegan or vegetarian regimens, but rather to switch proportions on the plate to incorporate more healthful plant-based foods, fish, and leaner cuts of meat into our habitual diet. This would have benefits for both individual health and planetary health.”
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by Alysha S. Thompson, MSc, also at Queen’s University, and colleagues.
High- vs. low-quality plant-based diets linked to better outcomes
The UK Biobank is a population-based, prospective study that included more than 500,000 participants aged 40-69 years at the time of recruitment between 2006 and 2010 at 22 centers in England, Scotland, and Wales. The current study included 126,395 individuals; slightly over half (55.9%) are women.
Food intake data were collected for at least two 24-hour periods to create both “healthful” and “unhealthful” plant-based diet indexes (PDIs). These included 17 food groups: whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and vegetarian protein alternatives, tea and coffee, fruit juices, refined grains, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages, sweets and desserts, animal fat, dairy, eggs, fish or seafood, meat, and miscellaneous animal-derived foods. Data on oils weren’t available.
Higher scores on the healthful PDI and unhealthful PDI were scored positively or negatively based on quantities of those foods consumed.
Participants were then ranked in quartiles for portions of each food group and assigned scores between 2 (lowest-intake category) and 5 (highest).
During a follow-up of 10.6-12.2 years, there were 698 deaths attributed to cardiovascular disease, 3,275 deaths caused by cancer, 6,890 individuals who experienced a cardiovascular incident, and 8,939 with incident cancer.
Another 4,751 experienced an incident fracture, which was evaluated because of the concern that diets low in animal protein might lead to insufficient vitamin B and calcium intake.
After adjustment for confounding factors, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality in individuals with the highest healthful PDI score quartile compared with the lowest quartile was 0.84.
At the same time, the HR for all-cause mortality for those with the highest versus lowest unhealthful PDI scores was 1.23, and for cancer-related mortality was 1.19. All were statistically significant (P = .004).
Similarly, greater healthy plant-based diet adherence was associated with a significantly lower risk of being diagnosed with any cancer (HR, 0.93; P = .03), while higher unhealthful PDI scores yielded a higher risk (HR, 1.10; P = .004).
Moreover, higher healthy PDI scores were associated with lower risks for total cardiovascular incident risks (HR, 0.92; P = .007), as well as for the individual events of ischemic stroke (HR, 0.84; P = .08) and MI (HR, 0.86; P = .004). Higher unhealthy PDI scores were similarly associated with greater risks for those outcomes, with an overall HR of 1.21 (P = .004).
No associations were found between either healthful PDI or unhealthful PDI and total or site-specific fracture risk.
And because 91.3% of the UK Biobank study population was White, “future studies among more racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations are needed to assess the risk of major chronic disease in relation to [plant-based diets],” the authors wrote.
Dr. Cassidy and Ms. Thompson reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The prospective cohort study used data from more than 120,000 middle-aged adults followed for over 10 years in the UK Biobank. Those who consumed a healthful plant-based diet – with higher amounts of foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts – and lower intakes of animal products, sugary drinks, and refined grains had a 16% lower risk of dying during follow-up, compared with those with the lowest intakes of the healthful plant-based foods.
By contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet was associated with a 23% higher total mortality risk.
“Not all plant-based diets are created equally. Our data provide evidence to support the notion that for health benefits the plant-based sources need to be whole grains, fruits and vegetables, legumes, nuts, etc., rather than processed plant-based foods,” study coauthor Aedín Cassidy, PhD, of Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, said in an interview.
She added: “We do not necessarily need to radically shift diets to vegan or vegetarian regimens, but rather to switch proportions on the plate to incorporate more healthful plant-based foods, fish, and leaner cuts of meat into our habitual diet. This would have benefits for both individual health and planetary health.”
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by Alysha S. Thompson, MSc, also at Queen’s University, and colleagues.
High- vs. low-quality plant-based diets linked to better outcomes
The UK Biobank is a population-based, prospective study that included more than 500,000 participants aged 40-69 years at the time of recruitment between 2006 and 2010 at 22 centers in England, Scotland, and Wales. The current study included 126,395 individuals; slightly over half (55.9%) are women.
Food intake data were collected for at least two 24-hour periods to create both “healthful” and “unhealthful” plant-based diet indexes (PDIs). These included 17 food groups: whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and vegetarian protein alternatives, tea and coffee, fruit juices, refined grains, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages, sweets and desserts, animal fat, dairy, eggs, fish or seafood, meat, and miscellaneous animal-derived foods. Data on oils weren’t available.
Higher scores on the healthful PDI and unhealthful PDI were scored positively or negatively based on quantities of those foods consumed.
Participants were then ranked in quartiles for portions of each food group and assigned scores between 2 (lowest-intake category) and 5 (highest).
During a follow-up of 10.6-12.2 years, there were 698 deaths attributed to cardiovascular disease, 3,275 deaths caused by cancer, 6,890 individuals who experienced a cardiovascular incident, and 8,939 with incident cancer.
Another 4,751 experienced an incident fracture, which was evaluated because of the concern that diets low in animal protein might lead to insufficient vitamin B and calcium intake.
After adjustment for confounding factors, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality in individuals with the highest healthful PDI score quartile compared with the lowest quartile was 0.84.
At the same time, the HR for all-cause mortality for those with the highest versus lowest unhealthful PDI scores was 1.23, and for cancer-related mortality was 1.19. All were statistically significant (P = .004).
Similarly, greater healthy plant-based diet adherence was associated with a significantly lower risk of being diagnosed with any cancer (HR, 0.93; P = .03), while higher unhealthful PDI scores yielded a higher risk (HR, 1.10; P = .004).
Moreover, higher healthy PDI scores were associated with lower risks for total cardiovascular incident risks (HR, 0.92; P = .007), as well as for the individual events of ischemic stroke (HR, 0.84; P = .08) and MI (HR, 0.86; P = .004). Higher unhealthy PDI scores were similarly associated with greater risks for those outcomes, with an overall HR of 1.21 (P = .004).
No associations were found between either healthful PDI or unhealthful PDI and total or site-specific fracture risk.
And because 91.3% of the UK Biobank study population was White, “future studies among more racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations are needed to assess the risk of major chronic disease in relation to [plant-based diets],” the authors wrote.
Dr. Cassidy and Ms. Thompson reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
One or two high-step days may reduce mortality risks
Taking 8,000 steps or more for just 1 or 2 days a week was linked to a significant reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, according to a study of about 3,000 adults.
Previous research has shown lower mortality rates among individuals who walk consistently, especially those who log at least 8,000 steps daily, but the benefit of intense walking just once or twice a week on long-term health outcomes has not been examined, wrote Kosuke Inoue, MD, of Kyoto University, Japan, and colleagues.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed 10-year follow-up data for 3,101 adults aged 20 years and older who were part of the 2005 and 2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
The participants were asked to wear accelerometers to track their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers assessed the dose-response relationship between days of taking 8,000 steps or more (about 4 miles) during 1 week, and the primary outcome of all-cause mortality risk after 10 years. Cardiovascular mortality risk after 10 years was a secondary outcome.
The mean age of the participants was 50.5 years and 51% were women. The breakdown by ethnicity was 51% White, 21% Black, 24% Hispanic, and 4% other races/ethnicities. A total of 632 individuals took 8,000 steps or more 0 days a week, 532 took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week, and 1,937 took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.
During the 10-year follow-up period, overall all-cause mortality was 14.2% and cardiovascular mortality was 5.3% across all step groups.
In an adjusted analysis, individuals who took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days a week had a 14.9% lower all-cause mortality risk compared with those who never reached 8,000 daily steps. This difference was similar to the 16.5% reduced mortality risk for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.
Similarly, compared with the group with no days of at least 8,000 steps, cardiovascular mortality risk was 8.1% lower for those who took 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week and 8.4% lower for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days per week. The decreased mortality risk plateaued at 3-4 days.
These patterns in reduced all-cause mortality risk persisted in a stratified analysis by age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older) and sex. Similar patterns in reduced mortality also emerged when the researchers used different thresholds of daily steps, such as a minimum of 10,000 steps instead of 8,000. The adjusted all-cause mortality for groups who took at least 10,000 steps 1-2 days a week, 3-7 days a week, and no days a week were 8.1%, 7.3%, and 16.7%, respectively, with corresponding cardiovascular mortality risks of 2.4%, 2.3%, and 7.0%, respectively.
“Given the simplicity and ease of counting daily steps, our findings indicate that the recommended number of steps taken on as few as 1 to 2 days per week may be a feasible option for individuals who are striving to achieve some health benefits through adhering to a recommended daily step count but are unable to accomplish this on a daily basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.
The findings were limited by several factors including the use daily step measures for 1 week only at baseline, with no data on how physical activity changes might impact mortality risk, the researchers noted. Other limitations included possible accelerometer error and misclassification of activity, possible selection bias, and lack of data on cause-specific mortality outside of cardiovascular death, they said.
However, the results were strengthened by the use of accelerometers as objective measures of activity and by the availability of 10-year follow-up data for nearly 100% of the participants, they said.
“Although our findings might suffer from residual confounding that should be addressed in future research, they suggest that people may receive substantial health benefits even if a sufficient number of steps are taken on only a couple days of the week,” they concluded.
Proceed with caution
The current study findings should be interpreted cautiously in light of the potential unmeasured confounding factors and selection bias that often occur in studies of physical activity, James Sawalla Guseh, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, and Jose F. Figueroa, MD, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The results support previous studies showing some longevity benefits with “weekend warrior” patterns of intense physical activity for only a couple of days; however, “the body of evidence for sporadic activity is not as robust as the evidence for sustained and regular aerobic activity,” the authors emphasized.
The editorial authors also highlighted the limitations of the current study, including the observational design and significant differences in demographics and comorbidities between the 1- to 2-days of 8,000 steps exercise group and the 0-day group, as well as the reliance on only a week’s worth of data to infer 10 years’ mortality.
Although the data are consistent with previous observations that increased exercise volume reduces mortality, more research is needed, as the current study findings may not reflect other dimensions of health, including neurological health, they said.
Despite the need for cautious interpretation of the results, the current study “supports the emerging and popular idea that step counting, which does not require consideration of exercise duration or intensity, can offer guidance toward robust and favorable health outcomes,” and may inform step-based activity goals to improve public health, the editorialists wrote.
The study was supported by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, the Japan Endocrine Society, and the Meiji Yasuda Life Foundation of Health and Welfare. Dr. Inoue also was supported by the Program for the Development of Next-Generation Leading Scientists With Global Insight sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. The other researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Taking 8,000 steps or more for just 1 or 2 days a week was linked to a significant reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, according to a study of about 3,000 adults.
Previous research has shown lower mortality rates among individuals who walk consistently, especially those who log at least 8,000 steps daily, but the benefit of intense walking just once or twice a week on long-term health outcomes has not been examined, wrote Kosuke Inoue, MD, of Kyoto University, Japan, and colleagues.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed 10-year follow-up data for 3,101 adults aged 20 years and older who were part of the 2005 and 2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
The participants were asked to wear accelerometers to track their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers assessed the dose-response relationship between days of taking 8,000 steps or more (about 4 miles) during 1 week, and the primary outcome of all-cause mortality risk after 10 years. Cardiovascular mortality risk after 10 years was a secondary outcome.
The mean age of the participants was 50.5 years and 51% were women. The breakdown by ethnicity was 51% White, 21% Black, 24% Hispanic, and 4% other races/ethnicities. A total of 632 individuals took 8,000 steps or more 0 days a week, 532 took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week, and 1,937 took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.
During the 10-year follow-up period, overall all-cause mortality was 14.2% and cardiovascular mortality was 5.3% across all step groups.
In an adjusted analysis, individuals who took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days a week had a 14.9% lower all-cause mortality risk compared with those who never reached 8,000 daily steps. This difference was similar to the 16.5% reduced mortality risk for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.
Similarly, compared with the group with no days of at least 8,000 steps, cardiovascular mortality risk was 8.1% lower for those who took 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week and 8.4% lower for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days per week. The decreased mortality risk plateaued at 3-4 days.
These patterns in reduced all-cause mortality risk persisted in a stratified analysis by age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older) and sex. Similar patterns in reduced mortality also emerged when the researchers used different thresholds of daily steps, such as a minimum of 10,000 steps instead of 8,000. The adjusted all-cause mortality for groups who took at least 10,000 steps 1-2 days a week, 3-7 days a week, and no days a week were 8.1%, 7.3%, and 16.7%, respectively, with corresponding cardiovascular mortality risks of 2.4%, 2.3%, and 7.0%, respectively.
“Given the simplicity and ease of counting daily steps, our findings indicate that the recommended number of steps taken on as few as 1 to 2 days per week may be a feasible option for individuals who are striving to achieve some health benefits through adhering to a recommended daily step count but are unable to accomplish this on a daily basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.
The findings were limited by several factors including the use daily step measures for 1 week only at baseline, with no data on how physical activity changes might impact mortality risk, the researchers noted. Other limitations included possible accelerometer error and misclassification of activity, possible selection bias, and lack of data on cause-specific mortality outside of cardiovascular death, they said.
However, the results were strengthened by the use of accelerometers as objective measures of activity and by the availability of 10-year follow-up data for nearly 100% of the participants, they said.
“Although our findings might suffer from residual confounding that should be addressed in future research, they suggest that people may receive substantial health benefits even if a sufficient number of steps are taken on only a couple days of the week,” they concluded.
Proceed with caution
The current study findings should be interpreted cautiously in light of the potential unmeasured confounding factors and selection bias that often occur in studies of physical activity, James Sawalla Guseh, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, and Jose F. Figueroa, MD, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The results support previous studies showing some longevity benefits with “weekend warrior” patterns of intense physical activity for only a couple of days; however, “the body of evidence for sporadic activity is not as robust as the evidence for sustained and regular aerobic activity,” the authors emphasized.
The editorial authors also highlighted the limitations of the current study, including the observational design and significant differences in demographics and comorbidities between the 1- to 2-days of 8,000 steps exercise group and the 0-day group, as well as the reliance on only a week’s worth of data to infer 10 years’ mortality.
Although the data are consistent with previous observations that increased exercise volume reduces mortality, more research is needed, as the current study findings may not reflect other dimensions of health, including neurological health, they said.
Despite the need for cautious interpretation of the results, the current study “supports the emerging and popular idea that step counting, which does not require consideration of exercise duration or intensity, can offer guidance toward robust and favorable health outcomes,” and may inform step-based activity goals to improve public health, the editorialists wrote.
The study was supported by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, the Japan Endocrine Society, and the Meiji Yasuda Life Foundation of Health and Welfare. Dr. Inoue also was supported by the Program for the Development of Next-Generation Leading Scientists With Global Insight sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. The other researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Taking 8,000 steps or more for just 1 or 2 days a week was linked to a significant reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, according to a study of about 3,000 adults.
Previous research has shown lower mortality rates among individuals who walk consistently, especially those who log at least 8,000 steps daily, but the benefit of intense walking just once or twice a week on long-term health outcomes has not been examined, wrote Kosuke Inoue, MD, of Kyoto University, Japan, and colleagues.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed 10-year follow-up data for 3,101 adults aged 20 years and older who were part of the 2005 and 2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
The participants were asked to wear accelerometers to track their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers assessed the dose-response relationship between days of taking 8,000 steps or more (about 4 miles) during 1 week, and the primary outcome of all-cause mortality risk after 10 years. Cardiovascular mortality risk after 10 years was a secondary outcome.
The mean age of the participants was 50.5 years and 51% were women. The breakdown by ethnicity was 51% White, 21% Black, 24% Hispanic, and 4% other races/ethnicities. A total of 632 individuals took 8,000 steps or more 0 days a week, 532 took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week, and 1,937 took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.
During the 10-year follow-up period, overall all-cause mortality was 14.2% and cardiovascular mortality was 5.3% across all step groups.
In an adjusted analysis, individuals who took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days a week had a 14.9% lower all-cause mortality risk compared with those who never reached 8,000 daily steps. This difference was similar to the 16.5% reduced mortality risk for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.
Similarly, compared with the group with no days of at least 8,000 steps, cardiovascular mortality risk was 8.1% lower for those who took 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week and 8.4% lower for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days per week. The decreased mortality risk plateaued at 3-4 days.
These patterns in reduced all-cause mortality risk persisted in a stratified analysis by age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older) and sex. Similar patterns in reduced mortality also emerged when the researchers used different thresholds of daily steps, such as a minimum of 10,000 steps instead of 8,000. The adjusted all-cause mortality for groups who took at least 10,000 steps 1-2 days a week, 3-7 days a week, and no days a week were 8.1%, 7.3%, and 16.7%, respectively, with corresponding cardiovascular mortality risks of 2.4%, 2.3%, and 7.0%, respectively.
“Given the simplicity and ease of counting daily steps, our findings indicate that the recommended number of steps taken on as few as 1 to 2 days per week may be a feasible option for individuals who are striving to achieve some health benefits through adhering to a recommended daily step count but are unable to accomplish this on a daily basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.
The findings were limited by several factors including the use daily step measures for 1 week only at baseline, with no data on how physical activity changes might impact mortality risk, the researchers noted. Other limitations included possible accelerometer error and misclassification of activity, possible selection bias, and lack of data on cause-specific mortality outside of cardiovascular death, they said.
However, the results were strengthened by the use of accelerometers as objective measures of activity and by the availability of 10-year follow-up data for nearly 100% of the participants, they said.
“Although our findings might suffer from residual confounding that should be addressed in future research, they suggest that people may receive substantial health benefits even if a sufficient number of steps are taken on only a couple days of the week,” they concluded.
Proceed with caution
The current study findings should be interpreted cautiously in light of the potential unmeasured confounding factors and selection bias that often occur in studies of physical activity, James Sawalla Guseh, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, and Jose F. Figueroa, MD, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The results support previous studies showing some longevity benefits with “weekend warrior” patterns of intense physical activity for only a couple of days; however, “the body of evidence for sporadic activity is not as robust as the evidence for sustained and regular aerobic activity,” the authors emphasized.
The editorial authors also highlighted the limitations of the current study, including the observational design and significant differences in demographics and comorbidities between the 1- to 2-days of 8,000 steps exercise group and the 0-day group, as well as the reliance on only a week’s worth of data to infer 10 years’ mortality.
Although the data are consistent with previous observations that increased exercise volume reduces mortality, more research is needed, as the current study findings may not reflect other dimensions of health, including neurological health, they said.
Despite the need for cautious interpretation of the results, the current study “supports the emerging and popular idea that step counting, which does not require consideration of exercise duration or intensity, can offer guidance toward robust and favorable health outcomes,” and may inform step-based activity goals to improve public health, the editorialists wrote.
The study was supported by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, the Japan Endocrine Society, and the Meiji Yasuda Life Foundation of Health and Welfare. Dr. Inoue also was supported by the Program for the Development of Next-Generation Leading Scientists With Global Insight sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. The other researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Annular Erythematous Plaques With Central Hypopigmentation on Sun-Exposed Skin
A biopsy showed a markedly elastotic dermis consisting of a palisading granulomatous inflammatory infiltrate and numerous multinucleated histiocytes (Figure). These histopathologic findings along with the clinical presentation confirmed a diagnosis of annular elastolytic granuloma (AEG). Treatment consisting of 3 months of oral minocycline, 2 months of oral doxycycline, and clobetasol ointment all failed. At that point, oral hydroxychloroquine was recommended. Our patient was lost to follow-up by dermatology, then subsequently was placed on hydroxychloroquine by rheumatology to treat both the osteoarthritis and AEG. A follow-up appointment with dermatology was planned for 3 months to monitor hydroxychloroquine treatment and monitor treatment progress; however, she did not follow-up or seek further treatment.
Annular elastolytic granuloma clinically is similar to granuloma annulare (GA), with both presenting as annular plaques surrounded by an elevated border.1 Although AEG clinically is distinct with hypopigmented atrophied plaque centers,2 a biopsy is required to confirm the lack of elastic tissue in zones of atrophy and the presence of multinucleated histiocytes.1,3 Lesions most commonly are seen clinically on sun-exposed areas in middle-aged White women; however, they rarely have been seen on frequently covered skin.4 Our case illustrates the striking photodistribution of AEG, especially on the posterior neck area. The clinical diagnoses of AEG, annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma, and GA in sun-exposed areas are synonymous and can be used interchangeably.5,6
Pathologies considered in the diagnosis of AEG include but are not limited to tinea corporis, annular lichen planus, erythema annulare centrifugum, and necrobiosis lipoidica. Scaling typically is absent in AEG, while tinea corporis presents with hyphae within the stratum corneum of the plaques.7 Papules along the periphery of annular lesions are more typical of annular lichen planus than AEG, and they tend to have a more purple hue.8 Erythema annulare centrifugum has annular erythematous plaques similar to those found in AEG but differs with scaling on the inner margins of these plaques. Histopathology presenting with a lymphocytic infiltrate surrounding vasculature and no indication of elastolytic degradation would further indicate a diagnosis of erythema annulare centrifugum.9 Histopathology showing necrobiosis, lipid depositions, and vascular wall thickenings is indicative of necrobiosis lipoidica.10
Similar to GA,11 the cause of AEG is idiopathic.2 Annular elastolytic granuloma and GA differ in the fact that elastin degradation is characteristic of AEG compared to collagen degradation in GA. It is suspected that elastin degradation in AEG patients is caused by an immune response triggering phagocytosis of elastin by multinucleated histiocytes.2 Actinic damage also is considered a possible cause of elastin fiber degradation in AEG.12 Granuloma annulare can be ruled out and the diagnosis of AEG confirmed with the absence of elastin fibers and mucin on pathology.13
Although there is no established first-line treatment of AEG, successful treatment has been achieved with antimalarial drugs paired with topical steroids.14 Treatment recommendations for AEG include minocycline, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, tranilast, and oral retinoids, as well as oral and topical steroids. In clinical cases where AEG occurs in the setting of a chronic disease such as diabetes mellitus, vascular occlusion, arthritis, or hypertension, treatment of underlying disease has been shown to resolve AEG symptoms.14
Although light therapy is not common for AEG, UV light radiation has demonstrated success in treating AEG.15,16 One study showed complete clearance of granulomatous papules after narrowband UVB treatment.15 Another study showed that 2 patients treated with psoralen plus UVA therapy reached complete clearance of AEG lasting at least 3 months after treatment.16
1. Lai JH, Murray SJ, Walsh NM. Evolution of granuloma annulare to mid-dermal elastolysis: report of a case and review of the literature. J Cutan Pathol. 2014;41:462-468. doi:10.1111/cup.12292 2. Klemke CD, Siebold D, Dippel E, et al. Generalised annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma. Dermatology. 2003;207:420-422. doi:10.1159/000074132 3. Limas C. The spectrum of primary cutaneous elastolytic granulomas and their distinction from granuloma annulare: a clinicopathological analysis. Histopathology. 2004;44:277-282. doi:10.1111/j.0309-0167.2004.01755.x 4. Revenga F, Rovira I, Pimentel J, et al. Annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma—actinic granuloma? Clin Exp Dermatol. 1996;21:51-53. 5. Hawryluk EB, Izikson L, English JC 3rd. Non-infectious granulomatous diseases of the skin and their associated systemic diseases: an evidence-based update to important clinical questions. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2010;11:171-181. doi:10.2165/11530080-000000000-00000 6. Berliner JG, Haemel A, LeBoit PE, et al. The sarcoidal variant of annular elastolytic granuloma. J Cutan Pathol. 2013;40:918-920. doi:10.1111/cup.12237 7. Pflederer RT, Ahmed S, Tonkovic-Capin V, et al. Annular polycyclic plaques on the chest and upper back [published online April 24, 2018]. JAAD Case Rep. 2018;4:405-407. doi:10.1016/j.jdcr.2017.07.022 8. Trayes KP, Savage K, Studdiford JS. Annular lesions: diagnosis and treatment. Am Fam Physician. 2018;98:283-291. 9. Weyers W, Diaz-Cascajo C, Weyers I. Erythema annulare centrifugum: results of a clinicopathologic study of 73 patients. Am J Dermatopathol. 2003;25:451-462. doi:10.1097/00000372-200312000-00001 10. Dowling GB, Jones EW. Atypical (annular) necrobiosis lipoidica of the face and scalp. a report of the clinical and histological features of 7 cases. Dermatologica. 1967;135:11-26. doi:10.1159/000254156 11. Piette EW, Rosenbach M. Granuloma annulare: pathogenesis, disease associations and triggers, and therapeutic options. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75:467-479. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015 .03.055 12. O’Brien JP, Regan W. Actinically degenerate elastic tissue is the likely antigenic basis of actinic granuloma of the skin and of temporal arteritis [published correction appears in J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000; 42(1 pt 1):148]. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999;40(2 pt 1):214-222. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(99)70191-x 13. Rencic A, Nousari CH. Other rheumatologic diseases. In: Bolognia JL, Jorizzo JL, Rapini RP, et al, eds. Dermatology. 2nd ed. Elsevier Limited; 2008:600-601. 14. Burlando M, Herzum A, Cozzani E, et al. Can methotrexate be a successful treatment for unresponsive generalized annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma? case report and review of the literature. Dermatol Ther. 2021;34:E14705. doi:10.1111/dth.14705 15. Takata T, Ikeda M, Kodama H, et al. Regression of papular elastolytic giant cell granuloma using narrow-band UVB irradiation. Dermatology. 2006;212:77-79. doi:10.1159/000089028 16. Pérez-Pérez L, García-Gavín J, Allegue F, et al. Successful treatment of generalized elastolytic giant cell granuloma with psoralenultraviolet A. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2012;28:264-266. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0781.2012.00680.x
A biopsy showed a markedly elastotic dermis consisting of a palisading granulomatous inflammatory infiltrate and numerous multinucleated histiocytes (Figure). These histopathologic findings along with the clinical presentation confirmed a diagnosis of annular elastolytic granuloma (AEG). Treatment consisting of 3 months of oral minocycline, 2 months of oral doxycycline, and clobetasol ointment all failed. At that point, oral hydroxychloroquine was recommended. Our patient was lost to follow-up by dermatology, then subsequently was placed on hydroxychloroquine by rheumatology to treat both the osteoarthritis and AEG. A follow-up appointment with dermatology was planned for 3 months to monitor hydroxychloroquine treatment and monitor treatment progress; however, she did not follow-up or seek further treatment.
Annular elastolytic granuloma clinically is similar to granuloma annulare (GA), with both presenting as annular plaques surrounded by an elevated border.1 Although AEG clinically is distinct with hypopigmented atrophied plaque centers,2 a biopsy is required to confirm the lack of elastic tissue in zones of atrophy and the presence of multinucleated histiocytes.1,3 Lesions most commonly are seen clinically on sun-exposed areas in middle-aged White women; however, they rarely have been seen on frequently covered skin.4 Our case illustrates the striking photodistribution of AEG, especially on the posterior neck area. The clinical diagnoses of AEG, annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma, and GA in sun-exposed areas are synonymous and can be used interchangeably.5,6
Pathologies considered in the diagnosis of AEG include but are not limited to tinea corporis, annular lichen planus, erythema annulare centrifugum, and necrobiosis lipoidica. Scaling typically is absent in AEG, while tinea corporis presents with hyphae within the stratum corneum of the plaques.7 Papules along the periphery of annular lesions are more typical of annular lichen planus than AEG, and they tend to have a more purple hue.8 Erythema annulare centrifugum has annular erythematous plaques similar to those found in AEG but differs with scaling on the inner margins of these plaques. Histopathology presenting with a lymphocytic infiltrate surrounding vasculature and no indication of elastolytic degradation would further indicate a diagnosis of erythema annulare centrifugum.9 Histopathology showing necrobiosis, lipid depositions, and vascular wall thickenings is indicative of necrobiosis lipoidica.10
Similar to GA,11 the cause of AEG is idiopathic.2 Annular elastolytic granuloma and GA differ in the fact that elastin degradation is characteristic of AEG compared to collagen degradation in GA. It is suspected that elastin degradation in AEG patients is caused by an immune response triggering phagocytosis of elastin by multinucleated histiocytes.2 Actinic damage also is considered a possible cause of elastin fiber degradation in AEG.12 Granuloma annulare can be ruled out and the diagnosis of AEG confirmed with the absence of elastin fibers and mucin on pathology.13
Although there is no established first-line treatment of AEG, successful treatment has been achieved with antimalarial drugs paired with topical steroids.14 Treatment recommendations for AEG include minocycline, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, tranilast, and oral retinoids, as well as oral and topical steroids. In clinical cases where AEG occurs in the setting of a chronic disease such as diabetes mellitus, vascular occlusion, arthritis, or hypertension, treatment of underlying disease has been shown to resolve AEG symptoms.14
Although light therapy is not common for AEG, UV light radiation has demonstrated success in treating AEG.15,16 One study showed complete clearance of granulomatous papules after narrowband UVB treatment.15 Another study showed that 2 patients treated with psoralen plus UVA therapy reached complete clearance of AEG lasting at least 3 months after treatment.16
A biopsy showed a markedly elastotic dermis consisting of a palisading granulomatous inflammatory infiltrate and numerous multinucleated histiocytes (Figure). These histopathologic findings along with the clinical presentation confirmed a diagnosis of annular elastolytic granuloma (AEG). Treatment consisting of 3 months of oral minocycline, 2 months of oral doxycycline, and clobetasol ointment all failed. At that point, oral hydroxychloroquine was recommended. Our patient was lost to follow-up by dermatology, then subsequently was placed on hydroxychloroquine by rheumatology to treat both the osteoarthritis and AEG. A follow-up appointment with dermatology was planned for 3 months to monitor hydroxychloroquine treatment and monitor treatment progress; however, she did not follow-up or seek further treatment.
Annular elastolytic granuloma clinically is similar to granuloma annulare (GA), with both presenting as annular plaques surrounded by an elevated border.1 Although AEG clinically is distinct with hypopigmented atrophied plaque centers,2 a biopsy is required to confirm the lack of elastic tissue in zones of atrophy and the presence of multinucleated histiocytes.1,3 Lesions most commonly are seen clinically on sun-exposed areas in middle-aged White women; however, they rarely have been seen on frequently covered skin.4 Our case illustrates the striking photodistribution of AEG, especially on the posterior neck area. The clinical diagnoses of AEG, annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma, and GA in sun-exposed areas are synonymous and can be used interchangeably.5,6
Pathologies considered in the diagnosis of AEG include but are not limited to tinea corporis, annular lichen planus, erythema annulare centrifugum, and necrobiosis lipoidica. Scaling typically is absent in AEG, while tinea corporis presents with hyphae within the stratum corneum of the plaques.7 Papules along the periphery of annular lesions are more typical of annular lichen planus than AEG, and they tend to have a more purple hue.8 Erythema annulare centrifugum has annular erythematous plaques similar to those found in AEG but differs with scaling on the inner margins of these plaques. Histopathology presenting with a lymphocytic infiltrate surrounding vasculature and no indication of elastolytic degradation would further indicate a diagnosis of erythema annulare centrifugum.9 Histopathology showing necrobiosis, lipid depositions, and vascular wall thickenings is indicative of necrobiosis lipoidica.10
Similar to GA,11 the cause of AEG is idiopathic.2 Annular elastolytic granuloma and GA differ in the fact that elastin degradation is characteristic of AEG compared to collagen degradation in GA. It is suspected that elastin degradation in AEG patients is caused by an immune response triggering phagocytosis of elastin by multinucleated histiocytes.2 Actinic damage also is considered a possible cause of elastin fiber degradation in AEG.12 Granuloma annulare can be ruled out and the diagnosis of AEG confirmed with the absence of elastin fibers and mucin on pathology.13
Although there is no established first-line treatment of AEG, successful treatment has been achieved with antimalarial drugs paired with topical steroids.14 Treatment recommendations for AEG include minocycline, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, tranilast, and oral retinoids, as well as oral and topical steroids. In clinical cases where AEG occurs in the setting of a chronic disease such as diabetes mellitus, vascular occlusion, arthritis, or hypertension, treatment of underlying disease has been shown to resolve AEG symptoms.14
Although light therapy is not common for AEG, UV light radiation has demonstrated success in treating AEG.15,16 One study showed complete clearance of granulomatous papules after narrowband UVB treatment.15 Another study showed that 2 patients treated with psoralen plus UVA therapy reached complete clearance of AEG lasting at least 3 months after treatment.16
1. Lai JH, Murray SJ, Walsh NM. Evolution of granuloma annulare to mid-dermal elastolysis: report of a case and review of the literature. J Cutan Pathol. 2014;41:462-468. doi:10.1111/cup.12292 2. Klemke CD, Siebold D, Dippel E, et al. Generalised annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma. Dermatology. 2003;207:420-422. doi:10.1159/000074132 3. Limas C. The spectrum of primary cutaneous elastolytic granulomas and their distinction from granuloma annulare: a clinicopathological analysis. Histopathology. 2004;44:277-282. doi:10.1111/j.0309-0167.2004.01755.x 4. Revenga F, Rovira I, Pimentel J, et al. Annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma—actinic granuloma? Clin Exp Dermatol. 1996;21:51-53. 5. Hawryluk EB, Izikson L, English JC 3rd. Non-infectious granulomatous diseases of the skin and their associated systemic diseases: an evidence-based update to important clinical questions. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2010;11:171-181. doi:10.2165/11530080-000000000-00000 6. Berliner JG, Haemel A, LeBoit PE, et al. The sarcoidal variant of annular elastolytic granuloma. J Cutan Pathol. 2013;40:918-920. doi:10.1111/cup.12237 7. Pflederer RT, Ahmed S, Tonkovic-Capin V, et al. Annular polycyclic plaques on the chest and upper back [published online April 24, 2018]. JAAD Case Rep. 2018;4:405-407. doi:10.1016/j.jdcr.2017.07.022 8. Trayes KP, Savage K, Studdiford JS. Annular lesions: diagnosis and treatment. Am Fam Physician. 2018;98:283-291. 9. Weyers W, Diaz-Cascajo C, Weyers I. Erythema annulare centrifugum: results of a clinicopathologic study of 73 patients. Am J Dermatopathol. 2003;25:451-462. doi:10.1097/00000372-200312000-00001 10. Dowling GB, Jones EW. Atypical (annular) necrobiosis lipoidica of the face and scalp. a report of the clinical and histological features of 7 cases. Dermatologica. 1967;135:11-26. doi:10.1159/000254156 11. Piette EW, Rosenbach M. Granuloma annulare: pathogenesis, disease associations and triggers, and therapeutic options. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75:467-479. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015 .03.055 12. O’Brien JP, Regan W. Actinically degenerate elastic tissue is the likely antigenic basis of actinic granuloma of the skin and of temporal arteritis [published correction appears in J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000; 42(1 pt 1):148]. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999;40(2 pt 1):214-222. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(99)70191-x 13. Rencic A, Nousari CH. Other rheumatologic diseases. In: Bolognia JL, Jorizzo JL, Rapini RP, et al, eds. Dermatology. 2nd ed. Elsevier Limited; 2008:600-601. 14. Burlando M, Herzum A, Cozzani E, et al. Can methotrexate be a successful treatment for unresponsive generalized annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma? case report and review of the literature. Dermatol Ther. 2021;34:E14705. doi:10.1111/dth.14705 15. Takata T, Ikeda M, Kodama H, et al. Regression of papular elastolytic giant cell granuloma using narrow-band UVB irradiation. Dermatology. 2006;212:77-79. doi:10.1159/000089028 16. Pérez-Pérez L, García-Gavín J, Allegue F, et al. Successful treatment of generalized elastolytic giant cell granuloma with psoralenultraviolet A. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2012;28:264-266. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0781.2012.00680.x
1. Lai JH, Murray SJ, Walsh NM. Evolution of granuloma annulare to mid-dermal elastolysis: report of a case and review of the literature. J Cutan Pathol. 2014;41:462-468. doi:10.1111/cup.12292 2. Klemke CD, Siebold D, Dippel E, et al. Generalised annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma. Dermatology. 2003;207:420-422. doi:10.1159/000074132 3. Limas C. The spectrum of primary cutaneous elastolytic granulomas and their distinction from granuloma annulare: a clinicopathological analysis. Histopathology. 2004;44:277-282. doi:10.1111/j.0309-0167.2004.01755.x 4. Revenga F, Rovira I, Pimentel J, et al. Annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma—actinic granuloma? Clin Exp Dermatol. 1996;21:51-53. 5. Hawryluk EB, Izikson L, English JC 3rd. Non-infectious granulomatous diseases of the skin and their associated systemic diseases: an evidence-based update to important clinical questions. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2010;11:171-181. doi:10.2165/11530080-000000000-00000 6. Berliner JG, Haemel A, LeBoit PE, et al. The sarcoidal variant of annular elastolytic granuloma. J Cutan Pathol. 2013;40:918-920. doi:10.1111/cup.12237 7. Pflederer RT, Ahmed S, Tonkovic-Capin V, et al. Annular polycyclic plaques on the chest and upper back [published online April 24, 2018]. JAAD Case Rep. 2018;4:405-407. doi:10.1016/j.jdcr.2017.07.022 8. Trayes KP, Savage K, Studdiford JS. Annular lesions: diagnosis and treatment. Am Fam Physician. 2018;98:283-291. 9. Weyers W, Diaz-Cascajo C, Weyers I. Erythema annulare centrifugum: results of a clinicopathologic study of 73 patients. Am J Dermatopathol. 2003;25:451-462. doi:10.1097/00000372-200312000-00001 10. Dowling GB, Jones EW. Atypical (annular) necrobiosis lipoidica of the face and scalp. a report of the clinical and histological features of 7 cases. Dermatologica. 1967;135:11-26. doi:10.1159/000254156 11. Piette EW, Rosenbach M. Granuloma annulare: pathogenesis, disease associations and triggers, and therapeutic options. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;75:467-479. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015 .03.055 12. O’Brien JP, Regan W. Actinically degenerate elastic tissue is the likely antigenic basis of actinic granuloma of the skin and of temporal arteritis [published correction appears in J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000; 42(1 pt 1):148]. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999;40(2 pt 1):214-222. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(99)70191-x 13. Rencic A, Nousari CH. Other rheumatologic diseases. In: Bolognia JL, Jorizzo JL, Rapini RP, et al, eds. Dermatology. 2nd ed. Elsevier Limited; 2008:600-601. 14. Burlando M, Herzum A, Cozzani E, et al. Can methotrexate be a successful treatment for unresponsive generalized annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma? case report and review of the literature. Dermatol Ther. 2021;34:E14705. doi:10.1111/dth.14705 15. Takata T, Ikeda M, Kodama H, et al. Regression of papular elastolytic giant cell granuloma using narrow-band UVB irradiation. Dermatology. 2006;212:77-79. doi:10.1159/000089028 16. Pérez-Pérez L, García-Gavín J, Allegue F, et al. Successful treatment of generalized elastolytic giant cell granuloma with psoralenultraviolet A. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2012;28:264-266. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0781.2012.00680.x
A 67-year-old White woman presented to our dermatology clinic with pruritic annular erythematous plaques with central hypopigmentation on the forearms, dorsal aspect of the hands, neck, and fingers of 3 to 4 months’ duration. The patient rated the severity of pruritus an 8 on a 10-point scale. A review of symptoms was positive for fatigue, joint pain, and headache. The patient had a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, osteoarthritis, thyroid disease, and stage 3 renal failure. A punch biopsy from the left forearm was performed.
Antidepressants benefit some patients with osteoarthritis pain
DENVER – Using antidepressants to treat osteoarthritis pain can benefit some individuals but appears to have a clinically unimportant reduction in pain when looking at all patients who have tried them, according to a study presented at the OARSI 2023 World Congress. The review was also published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in October 2022.
In terms of implications for clinical practice, the findings “seem to suggest there is a subgroup that is more likely to respond to antidepressants,” Anita Wluka, PhD, MBBS, a professor in the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, told attendees. The findings also raise an important research question: “How can we identify the patient phenotype likely to benefit so we can [minimize the] risk of those adverse events and effects?”
Osteoarthritis pain is heterogeneous, and an estimated 30% of the pain is neuropathic-like, likely including central and peripheral sensitization, Dr. Wluka said. Given that antidepressants affect multiple sites along these pathways, multiple organizations have issued a conditional recommendation for duloxetine in their osteoarthritis guidelines, including OARSI, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and the American College of Rheumatology.
The Cochrane Collaboration therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of research on the benefits and harms of using antidepressants to treat symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis. The review included studies through January 2021 whose participants had knee and/or hip osteoarthritis and which compared antidepressant therapy with placebo or another intervention for at least 6 weeks. The authors looked at seven outcomes: overall pain on a 0-10 scale, clinical response (at least a 50% reduction in 24‐hour mean pain), physical function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), quality of life using the EQ-5D, the proportion of participants withdrawing because of adverse events, the proportion who experienced any adverse events, and the proportion who experienced serious adverse events.
The researchers considered a change on the pain scale of 0.5-1 points to be “slight to small,” a difference above 1 up to 2 to be “moderate,” and a difference greater than 2 points to be “large.” In assessing quality of life function on a scale of 0-100, a slight to small difference was 5-10, a moderate difference was 11-20, and a large difference was above 20.
Of the 18 articles the researchers identified for qualitative synthesis, 9 met the criteria for qualitative synthesis in the meta-analysis, including 7 studies only on the knee and 2 that included the knees and hips. All nine studies compared antidepressants with placebo, with or without NSAIDs. Most focused on serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) – six studies on duloxetine and one on milnacipran – while one included fluvoxamine and one included nortriptyline.
The trials included a combined 2,122 participants who were predominantly female with an average age range of 54-66. Trials ranged from 8 to 16 weeks. Five of the trials carried risk of attrition and reporting bias, and only one trial had low risk of bias across all domains.
In five trials with SNRIs and one trial with tricyclics (nortriptyline) totaling 1,904 participants, 45% of those receiving antidepressants had a clinical response, compared with 29% of patients who received placebo (risk ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.31-1.92). This absolute improvement in pain occurred in 16% more participants taking antidepressants, giving a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6. Average improvement in WOMAC physical function was 10.5 points with placebo and 16.2 points with antidepressants, indicating a “small, clinically unimportant response,” the researchers concluded.
Withdrawals because of adverse events included 11% of the antidepressant group and 5% of the placebo group (RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.56-2.87), putting the NNT for a harmful outcome at 17.
For all nine trials together, however, the mean reduction in pain from antidepressants was 2.3 points, compared with 1.7 points with placebo, a statistically significant but ”clinically unimportant improvement,” the researchers concluded. Adverse events occurred in 64% of the antidepressant group, compared with 49% of the placebo group (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41), which put the NNT for a harmful outcome at 7. No significant difference in serious adverse events occurred between the groups.
The analysis was limited by the low number of trials, most of which were sponsored by industry and most of which used duloxetine. Further, few of the studies enrolled patients with osteoarthritis of the hip, none assessed medium- or long-term effects, and none stratified the participants for different types of pain (neuropathic-like or central or peripheral pain sensitization).
“My general impression is that there was a statistically significant difference found in favor of duloxetine and the antidepressants,” David J. Hunter, MBBS, PhD, MSc, of the University of Sydney, said after the presentation. “There is a real risk of harm, which I think is important to take into consideration, but at least for me as a clinician and in advising other clinicians, it’s one tool in our armamentarium. I think it’s really important to allow patients to make an informed decision about the potential benefit, the real risk of harm, and the fact that it is quite useful in some patients, and I use it in my clinical practice.”
Jeffrey N. Katz, MD, MS, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said he uses antidepressants in the same way in his practice and that other types of medications, such as TNF inhibitors, also carry risk of harm that may exceed that of antidepressants.
“I’ve had lots of people start duloxetine, and if they stop it, it’s usually because they just don’t tolerate it very well,” Dr. Katz said.
“We don’t want to throw too many things away,” Dr. Hunter added. “Our patients don’t necessarily have a lot of choices here from a pharmacologic perspective, so I think it’s one of those options that I want to keep in my tool kit, and that’s not necessarily going to change.”
The research did not involve outside funding, and Dr. Wluka reported having no industry disclosures. Disclosure information was unavailable for Dr. Katz and Dr. Hunter. The Congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
DENVER – Using antidepressants to treat osteoarthritis pain can benefit some individuals but appears to have a clinically unimportant reduction in pain when looking at all patients who have tried them, according to a study presented at the OARSI 2023 World Congress. The review was also published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in October 2022.
In terms of implications for clinical practice, the findings “seem to suggest there is a subgroup that is more likely to respond to antidepressants,” Anita Wluka, PhD, MBBS, a professor in the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, told attendees. The findings also raise an important research question: “How can we identify the patient phenotype likely to benefit so we can [minimize the] risk of those adverse events and effects?”
Osteoarthritis pain is heterogeneous, and an estimated 30% of the pain is neuropathic-like, likely including central and peripheral sensitization, Dr. Wluka said. Given that antidepressants affect multiple sites along these pathways, multiple organizations have issued a conditional recommendation for duloxetine in their osteoarthritis guidelines, including OARSI, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and the American College of Rheumatology.
The Cochrane Collaboration therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of research on the benefits and harms of using antidepressants to treat symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis. The review included studies through January 2021 whose participants had knee and/or hip osteoarthritis and which compared antidepressant therapy with placebo or another intervention for at least 6 weeks. The authors looked at seven outcomes: overall pain on a 0-10 scale, clinical response (at least a 50% reduction in 24‐hour mean pain), physical function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), quality of life using the EQ-5D, the proportion of participants withdrawing because of adverse events, the proportion who experienced any adverse events, and the proportion who experienced serious adverse events.
The researchers considered a change on the pain scale of 0.5-1 points to be “slight to small,” a difference above 1 up to 2 to be “moderate,” and a difference greater than 2 points to be “large.” In assessing quality of life function on a scale of 0-100, a slight to small difference was 5-10, a moderate difference was 11-20, and a large difference was above 20.
Of the 18 articles the researchers identified for qualitative synthesis, 9 met the criteria for qualitative synthesis in the meta-analysis, including 7 studies only on the knee and 2 that included the knees and hips. All nine studies compared antidepressants with placebo, with or without NSAIDs. Most focused on serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) – six studies on duloxetine and one on milnacipran – while one included fluvoxamine and one included nortriptyline.
The trials included a combined 2,122 participants who were predominantly female with an average age range of 54-66. Trials ranged from 8 to 16 weeks. Five of the trials carried risk of attrition and reporting bias, and only one trial had low risk of bias across all domains.
In five trials with SNRIs and one trial with tricyclics (nortriptyline) totaling 1,904 participants, 45% of those receiving antidepressants had a clinical response, compared with 29% of patients who received placebo (risk ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.31-1.92). This absolute improvement in pain occurred in 16% more participants taking antidepressants, giving a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6. Average improvement in WOMAC physical function was 10.5 points with placebo and 16.2 points with antidepressants, indicating a “small, clinically unimportant response,” the researchers concluded.
Withdrawals because of adverse events included 11% of the antidepressant group and 5% of the placebo group (RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.56-2.87), putting the NNT for a harmful outcome at 17.
For all nine trials together, however, the mean reduction in pain from antidepressants was 2.3 points, compared with 1.7 points with placebo, a statistically significant but ”clinically unimportant improvement,” the researchers concluded. Adverse events occurred in 64% of the antidepressant group, compared with 49% of the placebo group (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41), which put the NNT for a harmful outcome at 7. No significant difference in serious adverse events occurred between the groups.
The analysis was limited by the low number of trials, most of which were sponsored by industry and most of which used duloxetine. Further, few of the studies enrolled patients with osteoarthritis of the hip, none assessed medium- or long-term effects, and none stratified the participants for different types of pain (neuropathic-like or central or peripheral pain sensitization).
“My general impression is that there was a statistically significant difference found in favor of duloxetine and the antidepressants,” David J. Hunter, MBBS, PhD, MSc, of the University of Sydney, said after the presentation. “There is a real risk of harm, which I think is important to take into consideration, but at least for me as a clinician and in advising other clinicians, it’s one tool in our armamentarium. I think it’s really important to allow patients to make an informed decision about the potential benefit, the real risk of harm, and the fact that it is quite useful in some patients, and I use it in my clinical practice.”
Jeffrey N. Katz, MD, MS, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said he uses antidepressants in the same way in his practice and that other types of medications, such as TNF inhibitors, also carry risk of harm that may exceed that of antidepressants.
“I’ve had lots of people start duloxetine, and if they stop it, it’s usually because they just don’t tolerate it very well,” Dr. Katz said.
“We don’t want to throw too many things away,” Dr. Hunter added. “Our patients don’t necessarily have a lot of choices here from a pharmacologic perspective, so I think it’s one of those options that I want to keep in my tool kit, and that’s not necessarily going to change.”
The research did not involve outside funding, and Dr. Wluka reported having no industry disclosures. Disclosure information was unavailable for Dr. Katz and Dr. Hunter. The Congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
DENVER – Using antidepressants to treat osteoarthritis pain can benefit some individuals but appears to have a clinically unimportant reduction in pain when looking at all patients who have tried them, according to a study presented at the OARSI 2023 World Congress. The review was also published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in October 2022.
In terms of implications for clinical practice, the findings “seem to suggest there is a subgroup that is more likely to respond to antidepressants,” Anita Wluka, PhD, MBBS, a professor in the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, told attendees. The findings also raise an important research question: “How can we identify the patient phenotype likely to benefit so we can [minimize the] risk of those adverse events and effects?”
Osteoarthritis pain is heterogeneous, and an estimated 30% of the pain is neuropathic-like, likely including central and peripheral sensitization, Dr. Wluka said. Given that antidepressants affect multiple sites along these pathways, multiple organizations have issued a conditional recommendation for duloxetine in their osteoarthritis guidelines, including OARSI, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and the American College of Rheumatology.
The Cochrane Collaboration therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of research on the benefits and harms of using antidepressants to treat symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis. The review included studies through January 2021 whose participants had knee and/or hip osteoarthritis and which compared antidepressant therapy with placebo or another intervention for at least 6 weeks. The authors looked at seven outcomes: overall pain on a 0-10 scale, clinical response (at least a 50% reduction in 24‐hour mean pain), physical function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), quality of life using the EQ-5D, the proportion of participants withdrawing because of adverse events, the proportion who experienced any adverse events, and the proportion who experienced serious adverse events.
The researchers considered a change on the pain scale of 0.5-1 points to be “slight to small,” a difference above 1 up to 2 to be “moderate,” and a difference greater than 2 points to be “large.” In assessing quality of life function on a scale of 0-100, a slight to small difference was 5-10, a moderate difference was 11-20, and a large difference was above 20.
Of the 18 articles the researchers identified for qualitative synthesis, 9 met the criteria for qualitative synthesis in the meta-analysis, including 7 studies only on the knee and 2 that included the knees and hips. All nine studies compared antidepressants with placebo, with or without NSAIDs. Most focused on serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) – six studies on duloxetine and one on milnacipran – while one included fluvoxamine and one included nortriptyline.
The trials included a combined 2,122 participants who were predominantly female with an average age range of 54-66. Trials ranged from 8 to 16 weeks. Five of the trials carried risk of attrition and reporting bias, and only one trial had low risk of bias across all domains.
In five trials with SNRIs and one trial with tricyclics (nortriptyline) totaling 1,904 participants, 45% of those receiving antidepressants had a clinical response, compared with 29% of patients who received placebo (risk ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.31-1.92). This absolute improvement in pain occurred in 16% more participants taking antidepressants, giving a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6. Average improvement in WOMAC physical function was 10.5 points with placebo and 16.2 points with antidepressants, indicating a “small, clinically unimportant response,” the researchers concluded.
Withdrawals because of adverse events included 11% of the antidepressant group and 5% of the placebo group (RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.56-2.87), putting the NNT for a harmful outcome at 17.
For all nine trials together, however, the mean reduction in pain from antidepressants was 2.3 points, compared with 1.7 points with placebo, a statistically significant but ”clinically unimportant improvement,” the researchers concluded. Adverse events occurred in 64% of the antidepressant group, compared with 49% of the placebo group (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41), which put the NNT for a harmful outcome at 7. No significant difference in serious adverse events occurred between the groups.
The analysis was limited by the low number of trials, most of which were sponsored by industry and most of which used duloxetine. Further, few of the studies enrolled patients with osteoarthritis of the hip, none assessed medium- or long-term effects, and none stratified the participants for different types of pain (neuropathic-like or central or peripheral pain sensitization).
“My general impression is that there was a statistically significant difference found in favor of duloxetine and the antidepressants,” David J. Hunter, MBBS, PhD, MSc, of the University of Sydney, said after the presentation. “There is a real risk of harm, which I think is important to take into consideration, but at least for me as a clinician and in advising other clinicians, it’s one tool in our armamentarium. I think it’s really important to allow patients to make an informed decision about the potential benefit, the real risk of harm, and the fact that it is quite useful in some patients, and I use it in my clinical practice.”
Jeffrey N. Katz, MD, MS, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said he uses antidepressants in the same way in his practice and that other types of medications, such as TNF inhibitors, also carry risk of harm that may exceed that of antidepressants.
“I’ve had lots of people start duloxetine, and if they stop it, it’s usually because they just don’t tolerate it very well,” Dr. Katz said.
“We don’t want to throw too many things away,” Dr. Hunter added. “Our patients don’t necessarily have a lot of choices here from a pharmacologic perspective, so I think it’s one of those options that I want to keep in my tool kit, and that’s not necessarily going to change.”
The research did not involve outside funding, and Dr. Wluka reported having no industry disclosures. Disclosure information was unavailable for Dr. Katz and Dr. Hunter. The Congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
FROM OARSI 2023
Limited treatment options exist for brittle nail syndrome
NEW ORLEANS – .
“The mainstay of treatment is irritant avoidance and moisturization,” Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology and director of the nail division at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “This works well if patients are religious about doing it.”
Brittle nail syndrome affects about 20% of adults, she said, and is more common in females, particularly those older than age 50. Most cases are idiopathic, but some are secondary to dermatologic diseases including nail psoriasis and nail lichen planus, and systemic diseases such as hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism. They are more common in patients in certain occupations such as carpentry. “The pathogenesis is poorly understood but is thought to be due to weakened intercellular keratinocyte bridges, decreased cholesterol sulphate in the nail plate, and reduced water content in the nail plate,” Dr. Lipner said.
Key clinical findings include onychoschizia (peeling of the nail plate), onychorrhexis (an increase in the longitudinal ridges and furrows, sometimes leading to splitting), and superficial granulation of keratin. Treatment involves general measures. “You want to treat the underlying cause and recommend that the patient avoid water and irritant exposure,” she said. Her general instructions for affected patients are to wear latex gloves for wet work and cotton gloves for dry work, avoid triclosan-based hand sanitizers, avoid nail cosmetics, minimize nail trauma, and foster moisturization.“It’s important to give these instructions verbally and in written form,” she said. “In our practice, we designed a QR code that links to our patient handout.”
According to Dr. Lipner, the promotion of vitamins and supplements such as biotin, vitamin D, amino acids, and chromium for treating brittle nail syndrome is rampant on the Internet and on social media, but no rigorously designed clinical trials have shown efficacy for any of them. “Very few people are deficient in biotin, except for those with inherited enzyme deficiencies,” and most people “can get all the biotin they need from a regular diet,” she said.
The initial rationale for using biotin for nails comes from the veterinary literature, she continued. In the 1940s, chickens with biotin deficiency developed fissures in their feet and parrot-like beaks. In the 1970s, pigs with biotin deficiency developed friable hooves, which was corrected with biotin supplementation. “By the 1980s it was standard practice to supplement the feet of pigs with biotin,” she said.
In a human trial from 1989, German researchers enrolled 71 patients with brittle nail syndrome who took oral biotin, 2.5 mg daily. Of the 45 patients evaluated, 41 (91%) showed improvement in firmness and hardness of the fingernails over the course of 5.5 months, but there was no good control group, Dr. Lipner said. In a follow-up study, the same German researchers used scanning electron microscopy to evaluate 22 patients with brittle nails who took oral biotin 2.5 mg daily and compared them with 10 patients with normal nails who did not take biotin. They found a 25% increase in nail plate thickness in the biotin group and onychoschizia resolved in 50% of patients who received biotin. “But again, there was no good control group,” Dr. Lipner said.
In a third study on the topic, researchers surveyed 46 patients who presented with onychorrhexis and/or onychoschizia on clinical exam and took 2.5 mg of biotin daily. Of the 35 survey respondents, 63% subjectively reported improvement in their nails at a mean of 2 months. “This is where we are today: There have been studies of only 80 patients that were done 25 years ago,” Dr. Lipner said. “That’s all of our evidence for biotin for the treatment of brittle nail syndrome.”
FDA warning about biotin
Additional cause for concern, she continued, is the safety communication issued by the FDA in 2017, stating that the use of biotin may interfere with certain lab tests such as thyroid tests and cardiac enzymes, in some cases leading to death. The safety communication was updated in 2019.
In 2018, Dr. Lipner and colleagues administered an anonymous survey to 447 patients at their clinic asking about their use of biotin supplements. Of the 447 patients, 34% reported current use of biotin. Among biotin users, 7% were aware of the FDA warning, 29% of respondents reported that it was recommended by either a primary care physician or a dermatologist, and 56% underwent laboratory testing while taking biotin. “It’s our duty to warn our patients about the evidence for biotin for treating brittle nails, and about this interference on laboratory tests,” Dr. Lipner said.
Other treatment options for brittle nail syndrome include two lacquers that are available by prescription. One contains hydroxypropyl chitosan, Equisetum arvense, and methylsulphonylmethane; the other contains 16% poly-ureaurethane, but has not been well studied. “These products can be very expensive if not covered by insurance,” Dr. Lipner said.
As an alternative, she recommends Nail Tek CITRA 2 Nail Strengthener, which is available for less than $10 from Walmart and other retailers.
Cyclosporine emulsion also has been studied for brittle nail syndrome, but results to date have been underwhelming. Dr. Lipner and colleagues are exploring the effect of platelet rich plasma for treating brittle nails on the premise that it will improve nail growth and promote healing, in a 16-week trial that has enrolled 10 patients and includes both a Physician Global Improvement Assessment (PGIA) and a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score. “Our data is being analyzed by three independent nail experts, and we hope to report the findings next year,” she said.
Dr. Lipner reported having no disclosures relevant to her presentation.
NEW ORLEANS – .
“The mainstay of treatment is irritant avoidance and moisturization,” Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology and director of the nail division at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “This works well if patients are religious about doing it.”
Brittle nail syndrome affects about 20% of adults, she said, and is more common in females, particularly those older than age 50. Most cases are idiopathic, but some are secondary to dermatologic diseases including nail psoriasis and nail lichen planus, and systemic diseases such as hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism. They are more common in patients in certain occupations such as carpentry. “The pathogenesis is poorly understood but is thought to be due to weakened intercellular keratinocyte bridges, decreased cholesterol sulphate in the nail plate, and reduced water content in the nail plate,” Dr. Lipner said.
Key clinical findings include onychoschizia (peeling of the nail plate), onychorrhexis (an increase in the longitudinal ridges and furrows, sometimes leading to splitting), and superficial granulation of keratin. Treatment involves general measures. “You want to treat the underlying cause and recommend that the patient avoid water and irritant exposure,” she said. Her general instructions for affected patients are to wear latex gloves for wet work and cotton gloves for dry work, avoid triclosan-based hand sanitizers, avoid nail cosmetics, minimize nail trauma, and foster moisturization.“It’s important to give these instructions verbally and in written form,” she said. “In our practice, we designed a QR code that links to our patient handout.”
According to Dr. Lipner, the promotion of vitamins and supplements such as biotin, vitamin D, amino acids, and chromium for treating brittle nail syndrome is rampant on the Internet and on social media, but no rigorously designed clinical trials have shown efficacy for any of them. “Very few people are deficient in biotin, except for those with inherited enzyme deficiencies,” and most people “can get all the biotin they need from a regular diet,” she said.
The initial rationale for using biotin for nails comes from the veterinary literature, she continued. In the 1940s, chickens with biotin deficiency developed fissures in their feet and parrot-like beaks. In the 1970s, pigs with biotin deficiency developed friable hooves, which was corrected with biotin supplementation. “By the 1980s it was standard practice to supplement the feet of pigs with biotin,” she said.
In a human trial from 1989, German researchers enrolled 71 patients with brittle nail syndrome who took oral biotin, 2.5 mg daily. Of the 45 patients evaluated, 41 (91%) showed improvement in firmness and hardness of the fingernails over the course of 5.5 months, but there was no good control group, Dr. Lipner said. In a follow-up study, the same German researchers used scanning electron microscopy to evaluate 22 patients with brittle nails who took oral biotin 2.5 mg daily and compared them with 10 patients with normal nails who did not take biotin. They found a 25% increase in nail plate thickness in the biotin group and onychoschizia resolved in 50% of patients who received biotin. “But again, there was no good control group,” Dr. Lipner said.
In a third study on the topic, researchers surveyed 46 patients who presented with onychorrhexis and/or onychoschizia on clinical exam and took 2.5 mg of biotin daily. Of the 35 survey respondents, 63% subjectively reported improvement in their nails at a mean of 2 months. “This is where we are today: There have been studies of only 80 patients that were done 25 years ago,” Dr. Lipner said. “That’s all of our evidence for biotin for the treatment of brittle nail syndrome.”
FDA warning about biotin
Additional cause for concern, she continued, is the safety communication issued by the FDA in 2017, stating that the use of biotin may interfere with certain lab tests such as thyroid tests and cardiac enzymes, in some cases leading to death. The safety communication was updated in 2019.
In 2018, Dr. Lipner and colleagues administered an anonymous survey to 447 patients at their clinic asking about their use of biotin supplements. Of the 447 patients, 34% reported current use of biotin. Among biotin users, 7% were aware of the FDA warning, 29% of respondents reported that it was recommended by either a primary care physician or a dermatologist, and 56% underwent laboratory testing while taking biotin. “It’s our duty to warn our patients about the evidence for biotin for treating brittle nails, and about this interference on laboratory tests,” Dr. Lipner said.
Other treatment options for brittle nail syndrome include two lacquers that are available by prescription. One contains hydroxypropyl chitosan, Equisetum arvense, and methylsulphonylmethane; the other contains 16% poly-ureaurethane, but has not been well studied. “These products can be very expensive if not covered by insurance,” Dr. Lipner said.
As an alternative, she recommends Nail Tek CITRA 2 Nail Strengthener, which is available for less than $10 from Walmart and other retailers.
Cyclosporine emulsion also has been studied for brittle nail syndrome, but results to date have been underwhelming. Dr. Lipner and colleagues are exploring the effect of platelet rich plasma for treating brittle nails on the premise that it will improve nail growth and promote healing, in a 16-week trial that has enrolled 10 patients and includes both a Physician Global Improvement Assessment (PGIA) and a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score. “Our data is being analyzed by three independent nail experts, and we hope to report the findings next year,” she said.
Dr. Lipner reported having no disclosures relevant to her presentation.
NEW ORLEANS – .
“The mainstay of treatment is irritant avoidance and moisturization,” Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology and director of the nail division at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “This works well if patients are religious about doing it.”
Brittle nail syndrome affects about 20% of adults, she said, and is more common in females, particularly those older than age 50. Most cases are idiopathic, but some are secondary to dermatologic diseases including nail psoriasis and nail lichen planus, and systemic diseases such as hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism. They are more common in patients in certain occupations such as carpentry. “The pathogenesis is poorly understood but is thought to be due to weakened intercellular keratinocyte bridges, decreased cholesterol sulphate in the nail plate, and reduced water content in the nail plate,” Dr. Lipner said.
Key clinical findings include onychoschizia (peeling of the nail plate), onychorrhexis (an increase in the longitudinal ridges and furrows, sometimes leading to splitting), and superficial granulation of keratin. Treatment involves general measures. “You want to treat the underlying cause and recommend that the patient avoid water and irritant exposure,” she said. Her general instructions for affected patients are to wear latex gloves for wet work and cotton gloves for dry work, avoid triclosan-based hand sanitizers, avoid nail cosmetics, minimize nail trauma, and foster moisturization.“It’s important to give these instructions verbally and in written form,” she said. “In our practice, we designed a QR code that links to our patient handout.”
According to Dr. Lipner, the promotion of vitamins and supplements such as biotin, vitamin D, amino acids, and chromium for treating brittle nail syndrome is rampant on the Internet and on social media, but no rigorously designed clinical trials have shown efficacy for any of them. “Very few people are deficient in biotin, except for those with inherited enzyme deficiencies,” and most people “can get all the biotin they need from a regular diet,” she said.
The initial rationale for using biotin for nails comes from the veterinary literature, she continued. In the 1940s, chickens with biotin deficiency developed fissures in their feet and parrot-like beaks. In the 1970s, pigs with biotin deficiency developed friable hooves, which was corrected with biotin supplementation. “By the 1980s it was standard practice to supplement the feet of pigs with biotin,” she said.
In a human trial from 1989, German researchers enrolled 71 patients with brittle nail syndrome who took oral biotin, 2.5 mg daily. Of the 45 patients evaluated, 41 (91%) showed improvement in firmness and hardness of the fingernails over the course of 5.5 months, but there was no good control group, Dr. Lipner said. In a follow-up study, the same German researchers used scanning electron microscopy to evaluate 22 patients with brittle nails who took oral biotin 2.5 mg daily and compared them with 10 patients with normal nails who did not take biotin. They found a 25% increase in nail plate thickness in the biotin group and onychoschizia resolved in 50% of patients who received biotin. “But again, there was no good control group,” Dr. Lipner said.
In a third study on the topic, researchers surveyed 46 patients who presented with onychorrhexis and/or onychoschizia on clinical exam and took 2.5 mg of biotin daily. Of the 35 survey respondents, 63% subjectively reported improvement in their nails at a mean of 2 months. “This is where we are today: There have been studies of only 80 patients that were done 25 years ago,” Dr. Lipner said. “That’s all of our evidence for biotin for the treatment of brittle nail syndrome.”
FDA warning about biotin
Additional cause for concern, she continued, is the safety communication issued by the FDA in 2017, stating that the use of biotin may interfere with certain lab tests such as thyroid tests and cardiac enzymes, in some cases leading to death. The safety communication was updated in 2019.
In 2018, Dr. Lipner and colleagues administered an anonymous survey to 447 patients at their clinic asking about their use of biotin supplements. Of the 447 patients, 34% reported current use of biotin. Among biotin users, 7% were aware of the FDA warning, 29% of respondents reported that it was recommended by either a primary care physician or a dermatologist, and 56% underwent laboratory testing while taking biotin. “It’s our duty to warn our patients about the evidence for biotin for treating brittle nails, and about this interference on laboratory tests,” Dr. Lipner said.
Other treatment options for brittle nail syndrome include two lacquers that are available by prescription. One contains hydroxypropyl chitosan, Equisetum arvense, and methylsulphonylmethane; the other contains 16% poly-ureaurethane, but has not been well studied. “These products can be very expensive if not covered by insurance,” Dr. Lipner said.
As an alternative, she recommends Nail Tek CITRA 2 Nail Strengthener, which is available for less than $10 from Walmart and other retailers.
Cyclosporine emulsion also has been studied for brittle nail syndrome, but results to date have been underwhelming. Dr. Lipner and colleagues are exploring the effect of platelet rich plasma for treating brittle nails on the premise that it will improve nail growth and promote healing, in a 16-week trial that has enrolled 10 patients and includes both a Physician Global Improvement Assessment (PGIA) and a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score. “Our data is being analyzed by three independent nail experts, and we hope to report the findings next year,” she said.
Dr. Lipner reported having no disclosures relevant to her presentation.
AT AAD 2023
Commentary: Alisertib, trastuzumab, and treatment timing, April 2023
HER2-positive (HER2+) BC was associated with poor outcomes compared with other BC subtypes. However, the introduction of trastuzumab has drastically changed the treatment paradigm for these patients afflicted with HER2+ BC. The pivotal trials with trastuzumab included only a few patients with lower-risk HER2+ tumors; therefore, it was not clear whether these lower-risk patients can benefit from a de-escalated adjuvant regimen. The phase 2 APT trial prospectively investigated the safety and efficacy of 12 weeks of paclitaxel with trastuzumab, followed by 9 months of trastuzumab monotherapy, in patients with small (≤ 3 cm), node-negative, HER2+ BC. After a median follow-up of 10.8 years, the 10-year invasive disease-free survival was 91.3%, the recurrence-free interval was 96.3%, the overall survival rate was 94.3%, and the BC-specific survival rate was 98.8%.
The researchers also conducted an exploratory analysis in 284 patients using the HER2DX genomic test. This is a single 27-gene expression and clinical feature-based classifier developed for early-stage, HER2+ BC. The tool identified a subset of patients with a high HER2DX score (HERDX score ≥ 32) who might harbor an increased risk for long-term recurrence.
These excellent long-term outcomes from the APT trial support the use of the currently endorsed adjuvant regimen of paclitaxel and trastuzumab in patients with stage I HER2+ BC. Furthermore, the HER2DX risk score, if validated, may provide a promising genomic tool to identify a subset of these patients who are at increased risk for recurrence and therefore may benefit from additional therapy.
Prior studies have noted worse survival outcomes with longer times from BC diagnosis to surgical treatment; however, the specific time interval that is acceptable to wait between diagnosis and surgery is still unclear. A case series study by Weiner and colleagues looked at the association between time from BC diagnosis to primary breast surgery and overall survival. The study looked at 373,334 female patients from the National Cancer Database with stage I-III BC who underwent primary breast surgery. Results showed worse overall survival outcomes when time to surgery was 9 or more weeks compared with surgery between 0 and 4 weeks (hazard ratio 1.15; P < .001). Factors associated with longer times to surgery included younger age, uninsured or Medicaid status, and lower neighborhood household income. On the basis of these findings, surgery before 8 weeks from BC diagnosis appears to be an acceptable time frame to avoid unfavorable survival outcomes and allow for appropriate multidisciplinary care. Furthermore, it is critical to identify potential barriers in a timely manner to prevent prolonged delays in care.
In hormone receptor-positive (HR+) BC, adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) is usually delayed until after adjuvant radiotherapy, although, the optimal sequence of both therapies is still unknown. The aim of the study by Sutton and colleagues was to assess the association between time from surgery to ET initiation and cancer outcomes in high-risk HR+ patients, particularly those with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The study analysed 179 patients with HR+ BC from a multi-institutional database who received adjuvant radiotherapy, of which 68 patients received adjuvant ET before or during radiotherapy and 111 patients received ET after cessation of radiotherapy. Results showed that an interval of >14 weeks between surgery and the receipt of ET was independently associated with worse recurrence-free survival compared with an interval of 14 or less weeks (hazard ratio 3.20; P = .02). Of interest, the study also showed that patients receiving ET before or during radiation were more likely to experience skin and soft tissue late radiation morbidity, and this was nonsignificantly associated with worse radiation-associated complication-free survival (hazard ratio 1.87; P = .06). Although prior studies have reported that the interval from surgery to ET does not affect cancer outcomes, this was not studied in a high-risk cohort who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Further studies in larger prospective cohorts are needed to validate these findings. At this time, the risks and benefits of concurrent ET with radiation need to be assessed prior to making any treatment recommendations.
HER2-positive (HER2+) BC was associated with poor outcomes compared with other BC subtypes. However, the introduction of trastuzumab has drastically changed the treatment paradigm for these patients afflicted with HER2+ BC. The pivotal trials with trastuzumab included only a few patients with lower-risk HER2+ tumors; therefore, it was not clear whether these lower-risk patients can benefit from a de-escalated adjuvant regimen. The phase 2 APT trial prospectively investigated the safety and efficacy of 12 weeks of paclitaxel with trastuzumab, followed by 9 months of trastuzumab monotherapy, in patients with small (≤ 3 cm), node-negative, HER2+ BC. After a median follow-up of 10.8 years, the 10-year invasive disease-free survival was 91.3%, the recurrence-free interval was 96.3%, the overall survival rate was 94.3%, and the BC-specific survival rate was 98.8%.
The researchers also conducted an exploratory analysis in 284 patients using the HER2DX genomic test. This is a single 27-gene expression and clinical feature-based classifier developed for early-stage, HER2+ BC. The tool identified a subset of patients with a high HER2DX score (HERDX score ≥ 32) who might harbor an increased risk for long-term recurrence.
These excellent long-term outcomes from the APT trial support the use of the currently endorsed adjuvant regimen of paclitaxel and trastuzumab in patients with stage I HER2+ BC. Furthermore, the HER2DX risk score, if validated, may provide a promising genomic tool to identify a subset of these patients who are at increased risk for recurrence and therefore may benefit from additional therapy.
Prior studies have noted worse survival outcomes with longer times from BC diagnosis to surgical treatment; however, the specific time interval that is acceptable to wait between diagnosis and surgery is still unclear. A case series study by Weiner and colleagues looked at the association between time from BC diagnosis to primary breast surgery and overall survival. The study looked at 373,334 female patients from the National Cancer Database with stage I-III BC who underwent primary breast surgery. Results showed worse overall survival outcomes when time to surgery was 9 or more weeks compared with surgery between 0 and 4 weeks (hazard ratio 1.15; P < .001). Factors associated with longer times to surgery included younger age, uninsured or Medicaid status, and lower neighborhood household income. On the basis of these findings, surgery before 8 weeks from BC diagnosis appears to be an acceptable time frame to avoid unfavorable survival outcomes and allow for appropriate multidisciplinary care. Furthermore, it is critical to identify potential barriers in a timely manner to prevent prolonged delays in care.
In hormone receptor-positive (HR+) BC, adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) is usually delayed until after adjuvant radiotherapy, although, the optimal sequence of both therapies is still unknown. The aim of the study by Sutton and colleagues was to assess the association between time from surgery to ET initiation and cancer outcomes in high-risk HR+ patients, particularly those with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The study analysed 179 patients with HR+ BC from a multi-institutional database who received adjuvant radiotherapy, of which 68 patients received adjuvant ET before or during radiotherapy and 111 patients received ET after cessation of radiotherapy. Results showed that an interval of >14 weeks between surgery and the receipt of ET was independently associated with worse recurrence-free survival compared with an interval of 14 or less weeks (hazard ratio 3.20; P = .02). Of interest, the study also showed that patients receiving ET before or during radiation were more likely to experience skin and soft tissue late radiation morbidity, and this was nonsignificantly associated with worse radiation-associated complication-free survival (hazard ratio 1.87; P = .06). Although prior studies have reported that the interval from surgery to ET does not affect cancer outcomes, this was not studied in a high-risk cohort who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Further studies in larger prospective cohorts are needed to validate these findings. At this time, the risks and benefits of concurrent ET with radiation need to be assessed prior to making any treatment recommendations.
HER2-positive (HER2+) BC was associated with poor outcomes compared with other BC subtypes. However, the introduction of trastuzumab has drastically changed the treatment paradigm for these patients afflicted with HER2+ BC. The pivotal trials with trastuzumab included only a few patients with lower-risk HER2+ tumors; therefore, it was not clear whether these lower-risk patients can benefit from a de-escalated adjuvant regimen. The phase 2 APT trial prospectively investigated the safety and efficacy of 12 weeks of paclitaxel with trastuzumab, followed by 9 months of trastuzumab monotherapy, in patients with small (≤ 3 cm), node-negative, HER2+ BC. After a median follow-up of 10.8 years, the 10-year invasive disease-free survival was 91.3%, the recurrence-free interval was 96.3%, the overall survival rate was 94.3%, and the BC-specific survival rate was 98.8%.
The researchers also conducted an exploratory analysis in 284 patients using the HER2DX genomic test. This is a single 27-gene expression and clinical feature-based classifier developed for early-stage, HER2+ BC. The tool identified a subset of patients with a high HER2DX score (HERDX score ≥ 32) who might harbor an increased risk for long-term recurrence.
These excellent long-term outcomes from the APT trial support the use of the currently endorsed adjuvant regimen of paclitaxel and trastuzumab in patients with stage I HER2+ BC. Furthermore, the HER2DX risk score, if validated, may provide a promising genomic tool to identify a subset of these patients who are at increased risk for recurrence and therefore may benefit from additional therapy.
Prior studies have noted worse survival outcomes with longer times from BC diagnosis to surgical treatment; however, the specific time interval that is acceptable to wait between diagnosis and surgery is still unclear. A case series study by Weiner and colleagues looked at the association between time from BC diagnosis to primary breast surgery and overall survival. The study looked at 373,334 female patients from the National Cancer Database with stage I-III BC who underwent primary breast surgery. Results showed worse overall survival outcomes when time to surgery was 9 or more weeks compared with surgery between 0 and 4 weeks (hazard ratio 1.15; P < .001). Factors associated with longer times to surgery included younger age, uninsured or Medicaid status, and lower neighborhood household income. On the basis of these findings, surgery before 8 weeks from BC diagnosis appears to be an acceptable time frame to avoid unfavorable survival outcomes and allow for appropriate multidisciplinary care. Furthermore, it is critical to identify potential barriers in a timely manner to prevent prolonged delays in care.
In hormone receptor-positive (HR+) BC, adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) is usually delayed until after adjuvant radiotherapy, although, the optimal sequence of both therapies is still unknown. The aim of the study by Sutton and colleagues was to assess the association between time from surgery to ET initiation and cancer outcomes in high-risk HR+ patients, particularly those with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The study analysed 179 patients with HR+ BC from a multi-institutional database who received adjuvant radiotherapy, of which 68 patients received adjuvant ET before or during radiotherapy and 111 patients received ET after cessation of radiotherapy. Results showed that an interval of >14 weeks between surgery and the receipt of ET was independently associated with worse recurrence-free survival compared with an interval of 14 or less weeks (hazard ratio 3.20; P = .02). Of interest, the study also showed that patients receiving ET before or during radiation were more likely to experience skin and soft tissue late radiation morbidity, and this was nonsignificantly associated with worse radiation-associated complication-free survival (hazard ratio 1.87; P = .06). Although prior studies have reported that the interval from surgery to ET does not affect cancer outcomes, this was not studied in a high-risk cohort who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Further studies in larger prospective cohorts are needed to validate these findings. At this time, the risks and benefits of concurrent ET with radiation need to be assessed prior to making any treatment recommendations.
FDA Advisory panels consider easing isotretinoin requirements
for patients, pharmacies, and prescribers.
Isotretinoin, previously called Accutane, is marketed as Absorica, Absorica LD, Claravis, Amnesteem, Myorisan, and Zenatane.
In a joint meeting of the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee, experts addressed ways to improve the modified iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (iPLEDGE REMS) for isotretinoin that caused chaos after its rollout at the end of 2021.
In January 2022, problems were multiplying with the program for clinicians, pharmacists, and patients, causing extensive delays and prescription denials. In response, the FDA said it would continue to meet with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group (IPMG) to resolve problems.
March 28 was the first day of a 2-day meeting addressing what can be done to reduce burden with the iPLEDGE REMS while maintaining safety and preventing fetal exposure to the drug.
Key areas of concern
The meeting focused on several key areas.
The 19-day lockout period
The lockout is a current restriction for patients who can become pregnant and do not pick up their first prescription of isotretinoin within the specified 7-day prescription window. Currently, those who miss the window must wait 19 days from the date of the first pregnancy test to take an additional pregnancy test to be eligible to receive the drug.
Lindsey Crist, PharmD, a risk management analyst for the FDA, who presented the FDA review committee’s analysis, acknowledged that the lockout period causes delays in treatment and adds frustration and costs.
She said it’s important to remember that the lockout applies only to the first prescription. “It’s intended as an additional layer of screening to detect pregnancy,” she said.
“At least 12 pregnancies have been identified during the 19-day lockout from March 2017–September of 2022,” she noted.
The FDA is looking to the advisory committee to provide recommendations on whether the lockout period should be changed.
Home testing
During the pandemic, iPLEDGE rules have been relaxed from having a pregnancy test done only at a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratory and home pregnancy tests have been allowed. The question now is whether home tests should continue to be allowed.
Ms. Crist said that the FDA’s review committee recommends ending the allowance of home tests, citing insufficient data on use and the discovery of instances of falsification of pregnancy tests.
“One study at an academic medical center reviewed the medical records of 89 patients who used home pregnancy tests while taking isotretinoin during the public health emergency. It found that 15.7% submitted falsified pregnancy test results,” she said.
Ms. Crist added, however, that the review committee recommends allowing the tests to be done in a provider’s office as an alternative.
Documenting counseling patients who cannot get pregnant
Currently, this documentation must be done monthly, primarily to counsel patients against drug sharing or giving blood. Proposed changes include extending the intervals for attestation or eliminating it to reduce burden on clinicians.
IPMG representative Gregory Wedin, PharmD, pharmacovigilance and risk management director for Upsher-Smith Laboratories, said, “while we cannot support eliminating or extending the confirmation interval to a year, the [iPLEDGE] sponsors are agreeable [to] a 120-day confirmation interval.”
He said that while extending to 120 days would reduce burden on prescribers, it comes with risk in reducing oversight by a certified iPLEDGE prescriber and potentially increasing the risk for drug sharing.
“A patient may be more likely to share their drug with another person the further along with therapy they get as their condition improves,” Mr. Wedin said.
On March 29, the panel will hear more recommendations for and against modifications to iPLEDGE REMS and will vote on select modifications at the end of the meeting.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
for patients, pharmacies, and prescribers.
Isotretinoin, previously called Accutane, is marketed as Absorica, Absorica LD, Claravis, Amnesteem, Myorisan, and Zenatane.
In a joint meeting of the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee, experts addressed ways to improve the modified iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (iPLEDGE REMS) for isotretinoin that caused chaos after its rollout at the end of 2021.
In January 2022, problems were multiplying with the program for clinicians, pharmacists, and patients, causing extensive delays and prescription denials. In response, the FDA said it would continue to meet with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group (IPMG) to resolve problems.
March 28 was the first day of a 2-day meeting addressing what can be done to reduce burden with the iPLEDGE REMS while maintaining safety and preventing fetal exposure to the drug.
Key areas of concern
The meeting focused on several key areas.
The 19-day lockout period
The lockout is a current restriction for patients who can become pregnant and do not pick up their first prescription of isotretinoin within the specified 7-day prescription window. Currently, those who miss the window must wait 19 days from the date of the first pregnancy test to take an additional pregnancy test to be eligible to receive the drug.
Lindsey Crist, PharmD, a risk management analyst for the FDA, who presented the FDA review committee’s analysis, acknowledged that the lockout period causes delays in treatment and adds frustration and costs.
She said it’s important to remember that the lockout applies only to the first prescription. “It’s intended as an additional layer of screening to detect pregnancy,” she said.
“At least 12 pregnancies have been identified during the 19-day lockout from March 2017–September of 2022,” she noted.
The FDA is looking to the advisory committee to provide recommendations on whether the lockout period should be changed.
Home testing
During the pandemic, iPLEDGE rules have been relaxed from having a pregnancy test done only at a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratory and home pregnancy tests have been allowed. The question now is whether home tests should continue to be allowed.
Ms. Crist said that the FDA’s review committee recommends ending the allowance of home tests, citing insufficient data on use and the discovery of instances of falsification of pregnancy tests.
“One study at an academic medical center reviewed the medical records of 89 patients who used home pregnancy tests while taking isotretinoin during the public health emergency. It found that 15.7% submitted falsified pregnancy test results,” she said.
Ms. Crist added, however, that the review committee recommends allowing the tests to be done in a provider’s office as an alternative.
Documenting counseling patients who cannot get pregnant
Currently, this documentation must be done monthly, primarily to counsel patients against drug sharing or giving blood. Proposed changes include extending the intervals for attestation or eliminating it to reduce burden on clinicians.
IPMG representative Gregory Wedin, PharmD, pharmacovigilance and risk management director for Upsher-Smith Laboratories, said, “while we cannot support eliminating or extending the confirmation interval to a year, the [iPLEDGE] sponsors are agreeable [to] a 120-day confirmation interval.”
He said that while extending to 120 days would reduce burden on prescribers, it comes with risk in reducing oversight by a certified iPLEDGE prescriber and potentially increasing the risk for drug sharing.
“A patient may be more likely to share their drug with another person the further along with therapy they get as their condition improves,” Mr. Wedin said.
On March 29, the panel will hear more recommendations for and against modifications to iPLEDGE REMS and will vote on select modifications at the end of the meeting.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
for patients, pharmacies, and prescribers.
Isotretinoin, previously called Accutane, is marketed as Absorica, Absorica LD, Claravis, Amnesteem, Myorisan, and Zenatane.
In a joint meeting of the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee, experts addressed ways to improve the modified iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (iPLEDGE REMS) for isotretinoin that caused chaos after its rollout at the end of 2021.
In January 2022, problems were multiplying with the program for clinicians, pharmacists, and patients, causing extensive delays and prescription denials. In response, the FDA said it would continue to meet with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group (IPMG) to resolve problems.
March 28 was the first day of a 2-day meeting addressing what can be done to reduce burden with the iPLEDGE REMS while maintaining safety and preventing fetal exposure to the drug.
Key areas of concern
The meeting focused on several key areas.
The 19-day lockout period
The lockout is a current restriction for patients who can become pregnant and do not pick up their first prescription of isotretinoin within the specified 7-day prescription window. Currently, those who miss the window must wait 19 days from the date of the first pregnancy test to take an additional pregnancy test to be eligible to receive the drug.
Lindsey Crist, PharmD, a risk management analyst for the FDA, who presented the FDA review committee’s analysis, acknowledged that the lockout period causes delays in treatment and adds frustration and costs.
She said it’s important to remember that the lockout applies only to the first prescription. “It’s intended as an additional layer of screening to detect pregnancy,” she said.
“At least 12 pregnancies have been identified during the 19-day lockout from March 2017–September of 2022,” she noted.
The FDA is looking to the advisory committee to provide recommendations on whether the lockout period should be changed.
Home testing
During the pandemic, iPLEDGE rules have been relaxed from having a pregnancy test done only at a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratory and home pregnancy tests have been allowed. The question now is whether home tests should continue to be allowed.
Ms. Crist said that the FDA’s review committee recommends ending the allowance of home tests, citing insufficient data on use and the discovery of instances of falsification of pregnancy tests.
“One study at an academic medical center reviewed the medical records of 89 patients who used home pregnancy tests while taking isotretinoin during the public health emergency. It found that 15.7% submitted falsified pregnancy test results,” she said.
Ms. Crist added, however, that the review committee recommends allowing the tests to be done in a provider’s office as an alternative.
Documenting counseling patients who cannot get pregnant
Currently, this documentation must be done monthly, primarily to counsel patients against drug sharing or giving blood. Proposed changes include extending the intervals for attestation or eliminating it to reduce burden on clinicians.
IPMG representative Gregory Wedin, PharmD, pharmacovigilance and risk management director for Upsher-Smith Laboratories, said, “while we cannot support eliminating or extending the confirmation interval to a year, the [iPLEDGE] sponsors are agreeable [to] a 120-day confirmation interval.”
He said that while extending to 120 days would reduce burden on prescribers, it comes with risk in reducing oversight by a certified iPLEDGE prescriber and potentially increasing the risk for drug sharing.
“A patient may be more likely to share their drug with another person the further along with therapy they get as their condition improves,” Mr. Wedin said.
On March 29, the panel will hear more recommendations for and against modifications to iPLEDGE REMS and will vote on select modifications at the end of the meeting.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Commentary: Chemotherapies and gynecologic surgeries relative to breast cancer, April 2023
However, a combined analysis of two other trials (PlanB and SUCCESS C) did not show a benefit with the addition of anthracycline for most patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative early breast cancer.2Roy and colleagues performed a retrospective study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, including 1106 women ≥ 66 years of age with node-positive TNBC, of whom 69.3% received adjuvant chemotherapy (N = 767). The use of chemotherapy led to a statistically significant improvement in survival outcomes (3-year cancer-specific survival [CSS] 81.8% vs 71.4%; overall survival 70.7% vs 51.3%). Although the anthracycline/taxane–based therapy did not improve CSS in the overall population vs taxane-based (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94; P = .79), among patients aged ≥ 76 years with four or more positive nodes, there was improvement in CSS with anthracycline/taxane therapy (HR 0.09; P = .02). These data further support the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients when indicated; stimulate consideration of nonanthracycline combinations, particularly now with the use of immunotherapy for early TNBC; and highlight the need for inclusion of older individuals in clinical trials.
Treatment strategies to improve efficacy and minimize toxicity are highly desired for patients with early breast cancer (EBC). As an example, for small, node-negative, HER2-positive tumors, adjuvant systemic therapy with 12 weeks of paclitaxel/trastuzumab followed by continuation of trastuzumab to complete 1 full year has demonstrated excellent survival outcomes at over 10 years of follow-up.3 In the WSG-ADAPT-TP phase 2 trial, 375 patients with hormone receptor–positive , HER2-positive EBC were randomized to receive neoadjuvant T-DM1 (trastuzumab emtansine) with or without endocrine therapy or trastuzumab plus endocrine therapy. Similar 5-year invasive disease-free and overall survival rates were seen between the three arms. Patients who achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR) vs non-pCR had improved 5-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) rates (92.7% vs 82.7%; unadjusted HR 0.40). Furthermore, among the 117 patients who achieved pCR, the omission of adjuvant chemotherapy did not compromise survival outcomes (5-year iDFS 93% vs 92.1% for those who had vs those who did not have chemotherapy, respectively; unadjusted HR 1.15) (Harbeck et al). De-escalation approaches should ideally focus on the identification of biomarkers of response and resistance, as well as tools that can help predict patient outcomes and allow modification of therapy in real time. An example of this latter concept is the use of 18F-FDG-PET to identify patients with HER2-positive EBC who were likely to benefit from a chemotherapy-free dual HER2 blockade (trastuzumab/pertuzumab) treatment approach.4
Gynecologic surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for breast cancer,5 although the specific type of surgery and the impact of hormone replacement therapy add complexity to understanding the risks and outcomes for women. A prospective cohort, the Sister Study, included 50,701 women without a prior diagnosis of breast cancer but with a biological sister who had breast cancer; of these, 13.8% reported having hysterectomy only and 18.1% reported having bilateral oophorectomy with or without hysterectomy. Bilateral oophorectomy was inversely associated with breast cancer incidence (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.83-1.00), with comparable results for women receiving estrogen only or combination estrogen plus progestin hormone replacement therapy. Contrary to these findings, having a hysterectomy only showed a positive association with breast cancer incidence (HR 1.12; 95% CI 1.02-1.23), with the strongest association among women who used combination estrogen and progestin therapy (HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.01-1.55) (Lovett et al). The impact of other gynecologic surgeries (such as salpingectomy)6 and the timing of the initiation of hormone replacement therapy, as well as the duration, should be investigated in future research.
Additional References
1. Blum JL, Flynn PJ, Yothers G, et al. Anthracyclines in early breast cancer: The ABC trials-USOR 06-090, NSABP B-46-I/USOR 07132, and NSABP B-49 (NRG oncology). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2647e55. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.4147
2. de Gregorio A, Janni W, Friedl TW, et al. The impact of anthracyclines in intermediate and high-risk HER2-negative early breast cancer-a pooled analysis of the randomised clinical trials PlanB and SUCCESS C. Br J Cancer. 2022;126:1715-1724. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01690-6
3. Tolaney SM, Tarantino P, Graham N, et al. Adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab for node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer: Final 10-year analysis of the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 APT trial. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24:273-285. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00051-7
4. Pérez-García JM, Gebhart G, Ruiz Borrego M, et al; on behalf of PHERGain steering committee and trial investigators. Chemotherapy de-escalation using an 18F-FDG-PET-based pathological response-adapted strategy in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PHERGain): A multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-comparative, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:858-871. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00122-4
5. Chow S, Raine-Bennett T, Samant ND, Postlethwaite DA, Holzapfel M. Breast cancer risk after hysterectomy with and without salpingo-oophorectomy for benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223:900.e1-900.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.06.040
6. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 774: Opportunistic salpingectomy as a strategy for epithelial ovarian cancer prevention. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:e279-e284. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003164
However, a combined analysis of two other trials (PlanB and SUCCESS C) did not show a benefit with the addition of anthracycline for most patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative early breast cancer.2Roy and colleagues performed a retrospective study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, including 1106 women ≥ 66 years of age with node-positive TNBC, of whom 69.3% received adjuvant chemotherapy (N = 767). The use of chemotherapy led to a statistically significant improvement in survival outcomes (3-year cancer-specific survival [CSS] 81.8% vs 71.4%; overall survival 70.7% vs 51.3%). Although the anthracycline/taxane–based therapy did not improve CSS in the overall population vs taxane-based (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94; P = .79), among patients aged ≥ 76 years with four or more positive nodes, there was improvement in CSS with anthracycline/taxane therapy (HR 0.09; P = .02). These data further support the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients when indicated; stimulate consideration of nonanthracycline combinations, particularly now with the use of immunotherapy for early TNBC; and highlight the need for inclusion of older individuals in clinical trials.
Treatment strategies to improve efficacy and minimize toxicity are highly desired for patients with early breast cancer (EBC). As an example, for small, node-negative, HER2-positive tumors, adjuvant systemic therapy with 12 weeks of paclitaxel/trastuzumab followed by continuation of trastuzumab to complete 1 full year has demonstrated excellent survival outcomes at over 10 years of follow-up.3 In the WSG-ADAPT-TP phase 2 trial, 375 patients with hormone receptor–positive , HER2-positive EBC were randomized to receive neoadjuvant T-DM1 (trastuzumab emtansine) with or without endocrine therapy or trastuzumab plus endocrine therapy. Similar 5-year invasive disease-free and overall survival rates were seen between the three arms. Patients who achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR) vs non-pCR had improved 5-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) rates (92.7% vs 82.7%; unadjusted HR 0.40). Furthermore, among the 117 patients who achieved pCR, the omission of adjuvant chemotherapy did not compromise survival outcomes (5-year iDFS 93% vs 92.1% for those who had vs those who did not have chemotherapy, respectively; unadjusted HR 1.15) (Harbeck et al). De-escalation approaches should ideally focus on the identification of biomarkers of response and resistance, as well as tools that can help predict patient outcomes and allow modification of therapy in real time. An example of this latter concept is the use of 18F-FDG-PET to identify patients with HER2-positive EBC who were likely to benefit from a chemotherapy-free dual HER2 blockade (trastuzumab/pertuzumab) treatment approach.4
Gynecologic surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for breast cancer,5 although the specific type of surgery and the impact of hormone replacement therapy add complexity to understanding the risks and outcomes for women. A prospective cohort, the Sister Study, included 50,701 women without a prior diagnosis of breast cancer but with a biological sister who had breast cancer; of these, 13.8% reported having hysterectomy only and 18.1% reported having bilateral oophorectomy with or without hysterectomy. Bilateral oophorectomy was inversely associated with breast cancer incidence (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.83-1.00), with comparable results for women receiving estrogen only or combination estrogen plus progestin hormone replacement therapy. Contrary to these findings, having a hysterectomy only showed a positive association with breast cancer incidence (HR 1.12; 95% CI 1.02-1.23), with the strongest association among women who used combination estrogen and progestin therapy (HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.01-1.55) (Lovett et al). The impact of other gynecologic surgeries (such as salpingectomy)6 and the timing of the initiation of hormone replacement therapy, as well as the duration, should be investigated in future research.
Additional References
1. Blum JL, Flynn PJ, Yothers G, et al. Anthracyclines in early breast cancer: The ABC trials-USOR 06-090, NSABP B-46-I/USOR 07132, and NSABP B-49 (NRG oncology). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2647e55. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.4147
2. de Gregorio A, Janni W, Friedl TW, et al. The impact of anthracyclines in intermediate and high-risk HER2-negative early breast cancer-a pooled analysis of the randomised clinical trials PlanB and SUCCESS C. Br J Cancer. 2022;126:1715-1724. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01690-6
3. Tolaney SM, Tarantino P, Graham N, et al. Adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab for node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer: Final 10-year analysis of the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 APT trial. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24:273-285. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00051-7
4. Pérez-García JM, Gebhart G, Ruiz Borrego M, et al; on behalf of PHERGain steering committee and trial investigators. Chemotherapy de-escalation using an 18F-FDG-PET-based pathological response-adapted strategy in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PHERGain): A multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-comparative, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:858-871. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00122-4
5. Chow S, Raine-Bennett T, Samant ND, Postlethwaite DA, Holzapfel M. Breast cancer risk after hysterectomy with and without salpingo-oophorectomy for benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223:900.e1-900.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.06.040
6. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 774: Opportunistic salpingectomy as a strategy for epithelial ovarian cancer prevention. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:e279-e284. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003164
However, a combined analysis of two other trials (PlanB and SUCCESS C) did not show a benefit with the addition of anthracycline for most patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative early breast cancer.2Roy and colleagues performed a retrospective study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, including 1106 women ≥ 66 years of age with node-positive TNBC, of whom 69.3% received adjuvant chemotherapy (N = 767). The use of chemotherapy led to a statistically significant improvement in survival outcomes (3-year cancer-specific survival [CSS] 81.8% vs 71.4%; overall survival 70.7% vs 51.3%). Although the anthracycline/taxane–based therapy did not improve CSS in the overall population vs taxane-based (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94; P = .79), among patients aged ≥ 76 years with four or more positive nodes, there was improvement in CSS with anthracycline/taxane therapy (HR 0.09; P = .02). These data further support the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients when indicated; stimulate consideration of nonanthracycline combinations, particularly now with the use of immunotherapy for early TNBC; and highlight the need for inclusion of older individuals in clinical trials.
Treatment strategies to improve efficacy and minimize toxicity are highly desired for patients with early breast cancer (EBC). As an example, for small, node-negative, HER2-positive tumors, adjuvant systemic therapy with 12 weeks of paclitaxel/trastuzumab followed by continuation of trastuzumab to complete 1 full year has demonstrated excellent survival outcomes at over 10 years of follow-up.3 In the WSG-ADAPT-TP phase 2 trial, 375 patients with hormone receptor–positive , HER2-positive EBC were randomized to receive neoadjuvant T-DM1 (trastuzumab emtansine) with or without endocrine therapy or trastuzumab plus endocrine therapy. Similar 5-year invasive disease-free and overall survival rates were seen between the three arms. Patients who achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR) vs non-pCR had improved 5-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) rates (92.7% vs 82.7%; unadjusted HR 0.40). Furthermore, among the 117 patients who achieved pCR, the omission of adjuvant chemotherapy did not compromise survival outcomes (5-year iDFS 93% vs 92.1% for those who had vs those who did not have chemotherapy, respectively; unadjusted HR 1.15) (Harbeck et al). De-escalation approaches should ideally focus on the identification of biomarkers of response and resistance, as well as tools that can help predict patient outcomes and allow modification of therapy in real time. An example of this latter concept is the use of 18F-FDG-PET to identify patients with HER2-positive EBC who were likely to benefit from a chemotherapy-free dual HER2 blockade (trastuzumab/pertuzumab) treatment approach.4
Gynecologic surgery has been shown to reduce the risk for breast cancer,5 although the specific type of surgery and the impact of hormone replacement therapy add complexity to understanding the risks and outcomes for women. A prospective cohort, the Sister Study, included 50,701 women without a prior diagnosis of breast cancer but with a biological sister who had breast cancer; of these, 13.8% reported having hysterectomy only and 18.1% reported having bilateral oophorectomy with or without hysterectomy. Bilateral oophorectomy was inversely associated with breast cancer incidence (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.83-1.00), with comparable results for women receiving estrogen only or combination estrogen plus progestin hormone replacement therapy. Contrary to these findings, having a hysterectomy only showed a positive association with breast cancer incidence (HR 1.12; 95% CI 1.02-1.23), with the strongest association among women who used combination estrogen and progestin therapy (HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.01-1.55) (Lovett et al). The impact of other gynecologic surgeries (such as salpingectomy)6 and the timing of the initiation of hormone replacement therapy, as well as the duration, should be investigated in future research.
Additional References
1. Blum JL, Flynn PJ, Yothers G, et al. Anthracyclines in early breast cancer: The ABC trials-USOR 06-090, NSABP B-46-I/USOR 07132, and NSABP B-49 (NRG oncology). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2647e55. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.4147
2. de Gregorio A, Janni W, Friedl TW, et al. The impact of anthracyclines in intermediate and high-risk HER2-negative early breast cancer-a pooled analysis of the randomised clinical trials PlanB and SUCCESS C. Br J Cancer. 2022;126:1715-1724. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01690-6
3. Tolaney SM, Tarantino P, Graham N, et al. Adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab for node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer: Final 10-year analysis of the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 APT trial. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24:273-285. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00051-7
4. Pérez-García JM, Gebhart G, Ruiz Borrego M, et al; on behalf of PHERGain steering committee and trial investigators. Chemotherapy de-escalation using an 18F-FDG-PET-based pathological response-adapted strategy in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PHERGain): A multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-comparative, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:858-871. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00122-4
5. Chow S, Raine-Bennett T, Samant ND, Postlethwaite DA, Holzapfel M. Breast cancer risk after hysterectomy with and without salpingo-oophorectomy for benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223:900.e1-900.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.06.040
6. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 774: Opportunistic salpingectomy as a strategy for epithelial ovarian cancer prevention. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:e279-e284. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003164
Commentary: IL-31 inhibitor, e-cigarettes, and upadacitinib in AD, April 2023
Good news! There's not a lot to say about this. Dupilumab is so easy. No blood work, no immunosuppression. Dupilumab is highly effective and very safe. It's safe enough for children as young as 6 months! It's so effective that if it is not working, I question my diagnosis (Could it be contact dermatitis or mycosis fungoides instead?) and whether the patient is taking the medication properly.
Boesjes and colleagues describe in Acta Dermato-Venereologica the Dutch experience with upadacitinib in patients who have not been successfully treated with dupilumab or baricitinib. Presumably, such patients, because treatment with dupilumab or baricitinib or both was unsuccessful, have very resistant atopic dermatitis (either due to strong genetic propensity or perhaps because they don't take their medications). Despite having such refractory disease, most patients did well on the treatment with rapid disease improvement. Upadacitinib didn't work for everyone, though. About 30% of the patients discontinued upadacitinib treatment due to ineffectiveness, adverse events, or both (8.5%, 14.9%, and 6.4%, respectively).
How much of that ineffectiveness was due to poor adherence to taking the treatment was not assessed. Upadacitinib is extraordinarily effective for atopic dermatitis. I didn't think I would ever see a drug more effective than dupilumab for atopic dermatitis, but a low dose of upadacitinib (15 mg/day) seems about twice as effective as dupilumab for complete clearing of atopic dermatitis. The higher dose of 30 mg may be 3.5 times as effective as dupiliumab at getting atopic dermatitis completely clear.1
I dislike the word significant. Significant is ambiguous. It could mean that an observed association would not be likely to occur by chance, or it could mean that an observed association is clinically meaningful. Smith and colleagues in "Association between electronic cigarette use and atopic dermatitis among United States adults" reported finding a "significant" association between e-cigarette use and atopic dermatitis. A total of 23% of 2119 e-cigarette users had atopic dermatitis vs 17.1% of 26,444 nonusers. Clearly, the observed association was statistically significant (the 6% difference was not likely to occur due to chance alone). Is the finding clinically meaningful? I don't think it would affect our practice in any way.
The authors made the point that the study doesn't tell us whether e-cigarette use causes atopic dermatitis or if atopic dermatitis causes people to smoke. I wonder if just being younger (or some other factor) might make people more likely to use e-cigarettes and more likely to have atopic dermatitis (assuming atopic dermatitis gradually subsides over time, a dogma that may not be true).
Kabashima and colleagues report on the efficacy of the interleukin (IL)–31 antagonist nemolizumab. IL-31 mediates itch and having a new drug to block IL-31 may be a great treatment for our itchy patients. In this study, patients who had greater itch reduction had greater improvement in eczema and in quality of life. I'm quite sure that reducing itch improves patients' quality of life. But when it comes to the itch and the inflammation, I'm not sure which comes first. Does controlling the itch make the inflammation better? Maybe. Does controlling inflammation make itch better? Certainly.
For atopic patients with inflammation, controlling that inflammation seems to me to be the best approach, and we don't need more new treatments to accomplish that. For those patients who have a lot of itch and little inflammation, an IL-31 antagonist may be a revolutionary addition to our treatment options.
Additional References
1. Blauvelt A, Teixeira HD, Simpson EL, et al. Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib vs dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:1047-1055. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.3023. Erratum in: JAMA Dermatol. 2022;158:219. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.5451
Good news! There's not a lot to say about this. Dupilumab is so easy. No blood work, no immunosuppression. Dupilumab is highly effective and very safe. It's safe enough for children as young as 6 months! It's so effective that if it is not working, I question my diagnosis (Could it be contact dermatitis or mycosis fungoides instead?) and whether the patient is taking the medication properly.
Boesjes and colleagues describe in Acta Dermato-Venereologica the Dutch experience with upadacitinib in patients who have not been successfully treated with dupilumab or baricitinib. Presumably, such patients, because treatment with dupilumab or baricitinib or both was unsuccessful, have very resistant atopic dermatitis (either due to strong genetic propensity or perhaps because they don't take their medications). Despite having such refractory disease, most patients did well on the treatment with rapid disease improvement. Upadacitinib didn't work for everyone, though. About 30% of the patients discontinued upadacitinib treatment due to ineffectiveness, adverse events, or both (8.5%, 14.9%, and 6.4%, respectively).
How much of that ineffectiveness was due to poor adherence to taking the treatment was not assessed. Upadacitinib is extraordinarily effective for atopic dermatitis. I didn't think I would ever see a drug more effective than dupilumab for atopic dermatitis, but a low dose of upadacitinib (15 mg/day) seems about twice as effective as dupilumab for complete clearing of atopic dermatitis. The higher dose of 30 mg may be 3.5 times as effective as dupiliumab at getting atopic dermatitis completely clear.1
I dislike the word significant. Significant is ambiguous. It could mean that an observed association would not be likely to occur by chance, or it could mean that an observed association is clinically meaningful. Smith and colleagues in "Association between electronic cigarette use and atopic dermatitis among United States adults" reported finding a "significant" association between e-cigarette use and atopic dermatitis. A total of 23% of 2119 e-cigarette users had atopic dermatitis vs 17.1% of 26,444 nonusers. Clearly, the observed association was statistically significant (the 6% difference was not likely to occur due to chance alone). Is the finding clinically meaningful? I don't think it would affect our practice in any way.
The authors made the point that the study doesn't tell us whether e-cigarette use causes atopic dermatitis or if atopic dermatitis causes people to smoke. I wonder if just being younger (or some other factor) might make people more likely to use e-cigarettes and more likely to have atopic dermatitis (assuming atopic dermatitis gradually subsides over time, a dogma that may not be true).
Kabashima and colleagues report on the efficacy of the interleukin (IL)–31 antagonist nemolizumab. IL-31 mediates itch and having a new drug to block IL-31 may be a great treatment for our itchy patients. In this study, patients who had greater itch reduction had greater improvement in eczema and in quality of life. I'm quite sure that reducing itch improves patients' quality of life. But when it comes to the itch and the inflammation, I'm not sure which comes first. Does controlling the itch make the inflammation better? Maybe. Does controlling inflammation make itch better? Certainly.
For atopic patients with inflammation, controlling that inflammation seems to me to be the best approach, and we don't need more new treatments to accomplish that. For those patients who have a lot of itch and little inflammation, an IL-31 antagonist may be a revolutionary addition to our treatment options.
Additional References
1. Blauvelt A, Teixeira HD, Simpson EL, et al. Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib vs dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:1047-1055. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.3023. Erratum in: JAMA Dermatol. 2022;158:219. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.5451
Good news! There's not a lot to say about this. Dupilumab is so easy. No blood work, no immunosuppression. Dupilumab is highly effective and very safe. It's safe enough for children as young as 6 months! It's so effective that if it is not working, I question my diagnosis (Could it be contact dermatitis or mycosis fungoides instead?) and whether the patient is taking the medication properly.
Boesjes and colleagues describe in Acta Dermato-Venereologica the Dutch experience with upadacitinib in patients who have not been successfully treated with dupilumab or baricitinib. Presumably, such patients, because treatment with dupilumab or baricitinib or both was unsuccessful, have very resistant atopic dermatitis (either due to strong genetic propensity or perhaps because they don't take their medications). Despite having such refractory disease, most patients did well on the treatment with rapid disease improvement. Upadacitinib didn't work for everyone, though. About 30% of the patients discontinued upadacitinib treatment due to ineffectiveness, adverse events, or both (8.5%, 14.9%, and 6.4%, respectively).
How much of that ineffectiveness was due to poor adherence to taking the treatment was not assessed. Upadacitinib is extraordinarily effective for atopic dermatitis. I didn't think I would ever see a drug more effective than dupilumab for atopic dermatitis, but a low dose of upadacitinib (15 mg/day) seems about twice as effective as dupilumab for complete clearing of atopic dermatitis. The higher dose of 30 mg may be 3.5 times as effective as dupiliumab at getting atopic dermatitis completely clear.1
I dislike the word significant. Significant is ambiguous. It could mean that an observed association would not be likely to occur by chance, or it could mean that an observed association is clinically meaningful. Smith and colleagues in "Association between electronic cigarette use and atopic dermatitis among United States adults" reported finding a "significant" association between e-cigarette use and atopic dermatitis. A total of 23% of 2119 e-cigarette users had atopic dermatitis vs 17.1% of 26,444 nonusers. Clearly, the observed association was statistically significant (the 6% difference was not likely to occur due to chance alone). Is the finding clinically meaningful? I don't think it would affect our practice in any way.
The authors made the point that the study doesn't tell us whether e-cigarette use causes atopic dermatitis or if atopic dermatitis causes people to smoke. I wonder if just being younger (or some other factor) might make people more likely to use e-cigarettes and more likely to have atopic dermatitis (assuming atopic dermatitis gradually subsides over time, a dogma that may not be true).
Kabashima and colleagues report on the efficacy of the interleukin (IL)–31 antagonist nemolizumab. IL-31 mediates itch and having a new drug to block IL-31 may be a great treatment for our itchy patients. In this study, patients who had greater itch reduction had greater improvement in eczema and in quality of life. I'm quite sure that reducing itch improves patients' quality of life. But when it comes to the itch and the inflammation, I'm not sure which comes first. Does controlling the itch make the inflammation better? Maybe. Does controlling inflammation make itch better? Certainly.
For atopic patients with inflammation, controlling that inflammation seems to me to be the best approach, and we don't need more new treatments to accomplish that. For those patients who have a lot of itch and little inflammation, an IL-31 antagonist may be a revolutionary addition to our treatment options.
Additional References
1. Blauvelt A, Teixeira HD, Simpson EL, et al. Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib vs dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:1047-1055. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.3023. Erratum in: JAMA Dermatol. 2022;158:219. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.5451
JAK inhibitor ivarmacitinib shows efficacy for atopic dermatitis in a pivotal trial
NEW ORLEANS – The presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Two doses were studied in the placebo-controlled trial and both demonstrated “a favorable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with moderate to severe AD,” reported Yan Zhao, MD, a clinician and researcher in the department of dermatology, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing.
In the study, called QUARTZ3, 336 patients aged 12 and older at 51 sites in China and Canada were randomized to 4 mg once-daily ivarmacitinib, 8 mg once-daily QD ivarmacitinib, or placebo. The mean age of the population was 32 years and approximately one-third were female.
The mean duration of AD for participants was 10 years. The mean baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score was near 30. On the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) tool, approximately 40% had a score of 4, which is the highest score on the scale and indicates severe disease. The remaining patients had an IGA score of 3.
The co-primary endpoints were change in IGA and EASI scores at 16 weeks, and both improved rapidly, showing statistical significance relative to placebo by 4 weeks with no plateauing effect at the end of the 16-week trial. By week 16, the proportion of patients with an EASI score of 75, signifying a 75% improvement, was 66%, 54%, and 22% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups (P < .001 versus placebo for both doses of active therapy), respectively.
The pattern of the IGA response was similar. By week 16, the proportion of patients achieving an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) was 42%, 36%, and 9% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups, respectively. The advantage of either dose over placebo was highly significant (P < .001) at 8, 12, and 16 weeks.
For the WI-NRS (Worst Itch – Numeric Rating Scale), the advantage of the 8-mg dose relative to placebo was significant (P < .001) at the 1-week evaluation. By 2 weeks, the 4-mg dose had gained the same degree of statistical significance relative to placebo. After week 4, when the maximum proportion of patients with a WI-NRS score ≤ 4 was reached (50%, 35%, and 10% in the 8-mg, 4-mg, and placebo groups), and the relative advantage of active treatment persisted until the end of the 16-week study.
Two scales were used to evaluate change in quality of life. On the DLQI (Dermatology Life Quality Index) and POEM (Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure), improvements were again rapid and sustained. By week 4, improvement with the 8-mg dose was about fourfold greater (P < .001) than improvement with placebo for DLQI and about sixfold greater (P < .001) for POEM. For the 4-mg dose, the relative differences were approximately threefold and fourfold greater, and both were significant (P <.001).
There was no further gain in these quality-of-life scales from week 4 to week 16, but the advantages relative to placebo were generally sustained, Dr. Zhao reported.
Ivarmacitinib was safe and well-tolerated, according to Dr. Zhao. The proportion of patients with a treatment-emergent adverse event that led to drug discontinuation was numerically higher (5.4%) in the placebo group than in the 8-mg (3.6%) or 4-mg group (2.7%). Rates of infection in the three groups were similar, and there were no major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or thromboembolism observed in any group.
Ivarmacitinib, which has about a 10-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK2 and a more than 70-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK3, is being tested for rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and alopecia areata in addition to AD, Dr. Zhao said. She also reported that an application for new drug approval has been submitted in China. Efforts to pursue regulatory approval elsewhere are anticipated.
Currently, there are three JAK inhibitors licensed for the treatment of AD in the United States. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo) are also once-daily oral JAK1-selective inhibitors. Regulatory approval for AD by the Food and Drug Administration was granted to both in early 2022 and both now have an indication for moderate to severe disease in patients ages 12 years and older.
In September 2021, the first U.S. approval of a drug in this class for AD was granted for a topical formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), which has selectivity for both JAK1 and JAK2. The indication is for mild to moderate AD in patients aged 12 years and older.
In the phase 3 clinical trial that led to approval of abrocitinib for AD, the comparator groups included placebo and active treatment with 300 mg dupilumab administered subcutaneously every other week. The higher of two doses of abrocitinib (100 mg) was numerically superior to dupilumab in terms of EASI 75 response at week 12 and was statistically superior for relief of itch at week 2.
Relative to the first-generation JAK inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz), both of the approved oral JAK inhibitors for AD, abrocitinib and upadacitinib, have greater JAK1-selectivity. However, selectivity for all JAK inhibitors is relative rather than absolute, according to a recent review article on oral JAK inhibitors for AD. Efficacy and safety are likely determined by relative inhibition of each of the four JAK enzymes (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2). Although JAK1 appears to be an important target for AD treatment, the clinical significance of the degree of selectivity among oral JAK inhibitors is not yet clear.
In an interview, the senior author of that review article, Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, emphasized this point. She said there is no evidence and no basis on which to speculate that any one drug in this class is better than another for AD. Dr. Guttman-Yassky is a professor and system chair of dermatology and immunology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“The efficacy [of ivarmacitinib] seems, in general, to be in line with other JAK inhibitors,” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who attended the late-breaker session during which these data were presented. Although she acknowledged that rapid control of pruritus is important clinically, she said the speed of itch relief as reported in the phase 3 ivarmacitinib trial does not distinguish it from other oral drugs in the class.
Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed.
“The rapid effects on itch of ivarmacitinib are consistent with those observed by the already approved JAK1-selective inhibitors abrocitinib and upadacitinib,” he said in an interview.
This suggests that head-to-head trials will be needed to draw any conclusions about the relative efficacy and safety of existing and emerging oral JAK inhibitors for AD.
Dr. Zhao has reported a financial relationship with Reistone Biopharma, which is developing ivarmacitinib and provided funding for the trial. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Kwatra has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Aslan, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Celldex, Galderma, Genzada, Incyte, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS – The presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Two doses were studied in the placebo-controlled trial and both demonstrated “a favorable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with moderate to severe AD,” reported Yan Zhao, MD, a clinician and researcher in the department of dermatology, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing.
In the study, called QUARTZ3, 336 patients aged 12 and older at 51 sites in China and Canada were randomized to 4 mg once-daily ivarmacitinib, 8 mg once-daily QD ivarmacitinib, or placebo. The mean age of the population was 32 years and approximately one-third were female.
The mean duration of AD for participants was 10 years. The mean baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score was near 30. On the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) tool, approximately 40% had a score of 4, which is the highest score on the scale and indicates severe disease. The remaining patients had an IGA score of 3.
The co-primary endpoints were change in IGA and EASI scores at 16 weeks, and both improved rapidly, showing statistical significance relative to placebo by 4 weeks with no plateauing effect at the end of the 16-week trial. By week 16, the proportion of patients with an EASI score of 75, signifying a 75% improvement, was 66%, 54%, and 22% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups (P < .001 versus placebo for both doses of active therapy), respectively.
The pattern of the IGA response was similar. By week 16, the proportion of patients achieving an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) was 42%, 36%, and 9% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups, respectively. The advantage of either dose over placebo was highly significant (P < .001) at 8, 12, and 16 weeks.
For the WI-NRS (Worst Itch – Numeric Rating Scale), the advantage of the 8-mg dose relative to placebo was significant (P < .001) at the 1-week evaluation. By 2 weeks, the 4-mg dose had gained the same degree of statistical significance relative to placebo. After week 4, when the maximum proportion of patients with a WI-NRS score ≤ 4 was reached (50%, 35%, and 10% in the 8-mg, 4-mg, and placebo groups), and the relative advantage of active treatment persisted until the end of the 16-week study.
Two scales were used to evaluate change in quality of life. On the DLQI (Dermatology Life Quality Index) and POEM (Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure), improvements were again rapid and sustained. By week 4, improvement with the 8-mg dose was about fourfold greater (P < .001) than improvement with placebo for DLQI and about sixfold greater (P < .001) for POEM. For the 4-mg dose, the relative differences were approximately threefold and fourfold greater, and both were significant (P <.001).
There was no further gain in these quality-of-life scales from week 4 to week 16, but the advantages relative to placebo were generally sustained, Dr. Zhao reported.
Ivarmacitinib was safe and well-tolerated, according to Dr. Zhao. The proportion of patients with a treatment-emergent adverse event that led to drug discontinuation was numerically higher (5.4%) in the placebo group than in the 8-mg (3.6%) or 4-mg group (2.7%). Rates of infection in the three groups were similar, and there were no major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or thromboembolism observed in any group.
Ivarmacitinib, which has about a 10-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK2 and a more than 70-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK3, is being tested for rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and alopecia areata in addition to AD, Dr. Zhao said. She also reported that an application for new drug approval has been submitted in China. Efforts to pursue regulatory approval elsewhere are anticipated.
Currently, there are three JAK inhibitors licensed for the treatment of AD in the United States. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo) are also once-daily oral JAK1-selective inhibitors. Regulatory approval for AD by the Food and Drug Administration was granted to both in early 2022 and both now have an indication for moderate to severe disease in patients ages 12 years and older.
In September 2021, the first U.S. approval of a drug in this class for AD was granted for a topical formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), which has selectivity for both JAK1 and JAK2. The indication is for mild to moderate AD in patients aged 12 years and older.
In the phase 3 clinical trial that led to approval of abrocitinib for AD, the comparator groups included placebo and active treatment with 300 mg dupilumab administered subcutaneously every other week. The higher of two doses of abrocitinib (100 mg) was numerically superior to dupilumab in terms of EASI 75 response at week 12 and was statistically superior for relief of itch at week 2.
Relative to the first-generation JAK inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz), both of the approved oral JAK inhibitors for AD, abrocitinib and upadacitinib, have greater JAK1-selectivity. However, selectivity for all JAK inhibitors is relative rather than absolute, according to a recent review article on oral JAK inhibitors for AD. Efficacy and safety are likely determined by relative inhibition of each of the four JAK enzymes (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2). Although JAK1 appears to be an important target for AD treatment, the clinical significance of the degree of selectivity among oral JAK inhibitors is not yet clear.
In an interview, the senior author of that review article, Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, emphasized this point. She said there is no evidence and no basis on which to speculate that any one drug in this class is better than another for AD. Dr. Guttman-Yassky is a professor and system chair of dermatology and immunology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“The efficacy [of ivarmacitinib] seems, in general, to be in line with other JAK inhibitors,” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who attended the late-breaker session during which these data were presented. Although she acknowledged that rapid control of pruritus is important clinically, she said the speed of itch relief as reported in the phase 3 ivarmacitinib trial does not distinguish it from other oral drugs in the class.
Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed.
“The rapid effects on itch of ivarmacitinib are consistent with those observed by the already approved JAK1-selective inhibitors abrocitinib and upadacitinib,” he said in an interview.
This suggests that head-to-head trials will be needed to draw any conclusions about the relative efficacy and safety of existing and emerging oral JAK inhibitors for AD.
Dr. Zhao has reported a financial relationship with Reistone Biopharma, which is developing ivarmacitinib and provided funding for the trial. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Kwatra has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Aslan, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Celldex, Galderma, Genzada, Incyte, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS – The presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Two doses were studied in the placebo-controlled trial and both demonstrated “a favorable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with moderate to severe AD,” reported Yan Zhao, MD, a clinician and researcher in the department of dermatology, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing.
In the study, called QUARTZ3, 336 patients aged 12 and older at 51 sites in China and Canada were randomized to 4 mg once-daily ivarmacitinib, 8 mg once-daily QD ivarmacitinib, or placebo. The mean age of the population was 32 years and approximately one-third were female.
The mean duration of AD for participants was 10 years. The mean baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score was near 30. On the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) tool, approximately 40% had a score of 4, which is the highest score on the scale and indicates severe disease. The remaining patients had an IGA score of 3.
The co-primary endpoints were change in IGA and EASI scores at 16 weeks, and both improved rapidly, showing statistical significance relative to placebo by 4 weeks with no plateauing effect at the end of the 16-week trial. By week 16, the proportion of patients with an EASI score of 75, signifying a 75% improvement, was 66%, 54%, and 22% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups (P < .001 versus placebo for both doses of active therapy), respectively.
The pattern of the IGA response was similar. By week 16, the proportion of patients achieving an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) was 42%, 36%, and 9% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups, respectively. The advantage of either dose over placebo was highly significant (P < .001) at 8, 12, and 16 weeks.
For the WI-NRS (Worst Itch – Numeric Rating Scale), the advantage of the 8-mg dose relative to placebo was significant (P < .001) at the 1-week evaluation. By 2 weeks, the 4-mg dose had gained the same degree of statistical significance relative to placebo. After week 4, when the maximum proportion of patients with a WI-NRS score ≤ 4 was reached (50%, 35%, and 10% in the 8-mg, 4-mg, and placebo groups), and the relative advantage of active treatment persisted until the end of the 16-week study.
Two scales were used to evaluate change in quality of life. On the DLQI (Dermatology Life Quality Index) and POEM (Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure), improvements were again rapid and sustained. By week 4, improvement with the 8-mg dose was about fourfold greater (P < .001) than improvement with placebo for DLQI and about sixfold greater (P < .001) for POEM. For the 4-mg dose, the relative differences were approximately threefold and fourfold greater, and both were significant (P <.001).
There was no further gain in these quality-of-life scales from week 4 to week 16, but the advantages relative to placebo were generally sustained, Dr. Zhao reported.
Ivarmacitinib was safe and well-tolerated, according to Dr. Zhao. The proportion of patients with a treatment-emergent adverse event that led to drug discontinuation was numerically higher (5.4%) in the placebo group than in the 8-mg (3.6%) or 4-mg group (2.7%). Rates of infection in the three groups were similar, and there were no major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or thromboembolism observed in any group.
Ivarmacitinib, which has about a 10-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK2 and a more than 70-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK3, is being tested for rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and alopecia areata in addition to AD, Dr. Zhao said. She also reported that an application for new drug approval has been submitted in China. Efforts to pursue regulatory approval elsewhere are anticipated.
Currently, there are three JAK inhibitors licensed for the treatment of AD in the United States. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo) are also once-daily oral JAK1-selective inhibitors. Regulatory approval for AD by the Food and Drug Administration was granted to both in early 2022 and both now have an indication for moderate to severe disease in patients ages 12 years and older.
In September 2021, the first U.S. approval of a drug in this class for AD was granted for a topical formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), which has selectivity for both JAK1 and JAK2. The indication is for mild to moderate AD in patients aged 12 years and older.
In the phase 3 clinical trial that led to approval of abrocitinib for AD, the comparator groups included placebo and active treatment with 300 mg dupilumab administered subcutaneously every other week. The higher of two doses of abrocitinib (100 mg) was numerically superior to dupilumab in terms of EASI 75 response at week 12 and was statistically superior for relief of itch at week 2.
Relative to the first-generation JAK inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz), both of the approved oral JAK inhibitors for AD, abrocitinib and upadacitinib, have greater JAK1-selectivity. However, selectivity for all JAK inhibitors is relative rather than absolute, according to a recent review article on oral JAK inhibitors for AD. Efficacy and safety are likely determined by relative inhibition of each of the four JAK enzymes (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2). Although JAK1 appears to be an important target for AD treatment, the clinical significance of the degree of selectivity among oral JAK inhibitors is not yet clear.
In an interview, the senior author of that review article, Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, emphasized this point. She said there is no evidence and no basis on which to speculate that any one drug in this class is better than another for AD. Dr. Guttman-Yassky is a professor and system chair of dermatology and immunology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“The efficacy [of ivarmacitinib] seems, in general, to be in line with other JAK inhibitors,” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who attended the late-breaker session during which these data were presented. Although she acknowledged that rapid control of pruritus is important clinically, she said the speed of itch relief as reported in the phase 3 ivarmacitinib trial does not distinguish it from other oral drugs in the class.
Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed.
“The rapid effects on itch of ivarmacitinib are consistent with those observed by the already approved JAK1-selective inhibitors abrocitinib and upadacitinib,” he said in an interview.
This suggests that head-to-head trials will be needed to draw any conclusions about the relative efficacy and safety of existing and emerging oral JAK inhibitors for AD.
Dr. Zhao has reported a financial relationship with Reistone Biopharma, which is developing ivarmacitinib and provided funding for the trial. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Kwatra has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Aslan, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Celldex, Galderma, Genzada, Incyte, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AAD 2023