Conference Coverage

TORONTO — Misinformation in pediatric medicine, like other areas of medicine, is widely regarded as a major public health threat, but the good news is that a new survey reveals that pediatricians still believe their counsel is respected by patients and families.

Despite acknowledging that health misinformation is on the rise, “nearly all the pediatricians we surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that their patients consider them a trusted information source,” reported Elizabeth A. Gottschlich, MA, a senior research associate with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Itasca, Illinois.

These data were generated by an ongoing cohort analysis called the Pediatricians Life and Career Experience Study (PLACES). Each year, two surveys are conducted with three groups of pediatricians in this cohort. They are defined by years in which they graduated from residency (2002-2004, 2009-2011, or 2016-2018).

While the longer survey of the two captures an array of issues regarding life and practice, the shorter “checkpoint” survey addresses a high-priority topic. In 2023, it was health misinformation. The data from this survey were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

About 40% of the 2706 pediatricians who completed this particular survey (just over 65% of the participants in PLACES) were general pediatricians, 50% were pediatric subspecialists, and 10% were hospitalists.

Almost all of the survey questions were answered on a five-point Likert scale.
 

A Matter of Trust

According to Ms. Gottschlich, approximately 80% of pediatricians agreed or strongly agreed that misinformation is a clinical issue for them. About one third of these strongly agreed, and only 6% disagreed.

There was also strong consensus that the problem has grown worse since the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. To this statement, 70% agreed or strongly agreed and 24% did not agree or disagree. Only 4% disagreed.

However, relatively few respondents appeared to be concerned about the ability of pediatricians to address the problem of misinformation, Ms. Gottschlich reported.

When asked to respond to the statement that the “community recognizes and uses pediatricians as trusted source for health information,” 87% agreed or strongly agreed. Of the remaining, 9% did not agree or disagree, leaving just 4% that disagreed or strongly disagreed.

For a similar but slightly different question, the consensus was even greater. To the statement “patients/families in your practice seek your input as a trusted source for health information,” 94% agreed or strongly agreed.
 

Encountering Misinformation

The survey went on to ask pediatricians about encounters with misinformation for seven specific issues. On the five-point Likert scale, the choices ranged from a few times per year to every day.

For reproductive health, gender-affirming care, and firearm injury prevention, about 80% of respondents answered at the very low end of the scale, meaning no more than about once per month. Encounters with misinformation was slightly greater with autism; nearly one third responded that they encountered misinformation once a week or more frequently.

For all three questions regarding vaccines, the proportions climbed substantially. Of these, the COVID-19 vaccine was the most common topic of misinformation, with more than half reporting that they addressed incorrect information once a week or more. Seven percent reported this occurs daily.

Nearly 40% of pediatricians responded that they dealt with misinformation about the HPV vaccine once per week or more, while 35% reported that they encountered misinformation this frequently about routine childhood vaccines. There was a small but not necessarily trivial proportion for each of these categories of vaccine who reported that they encountered misinformation on a daily basis.

When stratified by clinical focus, the encounters varied. For the COVID-19 vaccine, general pediatricians (67%) were far more likely to report addressing misinformation on a weekly or more frequent basis than hospitalists (39%) or subspecialists (46%). They were more than twice as likely to encounter misinformation about the HPV vaccine than hospitalists or pediatric subspecialists (46%, 17%, and 19%, respectively).

When stratified by urban, suburban, or rural practice areas, differences were relatively modest. Pediatricians in urban practices were less likely to face misinformation about HPV vaccine (29% vs 44% and 48% for suburban and rural areas, respectively), while pediatricians in rural practice were more likely to face misinformation about routine childhood vaccines (60% vs 33% and 35% for urban and suburban practices, respectively).

Differences were even narrower when misinformation encounters were compared among the West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. For the threshold of once per week or more commonly, misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine was less common in the South (50% vs 55%-58% in the other areas), while misinformation about routine childhood vaccines was more commonly encountered in the West (41% vs 32%-35% in the other areas).
 

A Growing Problem

The confidence among pediatricians that their knowledge is valued is reassuring, according to Ms. Gottschlich, who noted that the U.S. Surgeon General declared health misinformation a serious threat to public health in 2021, but the problem of misinformation is growing, according to several sources.

One of these sources, at least in regard to adolescent health, appears to be social media, according to a recently published review article in JAMA Pediatrics. The lead author of that article, Monica L. Wang, DSc, has dual academic appointments at the Boston University School of Public Health and Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Asked for a comment on this issue, she suggested that it might not be enough to just respond to misinformation but rather might be better to develop a dialogue that will reveal misconceptions.

“Just as they screen for preventive issues like seat belt use, sunscreen, and safe sex practices, [pediatricians should integrate] questions about health misinformation into visits, which can be a natural and effective way to encourage dialogue, proactively share accurate information, and promote well-being,” she said.

Agreeing with the premise that pediatricians are a credible source of information for parents and children, Dr. Wang very much endorses the principle that “pediatricians can play a critical role in addressing health misinformation.”

Ms. Gottschlich and Dr. Wang report no potential conflicts of interest.
 

TORONTO — Misinformation in pediatric medicine, like other areas of medicine, is widely regarded as a major public health threat, but the good news is that a new survey reveals that pediatricians still believe their counsel is respected by patients and families.

Despite acknowledging that health misinformation is on the rise, “nearly all the pediatricians we surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that their patients consider them a trusted information source,” reported Elizabeth A. Gottschlich, MA, a senior research associate with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Itasca, Illinois.

These data were generated by an ongoing cohort analysis called the Pediatricians Life and Career Experience Study (PLACES). Each year, two surveys are conducted with three groups of pediatricians in this cohort. They are defined by years in which they graduated from residency (2002-2004, 2009-2011, or 2016-2018).

While the longer survey of the two captures an array of issues regarding life and practice, the shorter “checkpoint” survey addresses a high-priority topic. In 2023, it was health misinformation. The data from this survey were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

About 40% of the 2706 pediatricians who completed this particular survey (just over 65% of the participants in PLACES) were general pediatricians, 50% were pediatric subspecialists, and 10% were hospitalists.

Almost all of the survey questions were answered on a five-point Likert scale.
 

A Matter of Trust

According to Ms. Gottschlich, approximately 80% of pediatricians agreed or strongly agreed that misinformation is a clinical issue for them. About one third of these strongly agreed, and only 6% disagreed.

There was also strong consensus that the problem has grown worse since the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. To this statement, 70% agreed or strongly agreed and 24% did not agree or disagree. Only 4% disagreed.

However, relatively few respondents appeared to be concerned about the ability of pediatricians to address the problem of misinformation, Ms. Gottschlich reported.

When asked to respond to the statement that the “community recognizes and uses pediatricians as trusted source for health information,” 87% agreed or strongly agreed. Of the remaining, 9% did not agree or disagree, leaving just 4% that disagreed or strongly disagreed.

For a similar but slightly different question, the consensus was even greater. To the statement “patients/families in your practice seek your input as a trusted source for health information,” 94% agreed or strongly agreed.
 

Encountering Misinformation

The survey went on to ask pediatricians about encounters with misinformation for seven specific issues. On the five-point Likert scale, the choices ranged from a few times per year to every day.

For reproductive health, gender-affirming care, and firearm injury prevention, about 80% of respondents answered at the very low end of the scale, meaning no more than about once per month. Encounters with misinformation was slightly greater with autism; nearly one third responded that they encountered misinformation once a week or more frequently.

For all three questions regarding vaccines, the proportions climbed substantially. Of these, the COVID-19 vaccine was the most common topic of misinformation, with more than half reporting that they addressed incorrect information once a week or more. Seven percent reported this occurs daily.

Nearly 40% of pediatricians responded that they dealt with misinformation about the HPV vaccine once per week or more, while 35% reported that they encountered misinformation this frequently about routine childhood vaccines. There was a small but not necessarily trivial proportion for each of these categories of vaccine who reported that they encountered misinformation on a daily basis.

When stratified by clinical focus, the encounters varied. For the COVID-19 vaccine, general pediatricians (67%) were far more likely to report addressing misinformation on a weekly or more frequent basis than hospitalists (39%) or subspecialists (46%). They were more than twice as likely to encounter misinformation about the HPV vaccine than hospitalists or pediatric subspecialists (46%, 17%, and 19%, respectively).

When stratified by urban, suburban, or rural practice areas, differences were relatively modest. Pediatricians in urban practices were less likely to face misinformation about HPV vaccine (29% vs 44% and 48% for suburban and rural areas, respectively), while pediatricians in rural practice were more likely to face misinformation about routine childhood vaccines (60% vs 33% and 35% for urban and suburban practices, respectively).

Differences were even narrower when misinformation encounters were compared among the West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. For the threshold of once per week or more commonly, misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine was less common in the South (50% vs 55%-58% in the other areas), while misinformation about routine childhood vaccines was more commonly encountered in the West (41% vs 32%-35% in the other areas).
 

A Growing Problem

The confidence among pediatricians that their knowledge is valued is reassuring, according to Ms. Gottschlich, who noted that the U.S. Surgeon General declared health misinformation a serious threat to public health in 2021, but the problem of misinformation is growing, according to several sources.

One of these sources, at least in regard to adolescent health, appears to be social media, according to a recently published review article in JAMA Pediatrics. The lead author of that article, Monica L. Wang, DSc, has dual academic appointments at the Boston University School of Public Health and Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Asked for a comment on this issue, she suggested that it might not be enough to just respond to misinformation but rather might be better to develop a dialogue that will reveal misconceptions.

“Just as they screen for preventive issues like seat belt use, sunscreen, and safe sex practices, [pediatricians should integrate] questions about health misinformation into visits, which can be a natural and effective way to encourage dialogue, proactively share accurate information, and promote well-being,” she said.

Agreeing with the premise that pediatricians are a credible source of information for parents and children, Dr. Wang very much endorses the principle that “pediatricians can play a critical role in addressing health misinformation.”

Ms. Gottschlich and Dr. Wang report no potential conflicts of interest.
 

TORONTO — Misinformation in pediatric medicine, like other areas of medicine, is widely regarded as a major public health threat, but the good news is that a new survey reveals that pediatricians still believe their counsel is respected by patients and families.

Despite acknowledging that health misinformation is on the rise, “nearly all the pediatricians we surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that their patients consider them a trusted information source,” reported Elizabeth A. Gottschlich, MA, a senior research associate with the American Academy of Pediatrics, Itasca, Illinois.

These data were generated by an ongoing cohort analysis called the Pediatricians Life and Career Experience Study (PLACES). Each year, two surveys are conducted with three groups of pediatricians in this cohort. They are defined by years in which they graduated from residency (2002-2004, 2009-2011, or 2016-2018).

While the longer survey of the two captures an array of issues regarding life and practice, the shorter “checkpoint” survey addresses a high-priority topic. In 2023, it was health misinformation. The data from this survey were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

About 40% of the 2706 pediatricians who completed this particular survey (just over 65% of the participants in PLACES) were general pediatricians, 50% were pediatric subspecialists, and 10% were hospitalists.

Almost all of the survey questions were answered on a five-point Likert scale.
 

A Matter of Trust

According to Ms. Gottschlich, approximately 80% of pediatricians agreed or strongly agreed that misinformation is a clinical issue for them. About one third of these strongly agreed, and only 6% disagreed.

There was also strong consensus that the problem has grown worse since the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. To this statement, 70% agreed or strongly agreed and 24% did not agree or disagree. Only 4% disagreed.

However, relatively few respondents appeared to be concerned about the ability of pediatricians to address the problem of misinformation, Ms. Gottschlich reported.

When asked to respond to the statement that the “community recognizes and uses pediatricians as trusted source for health information,” 87% agreed or strongly agreed. Of the remaining, 9% did not agree or disagree, leaving just 4% that disagreed or strongly disagreed.

For a similar but slightly different question, the consensus was even greater. To the statement “patients/families in your practice seek your input as a trusted source for health information,” 94% agreed or strongly agreed.
 

Encountering Misinformation

The survey went on to ask pediatricians about encounters with misinformation for seven specific issues. On the five-point Likert scale, the choices ranged from a few times per year to every day.

For reproductive health, gender-affirming care, and firearm injury prevention, about 80% of respondents answered at the very low end of the scale, meaning no more than about once per month. Encounters with misinformation was slightly greater with autism; nearly one third responded that they encountered misinformation once a week or more frequently.

For all three questions regarding vaccines, the proportions climbed substantially. Of these, the COVID-19 vaccine was the most common topic of misinformation, with more than half reporting that they addressed incorrect information once a week or more. Seven percent reported this occurs daily.

Nearly 40% of pediatricians responded that they dealt with misinformation about the HPV vaccine once per week or more, while 35% reported that they encountered misinformation this frequently about routine childhood vaccines. There was a small but not necessarily trivial proportion for each of these categories of vaccine who reported that they encountered misinformation on a daily basis.

When stratified by clinical focus, the encounters varied. For the COVID-19 vaccine, general pediatricians (67%) were far more likely to report addressing misinformation on a weekly or more frequent basis than hospitalists (39%) or subspecialists (46%). They were more than twice as likely to encounter misinformation about the HPV vaccine than hospitalists or pediatric subspecialists (46%, 17%, and 19%, respectively).

When stratified by urban, suburban, or rural practice areas, differences were relatively modest. Pediatricians in urban practices were less likely to face misinformation about HPV vaccine (29% vs 44% and 48% for suburban and rural areas, respectively), while pediatricians in rural practice were more likely to face misinformation about routine childhood vaccines (60% vs 33% and 35% for urban and suburban practices, respectively).

Differences were even narrower when misinformation encounters were compared among the West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. For the threshold of once per week or more commonly, misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine was less common in the South (50% vs 55%-58% in the other areas), while misinformation about routine childhood vaccines was more commonly encountered in the West (41% vs 32%-35% in the other areas).
 

A Growing Problem

The confidence among pediatricians that their knowledge is valued is reassuring, according to Ms. Gottschlich, who noted that the U.S. Surgeon General declared health misinformation a serious threat to public health in 2021, but the problem of misinformation is growing, according to several sources.

One of these sources, at least in regard to adolescent health, appears to be social media, according to a recently published review article in JAMA Pediatrics. The lead author of that article, Monica L. Wang, DSc, has dual academic appointments at the Boston University School of Public Health and Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. Asked for a comment on this issue, she suggested that it might not be enough to just respond to misinformation but rather might be better to develop a dialogue that will reveal misconceptions.

“Just as they screen for preventive issues like seat belt use, sunscreen, and safe sex practices, [pediatricians should integrate] questions about health misinformation into visits, which can be a natural and effective way to encourage dialogue, proactively share accurate information, and promote well-being,” she said.

Agreeing with the premise that pediatricians are a credible source of information for parents and children, Dr. Wang very much endorses the principle that “pediatricians can play a critical role in addressing health misinformation.”

Ms. Gottschlich and Dr. Wang report no potential conflicts of interest.
 

DENVER — A retrospective analysis of pediatric patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) suggests that the antiseizure medication cenobamate (SK Life Sciences) in combination with existing lines of therapy may be associated with fewer hospital in-patient days and emergency room visits. The conclusions were reached by comparing outcomes to patient historical data, though they were not analyzed statistically.

A Proof-of-Concept Study

In an interview, Karen Keough, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, conceded the key limitation was that the researchers were not able to perform statistical analysis due to the nature of the data. “It’s just showing trends. It’s proof of concept that cenobamate can be effective in one of the most refractory forms of epilepsy, which always includes focal seizures. That’s what led to the initial FDA indication, but we also know that this medication has a lot of promise and is probably going to be effective in other forms of epilepsy and probably in other seizure types,” said Dr. Keough, who is a neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Texas.

Although she has seen significant improvements in many patients, Dr. Keough reported that most patients become refractory again. “Unfortunately, honeymoons are probably real in cenobamate. Continuing to follow those patients as I do, since they’re my own patients, I have quite a few who had more than a year of seizure freedom, [but] their seizures are back, though not as bad as they were before cenobamate. I just can’t get them back to that 100% control category. I do have a few that are still in the 100% control category, but not very many,” she said.

She also presented a retrospective chart review of 36 LGS patients between the ages of 1 and 27 years at the American Epilepsy Society in December 2023, which showed that addition of cenobamate was associated with a reduction in seizure frequency in 85% of patients. “It was a profound number of patients who had long periods of seizure freedom,” she said.
 

A Promising Treatment Option

Dr. Keough is considering moving cenobamate up in the treatment sequence of new LGS patients. “I don’t use cenobamate first line in anyone because we have good first-line agents for simple epilepsy in Lennox-Gastaut, but I’m bringing out cenobamate pretty early in the course, because I do think it has superior efficacy compared with most other drugs that we have available. Most of my patients are very established and they’ve seen lots of other drugs. For many patients, there are only a couple of drugs left on the list that [they] have never tried, but we’re going to put cenobamate at the top of that. For my newer diagnoses, I’m going to bring it out much earlier,” she said, though other drugs such as clobazam (Onfi) would still rank ahead of cenobamate.

The study was drawn from records of the HealthVerity Marketplace Database, which includes more than 150 commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid payers. It included 76 patients aged 17 or under who took at least one antiseizure medication between May 2020 and December 2022, and who had filled at least two prescriptions of cenobamate and had 180 or more days of medical and pharmacy enrollment. The mean age was 13.4 years (5.3% 0-5 years, 15.8% 6-11 years, 78.9% 12-17 years), and 40.8% were female. Seizure types included absence (17.1%), focal (75.0%), and generalized tonic-clonic (86.8%). All patients had a history of intractable seizures, 80.3% had a history of status epilepticus, and 28.9% had a history of infantile seizures. A little more than one fourth (27.6%) of patients had commercial insurance. In the previous 90 days, 21.1% had had an emergency room visit or in-patient hospital stay.

Common antiseizure medications taken with cenobamate included cannabidiol (n = 14), clobazam (n = 8), and levetiracetam (n = 18).

During the cenobamate treatment period, patients had a lower incidence of epilepsy-related inpatient days per year (3.36 vs 3.94), epilepsy-related ER visits per year (0.66 vs 1.19), and likelihood of requiring a new line of epilepsy therapy (35.5% vs 100%).
 

‘Promising’ Results, but More Research Is Needed

The fact that cenobamate was used in combination with other therapies, plus the lack of a control group, makes it difficult to determine if cenobamate was actually responsible for the improvements, according to Nassim Zecavati, MD, who was asked for comment on the study. “I think the results are promising, but there’s obviously a need for a randomized, controlled trial to understand whether it was this medication or the combination of cenobamate with [other medications]. How do we know that this isn’t a compound effect, that it’s multifactorial, and a combination of multiple medications versus the cenobamate?” she said.

Still, she noted that LGS patients are highly vulnerable to hospital admissions and status epilepticus, making the parameters examined in the study valid and important. “I think that this drug likely has a role in the treatment of patients with LGS, particularly pediatric patients. I think we just need more data,” said Dr. Zecavati, who is director of Epilepsy at the Children’s Hospital of Richmond in Virginia and associate professor of Neurology at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Dr. Keough is a speaker for SK Life Sciences. Dr. Zecavati has no relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER — A retrospective analysis of pediatric patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) suggests that the antiseizure medication cenobamate (SK Life Sciences) in combination with existing lines of therapy may be associated with fewer hospital in-patient days and emergency room visits. The conclusions were reached by comparing outcomes to patient historical data, though they were not analyzed statistically.

A Proof-of-Concept Study

In an interview, Karen Keough, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, conceded the key limitation was that the researchers were not able to perform statistical analysis due to the nature of the data. “It’s just showing trends. It’s proof of concept that cenobamate can be effective in one of the most refractory forms of epilepsy, which always includes focal seizures. That’s what led to the initial FDA indication, but we also know that this medication has a lot of promise and is probably going to be effective in other forms of epilepsy and probably in other seizure types,” said Dr. Keough, who is a neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Texas.

Although she has seen significant improvements in many patients, Dr. Keough reported that most patients become refractory again. “Unfortunately, honeymoons are probably real in cenobamate. Continuing to follow those patients as I do, since they’re my own patients, I have quite a few who had more than a year of seizure freedom, [but] their seizures are back, though not as bad as they were before cenobamate. I just can’t get them back to that 100% control category. I do have a few that are still in the 100% control category, but not very many,” she said.

She also presented a retrospective chart review of 36 LGS patients between the ages of 1 and 27 years at the American Epilepsy Society in December 2023, which showed that addition of cenobamate was associated with a reduction in seizure frequency in 85% of patients. “It was a profound number of patients who had long periods of seizure freedom,” she said.
 

A Promising Treatment Option

Dr. Keough is considering moving cenobamate up in the treatment sequence of new LGS patients. “I don’t use cenobamate first line in anyone because we have good first-line agents for simple epilepsy in Lennox-Gastaut, but I’m bringing out cenobamate pretty early in the course, because I do think it has superior efficacy compared with most other drugs that we have available. Most of my patients are very established and they’ve seen lots of other drugs. For many patients, there are only a couple of drugs left on the list that [they] have never tried, but we’re going to put cenobamate at the top of that. For my newer diagnoses, I’m going to bring it out much earlier,” she said, though other drugs such as clobazam (Onfi) would still rank ahead of cenobamate.

The study was drawn from records of the HealthVerity Marketplace Database, which includes more than 150 commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid payers. It included 76 patients aged 17 or under who took at least one antiseizure medication between May 2020 and December 2022, and who had filled at least two prescriptions of cenobamate and had 180 or more days of medical and pharmacy enrollment. The mean age was 13.4 years (5.3% 0-5 years, 15.8% 6-11 years, 78.9% 12-17 years), and 40.8% were female. Seizure types included absence (17.1%), focal (75.0%), and generalized tonic-clonic (86.8%). All patients had a history of intractable seizures, 80.3% had a history of status epilepticus, and 28.9% had a history of infantile seizures. A little more than one fourth (27.6%) of patients had commercial insurance. In the previous 90 days, 21.1% had had an emergency room visit or in-patient hospital stay.

Common antiseizure medications taken with cenobamate included cannabidiol (n = 14), clobazam (n = 8), and levetiracetam (n = 18).

During the cenobamate treatment period, patients had a lower incidence of epilepsy-related inpatient days per year (3.36 vs 3.94), epilepsy-related ER visits per year (0.66 vs 1.19), and likelihood of requiring a new line of epilepsy therapy (35.5% vs 100%).
 

‘Promising’ Results, but More Research Is Needed

The fact that cenobamate was used in combination with other therapies, plus the lack of a control group, makes it difficult to determine if cenobamate was actually responsible for the improvements, according to Nassim Zecavati, MD, who was asked for comment on the study. “I think the results are promising, but there’s obviously a need for a randomized, controlled trial to understand whether it was this medication or the combination of cenobamate with [other medications]. How do we know that this isn’t a compound effect, that it’s multifactorial, and a combination of multiple medications versus the cenobamate?” she said.

Still, she noted that LGS patients are highly vulnerable to hospital admissions and status epilepticus, making the parameters examined in the study valid and important. “I think that this drug likely has a role in the treatment of patients with LGS, particularly pediatric patients. I think we just need more data,” said Dr. Zecavati, who is director of Epilepsy at the Children’s Hospital of Richmond in Virginia and associate professor of Neurology at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Dr. Keough is a speaker for SK Life Sciences. Dr. Zecavati has no relevant financial disclosures.

DENVER — A retrospective analysis of pediatric patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) suggests that the antiseizure medication cenobamate (SK Life Sciences) in combination with existing lines of therapy may be associated with fewer hospital in-patient days and emergency room visits. The conclusions were reached by comparing outcomes to patient historical data, though they were not analyzed statistically.

A Proof-of-Concept Study

In an interview, Karen Keough, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, conceded the key limitation was that the researchers were not able to perform statistical analysis due to the nature of the data. “It’s just showing trends. It’s proof of concept that cenobamate can be effective in one of the most refractory forms of epilepsy, which always includes focal seizures. That’s what led to the initial FDA indication, but we also know that this medication has a lot of promise and is probably going to be effective in other forms of epilepsy and probably in other seizure types,” said Dr. Keough, who is a neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Texas.

Although she has seen significant improvements in many patients, Dr. Keough reported that most patients become refractory again. “Unfortunately, honeymoons are probably real in cenobamate. Continuing to follow those patients as I do, since they’re my own patients, I have quite a few who had more than a year of seizure freedom, [but] their seizures are back, though not as bad as they were before cenobamate. I just can’t get them back to that 100% control category. I do have a few that are still in the 100% control category, but not very many,” she said.

She also presented a retrospective chart review of 36 LGS patients between the ages of 1 and 27 years at the American Epilepsy Society in December 2023, which showed that addition of cenobamate was associated with a reduction in seizure frequency in 85% of patients. “It was a profound number of patients who had long periods of seizure freedom,” she said.
 

A Promising Treatment Option

Dr. Keough is considering moving cenobamate up in the treatment sequence of new LGS patients. “I don’t use cenobamate first line in anyone because we have good first-line agents for simple epilepsy in Lennox-Gastaut, but I’m bringing out cenobamate pretty early in the course, because I do think it has superior efficacy compared with most other drugs that we have available. Most of my patients are very established and they’ve seen lots of other drugs. For many patients, there are only a couple of drugs left on the list that [they] have never tried, but we’re going to put cenobamate at the top of that. For my newer diagnoses, I’m going to bring it out much earlier,” she said, though other drugs such as clobazam (Onfi) would still rank ahead of cenobamate.

The study was drawn from records of the HealthVerity Marketplace Database, which includes more than 150 commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid payers. It included 76 patients aged 17 or under who took at least one antiseizure medication between May 2020 and December 2022, and who had filled at least two prescriptions of cenobamate and had 180 or more days of medical and pharmacy enrollment. The mean age was 13.4 years (5.3% 0-5 years, 15.8% 6-11 years, 78.9% 12-17 years), and 40.8% were female. Seizure types included absence (17.1%), focal (75.0%), and generalized tonic-clonic (86.8%). All patients had a history of intractable seizures, 80.3% had a history of status epilepticus, and 28.9% had a history of infantile seizures. A little more than one fourth (27.6%) of patients had commercial insurance. In the previous 90 days, 21.1% had had an emergency room visit or in-patient hospital stay.

Common antiseizure medications taken with cenobamate included cannabidiol (n = 14), clobazam (n = 8), and levetiracetam (n = 18).

During the cenobamate treatment period, patients had a lower incidence of epilepsy-related inpatient days per year (3.36 vs 3.94), epilepsy-related ER visits per year (0.66 vs 1.19), and likelihood of requiring a new line of epilepsy therapy (35.5% vs 100%).
 

‘Promising’ Results, but More Research Is Needed

The fact that cenobamate was used in combination with other therapies, plus the lack of a control group, makes it difficult to determine if cenobamate was actually responsible for the improvements, according to Nassim Zecavati, MD, who was asked for comment on the study. “I think the results are promising, but there’s obviously a need for a randomized, controlled trial to understand whether it was this medication or the combination of cenobamate with [other medications]. How do we know that this isn’t a compound effect, that it’s multifactorial, and a combination of multiple medications versus the cenobamate?” she said.

Still, she noted that LGS patients are highly vulnerable to hospital admissions and status epilepticus, making the parameters examined in the study valid and important. “I think that this drug likely has a role in the treatment of patients with LGS, particularly pediatric patients. I think we just need more data,” said Dr. Zecavati, who is director of Epilepsy at the Children’s Hospital of Richmond in Virginia and associate professor of Neurology at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Dr. Keough is a speaker for SK Life Sciences. Dr. Zecavati has no relevant financial disclosures.

The relatively new antibiotic cefiderocol given in the form of eye drops may be a way to combat a type of ocular infection that broke out in the United States last year, according to research presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO).

The infections, linked to contaminated bottles of artificial tears, were detected in 81 patients in 18 states. The outbreak led to loss of vision in 14 patients, surgical removal of the eyeball in four patients, and four deaths, according to health officials. 

An extensively drug-resistant strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa that had not previously been reported in the country caused the infections. Scientists cautioned last year that the bacteria potentially could spread from person to person. 

At ARVO on May 6, Eric G. Romanowski, MS, research director of the Charles T. Campbell Ophthalmic Microbiology Laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, described studies that his lab conducted evaluating topical cefiderocol as a potential treatment option for these infections (Abstract 2095).

Investigators had found that the bacterial strain was susceptible to this medication, which was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019 as a treatment for complicated urinary tract infections. But the antibiotic had not been tested as an eye drop.

“We showed that the ‘Trojan-horse’ antibiotic, cefiderocol … was non-toxic and effective against the highly resistant outbreak strain in an experimental model of infection,” Dr. Romanowski and co–lead investigator Robert M. Q. Shanks, PhD, said in a statement about their research. “These results demonstrate that topical cefiderocol could be a new weapon in the ophthalmologist’s arsenal for the treatment of corneal infections caused by highly antibiotic-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.”
 

Experimental Models

Dr. Romanowski’s group, with colleagues at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth University, Hanover, New Hampshire, used minimum inhibitory concentration testing to evaluate the effectiveness of cefiderocol against 135 isolates from eye infections. They also tested ocular toxicity and antibiotic efficacy of cefiderocol eye drops in a rabbit model of keratitis caused by the bacterial strain.

Cefiderocol was “well tolerated on rabbit corneas,” they reported. It also was effective in vitro against the isolates and in vivo in the rabbit model of keratitis.

They first published their findings as a preprint in September 2023 and then in Ophthalmology Science in December.

 

A ‘Duty to the Profession’

Their paper noted that “there is no current consensus as to the most effective antimicrobial strategy to deal with” extensively drug-resistant keratitis.

During the outbreak, clinicians tried various treatment regimens, with mixed results. In one case, a combination of intravenous cefiderocol and other topical and oral medications appeared to be successful.

Dr. Romanowski’s team decided to test cefiderocol drops with their own resources “as a duty to the profession,” he said. “Not many labs do these types of studies.”

“We would like to see further development of this antibiotic for potential use,” Dr. Romanowski added. “It would be up to any individual clinician to determine whether to use this antibiotic in an emergency situation.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The relatively new antibiotic cefiderocol given in the form of eye drops may be a way to combat a type of ocular infection that broke out in the United States last year, according to research presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO).

The infections, linked to contaminated bottles of artificial tears, were detected in 81 patients in 18 states. The outbreak led to loss of vision in 14 patients, surgical removal of the eyeball in four patients, and four deaths, according to health officials. 

An extensively drug-resistant strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa that had not previously been reported in the country caused the infections. Scientists cautioned last year that the bacteria potentially could spread from person to person. 

At ARVO on May 6, Eric G. Romanowski, MS, research director of the Charles T. Campbell Ophthalmic Microbiology Laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, described studies that his lab conducted evaluating topical cefiderocol as a potential treatment option for these infections (Abstract 2095).

Investigators had found that the bacterial strain was susceptible to this medication, which was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019 as a treatment for complicated urinary tract infections. But the antibiotic had not been tested as an eye drop.

“We showed that the ‘Trojan-horse’ antibiotic, cefiderocol … was non-toxic and effective against the highly resistant outbreak strain in an experimental model of infection,” Dr. Romanowski and co–lead investigator Robert M. Q. Shanks, PhD, said in a statement about their research. “These results demonstrate that topical cefiderocol could be a new weapon in the ophthalmologist’s arsenal for the treatment of corneal infections caused by highly antibiotic-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.”
 

Experimental Models

Dr. Romanowski’s group, with colleagues at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth University, Hanover, New Hampshire, used minimum inhibitory concentration testing to evaluate the effectiveness of cefiderocol against 135 isolates from eye infections. They also tested ocular toxicity and antibiotic efficacy of cefiderocol eye drops in a rabbit model of keratitis caused by the bacterial strain.

Cefiderocol was “well tolerated on rabbit corneas,” they reported. It also was effective in vitro against the isolates and in vivo in the rabbit model of keratitis.

They first published their findings as a preprint in September 2023 and then in Ophthalmology Science in December.

 

A ‘Duty to the Profession’

Their paper noted that “there is no current consensus as to the most effective antimicrobial strategy to deal with” extensively drug-resistant keratitis.

During the outbreak, clinicians tried various treatment regimens, with mixed results. In one case, a combination of intravenous cefiderocol and other topical and oral medications appeared to be successful.

Dr. Romanowski’s team decided to test cefiderocol drops with their own resources “as a duty to the profession,” he said. “Not many labs do these types of studies.”

“We would like to see further development of this antibiotic for potential use,” Dr. Romanowski added. “It would be up to any individual clinician to determine whether to use this antibiotic in an emergency situation.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The relatively new antibiotic cefiderocol given in the form of eye drops may be a way to combat a type of ocular infection that broke out in the United States last year, according to research presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO).

The infections, linked to contaminated bottles of artificial tears, were detected in 81 patients in 18 states. The outbreak led to loss of vision in 14 patients, surgical removal of the eyeball in four patients, and four deaths, according to health officials. 

An extensively drug-resistant strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa that had not previously been reported in the country caused the infections. Scientists cautioned last year that the bacteria potentially could spread from person to person. 

At ARVO on May 6, Eric G. Romanowski, MS, research director of the Charles T. Campbell Ophthalmic Microbiology Laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, described studies that his lab conducted evaluating topical cefiderocol as a potential treatment option for these infections (Abstract 2095).

Investigators had found that the bacterial strain was susceptible to this medication, which was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019 as a treatment for complicated urinary tract infections. But the antibiotic had not been tested as an eye drop.

“We showed that the ‘Trojan-horse’ antibiotic, cefiderocol … was non-toxic and effective against the highly resistant outbreak strain in an experimental model of infection,” Dr. Romanowski and co–lead investigator Robert M. Q. Shanks, PhD, said in a statement about their research. “These results demonstrate that topical cefiderocol could be a new weapon in the ophthalmologist’s arsenal for the treatment of corneal infections caused by highly antibiotic-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.”
 

Experimental Models

Dr. Romanowski’s group, with colleagues at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth University, Hanover, New Hampshire, used minimum inhibitory concentration testing to evaluate the effectiveness of cefiderocol against 135 isolates from eye infections. They also tested ocular toxicity and antibiotic efficacy of cefiderocol eye drops in a rabbit model of keratitis caused by the bacterial strain.

Cefiderocol was “well tolerated on rabbit corneas,” they reported. It also was effective in vitro against the isolates and in vivo in the rabbit model of keratitis.

They first published their findings as a preprint in September 2023 and then in Ophthalmology Science in December.

 

A ‘Duty to the Profession’

Their paper noted that “there is no current consensus as to the most effective antimicrobial strategy to deal with” extensively drug-resistant keratitis.

During the outbreak, clinicians tried various treatment regimens, with mixed results. In one case, a combination of intravenous cefiderocol and other topical and oral medications appeared to be successful.

Dr. Romanowski’s team decided to test cefiderocol drops with their own resources “as a duty to the profession,” he said. “Not many labs do these types of studies.”

“We would like to see further development of this antibiotic for potential use,” Dr. Romanowski added. “It would be up to any individual clinician to determine whether to use this antibiotic in an emergency situation.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — The diabetes/weight loss drug semaglutide is associated with a significantly greater risk for repeat operations in patients with diabetes who require lumbar surgery, a new study suggests.

The risk for additional surgeries was even higher among patients taking the popular weight loss and diabetes drug for longer periods of time.

Investigators say the study provides the first evidence on the impact of semaglutide on spine surgery. 

“The expectation was [that] we would see patients doing better after surgery, less wound complications, and other things, and in our diabetic patients we did not see that and saw increased odds of needing additional surgeries,” investigator Syed I. Khalid, MD, neurosurgery resident at University of Illinois Chicago, told this news organization.

The findings were presented on May 3 at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 Annual Meeting.
 

Additional Surgery at Year 1

The new study used the all-payer Mariner database to identify patients aged 18-74 years with type 2 diabetes who underwent elective one- to three-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs) between January 2018 and October 2022. 

Patients were matched in a 3:1 ratio for age, sex, hypertension, obesity, smoking history, chronic kidney disease, osteoporosis, insulin use, and spinal fusion level, resulting in 447 patients with semaglutide use and 1334 with no semaglutide use. More than half (56%) were female, 62% used insulin, and 81% underwent single-level TLIF.

Total medical complications were higher in the semaglutide group, at 13.4%, compared with 7.7% in the no-semaglutide group (odds ratio [OR], 1.85). This was driven by higher rates of urinary tract infection (6.7% vs 2.5%) and acute kidney injury (6.3% vs 3.9%), two complications observed with semaglutide in other studies, Dr. Khalid said.

Total surgical complications, however, were lower in patients taking semaglutide, at 3.8% vs 5.2% in those who did not (OR, 0.73). 

Patients taking semaglutide vs those who were not using semaglutide had fewer wound healing complications (5 vs 31), hematoma (1 vs 9), surgical-site infections (12 vs 44), and cerebrospinal fluid leaks (2 vs 3).

Still, people taking semaglutide were nearly 12 times more likely to have an additional lumbar surgery at 1 year than did those who did not use the drug (27.3% vs 3.1%; OR, 11.79; 95% CI, 8.17-17.33).

Kaplan-Meier plots revealed a striking divergence of these populations when semaglutide exposure for more than or less than 9 months was examined (log-rank P < .0001).

Currently under review for publication, this study provides the first evidence on the impact of semaglutide on spine surgery, Dr. Khalid said. A second follow-up paper, also under review, looked only at patients with patients morbidly obesity without diabetes who had taken semaglutide for weight loss. 

“In nondiabetic, morbidly obese patients undergoing spine surgery, we see a similar trend,” Dr. Khalid said.
 

Sarcopenia the Cause?

The additional surgeries were primarily extensions of constructs, with additional surgery and fusion at more levels, Dr. Khalid noted. 

“The idea is that it could be the fact there is sarcopenia or muscle loss that’s taking place in conjunction with fat loss that’s causing that to happen,” Dr. Khalid said.

The mechanism remains speculative, but evidence from other areas examining frailty states has shown that those patients have weaker bones, sarcopenia, and worse outcomes with spine surgery, he noted. 

The investigators plan to use artificial intelligence to evaluate changes in body composition after semaglutide use in patients who underwent imaging prior to spine surgery or even before back pain occurred. Because these medications are uptitrated over time, follow-up studies will also look at whether this change takes place with a certain dose, Dr. Khalid added. 

On the basis of the current analysis of generic semaglutide alone, it’s not possible to say whether the use of other glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists will result in similar findings, but “the odds of a class effect are high,” Dr. Khalid said. 

Commenting on the findings, Walavan Sivakumar, MD, director of neurosurgery at Pacific Neuroscience Institute, Los Angeles, noted that the timing of surgery is already an issue for patients taking semaglutide and other GLP-1 receptor agonists following recent guidance from the American Society of Anesthesiologists that suggests stopping GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to elective surgery to reduce the risk for complications associated with anesthesia.

“It’s an incredibly topical point and seems to be something showing up on a daily basis for clinicians all throughout neurosurgery,” Dr. Sivakumar said. “It’s thought-provoking and a great first start.” 

Dr. Sivakumar also observed that frailty is a hot topic in all of neurosurgery. “That’s a major, major point that’s showing an impact on all surgical outcomes and it’s being heavily studied in the neurosurgical subsets right now. So that’s definitely a possible correlating factor.”

Dr. Khalid reported no financial relationships. Dr. Sivakumar reported serving as a consultant for Stryker. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — The diabetes/weight loss drug semaglutide is associated with a significantly greater risk for repeat operations in patients with diabetes who require lumbar surgery, a new study suggests.

The risk for additional surgeries was even higher among patients taking the popular weight loss and diabetes drug for longer periods of time.

Investigators say the study provides the first evidence on the impact of semaglutide on spine surgery. 

“The expectation was [that] we would see patients doing better after surgery, less wound complications, and other things, and in our diabetic patients we did not see that and saw increased odds of needing additional surgeries,” investigator Syed I. Khalid, MD, neurosurgery resident at University of Illinois Chicago, told this news organization.

The findings were presented on May 3 at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 Annual Meeting.
 

Additional Surgery at Year 1

The new study used the all-payer Mariner database to identify patients aged 18-74 years with type 2 diabetes who underwent elective one- to three-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs) between January 2018 and October 2022. 

Patients were matched in a 3:1 ratio for age, sex, hypertension, obesity, smoking history, chronic kidney disease, osteoporosis, insulin use, and spinal fusion level, resulting in 447 patients with semaglutide use and 1334 with no semaglutide use. More than half (56%) were female, 62% used insulin, and 81% underwent single-level TLIF.

Total medical complications were higher in the semaglutide group, at 13.4%, compared with 7.7% in the no-semaglutide group (odds ratio [OR], 1.85). This was driven by higher rates of urinary tract infection (6.7% vs 2.5%) and acute kidney injury (6.3% vs 3.9%), two complications observed with semaglutide in other studies, Dr. Khalid said.

Total surgical complications, however, were lower in patients taking semaglutide, at 3.8% vs 5.2% in those who did not (OR, 0.73). 

Patients taking semaglutide vs those who were not using semaglutide had fewer wound healing complications (5 vs 31), hematoma (1 vs 9), surgical-site infections (12 vs 44), and cerebrospinal fluid leaks (2 vs 3).

Still, people taking semaglutide were nearly 12 times more likely to have an additional lumbar surgery at 1 year than did those who did not use the drug (27.3% vs 3.1%; OR, 11.79; 95% CI, 8.17-17.33).

Kaplan-Meier plots revealed a striking divergence of these populations when semaglutide exposure for more than or less than 9 months was examined (log-rank P < .0001).

Currently under review for publication, this study provides the first evidence on the impact of semaglutide on spine surgery, Dr. Khalid said. A second follow-up paper, also under review, looked only at patients with patients morbidly obesity without diabetes who had taken semaglutide for weight loss. 

“In nondiabetic, morbidly obese patients undergoing spine surgery, we see a similar trend,” Dr. Khalid said.
 

Sarcopenia the Cause?

The additional surgeries were primarily extensions of constructs, with additional surgery and fusion at more levels, Dr. Khalid noted. 

“The idea is that it could be the fact there is sarcopenia or muscle loss that’s taking place in conjunction with fat loss that’s causing that to happen,” Dr. Khalid said.

The mechanism remains speculative, but evidence from other areas examining frailty states has shown that those patients have weaker bones, sarcopenia, and worse outcomes with spine surgery, he noted. 

The investigators plan to use artificial intelligence to evaluate changes in body composition after semaglutide use in patients who underwent imaging prior to spine surgery or even before back pain occurred. Because these medications are uptitrated over time, follow-up studies will also look at whether this change takes place with a certain dose, Dr. Khalid added. 

On the basis of the current analysis of generic semaglutide alone, it’s not possible to say whether the use of other glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists will result in similar findings, but “the odds of a class effect are high,” Dr. Khalid said. 

Commenting on the findings, Walavan Sivakumar, MD, director of neurosurgery at Pacific Neuroscience Institute, Los Angeles, noted that the timing of surgery is already an issue for patients taking semaglutide and other GLP-1 receptor agonists following recent guidance from the American Society of Anesthesiologists that suggests stopping GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to elective surgery to reduce the risk for complications associated with anesthesia.

“It’s an incredibly topical point and seems to be something showing up on a daily basis for clinicians all throughout neurosurgery,” Dr. Sivakumar said. “It’s thought-provoking and a great first start.” 

Dr. Sivakumar also observed that frailty is a hot topic in all of neurosurgery. “That’s a major, major point that’s showing an impact on all surgical outcomes and it’s being heavily studied in the neurosurgical subsets right now. So that’s definitely a possible correlating factor.”

Dr. Khalid reported no financial relationships. Dr. Sivakumar reported serving as a consultant for Stryker. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — The diabetes/weight loss drug semaglutide is associated with a significantly greater risk for repeat operations in patients with diabetes who require lumbar surgery, a new study suggests.

The risk for additional surgeries was even higher among patients taking the popular weight loss and diabetes drug for longer periods of time.

Investigators say the study provides the first evidence on the impact of semaglutide on spine surgery. 

“The expectation was [that] we would see patients doing better after surgery, less wound complications, and other things, and in our diabetic patients we did not see that and saw increased odds of needing additional surgeries,” investigator Syed I. Khalid, MD, neurosurgery resident at University of Illinois Chicago, told this news organization.

The findings were presented on May 3 at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 Annual Meeting.
 

Additional Surgery at Year 1

The new study used the all-payer Mariner database to identify patients aged 18-74 years with type 2 diabetes who underwent elective one- to three-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs) between January 2018 and October 2022. 

Patients were matched in a 3:1 ratio for age, sex, hypertension, obesity, smoking history, chronic kidney disease, osteoporosis, insulin use, and spinal fusion level, resulting in 447 patients with semaglutide use and 1334 with no semaglutide use. More than half (56%) were female, 62% used insulin, and 81% underwent single-level TLIF.

Total medical complications were higher in the semaglutide group, at 13.4%, compared with 7.7% in the no-semaglutide group (odds ratio [OR], 1.85). This was driven by higher rates of urinary tract infection (6.7% vs 2.5%) and acute kidney injury (6.3% vs 3.9%), two complications observed with semaglutide in other studies, Dr. Khalid said.

Total surgical complications, however, were lower in patients taking semaglutide, at 3.8% vs 5.2% in those who did not (OR, 0.73). 

Patients taking semaglutide vs those who were not using semaglutide had fewer wound healing complications (5 vs 31), hematoma (1 vs 9), surgical-site infections (12 vs 44), and cerebrospinal fluid leaks (2 vs 3).

Still, people taking semaglutide were nearly 12 times more likely to have an additional lumbar surgery at 1 year than did those who did not use the drug (27.3% vs 3.1%; OR, 11.79; 95% CI, 8.17-17.33).

Kaplan-Meier plots revealed a striking divergence of these populations when semaglutide exposure for more than or less than 9 months was examined (log-rank P < .0001).

Currently under review for publication, this study provides the first evidence on the impact of semaglutide on spine surgery, Dr. Khalid said. A second follow-up paper, also under review, looked only at patients with patients morbidly obesity without diabetes who had taken semaglutide for weight loss. 

“In nondiabetic, morbidly obese patients undergoing spine surgery, we see a similar trend,” Dr. Khalid said.
 

Sarcopenia the Cause?

The additional surgeries were primarily extensions of constructs, with additional surgery and fusion at more levels, Dr. Khalid noted. 

“The idea is that it could be the fact there is sarcopenia or muscle loss that’s taking place in conjunction with fat loss that’s causing that to happen,” Dr. Khalid said.

The mechanism remains speculative, but evidence from other areas examining frailty states has shown that those patients have weaker bones, sarcopenia, and worse outcomes with spine surgery, he noted. 

The investigators plan to use artificial intelligence to evaluate changes in body composition after semaglutide use in patients who underwent imaging prior to spine surgery or even before back pain occurred. Because these medications are uptitrated over time, follow-up studies will also look at whether this change takes place with a certain dose, Dr. Khalid added. 

On the basis of the current analysis of generic semaglutide alone, it’s not possible to say whether the use of other glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists will result in similar findings, but “the odds of a class effect are high,” Dr. Khalid said. 

Commenting on the findings, Walavan Sivakumar, MD, director of neurosurgery at Pacific Neuroscience Institute, Los Angeles, noted that the timing of surgery is already an issue for patients taking semaglutide and other GLP-1 receptor agonists following recent guidance from the American Society of Anesthesiologists that suggests stopping GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to elective surgery to reduce the risk for complications associated with anesthesia.

“It’s an incredibly topical point and seems to be something showing up on a daily basis for clinicians all throughout neurosurgery,” Dr. Sivakumar said. “It’s thought-provoking and a great first start.” 

Dr. Sivakumar also observed that frailty is a hot topic in all of neurosurgery. “That’s a major, major point that’s showing an impact on all surgical outcomes and it’s being heavily studied in the neurosurgical subsets right now. So that’s definitely a possible correlating factor.”

Dr. Khalid reported no financial relationships. Dr. Sivakumar reported serving as a consultant for Stryker. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Data do not back the use of diacerein or resveratrol for managing the pain of knee osteoarthritis (OA), according to the results of two well-performed, multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trials.

During the News in Therapies session at the OARSI 2024 World Congress, the null findings of the DICKENS study and ARTHROL trial were presented alongside a reappraisal of the possible role of botulinum toxin.
 

DICKENS Study of Diacerein

“The role of diacerein in the treatment of OA is controversial,” acknowledged Dawn Aitken, PhD, associate professor at the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. “There are only a few acceptable quality trials to date, and the results are inconsistent,” Dr. Aitken added.

Indeed, a Cochrane review performed in 2014 had concluded that there was “low-quality evidence that diacerein had a small beneficial effect on pain,” she said. The reported overall effect size on a 100-mm visual analog scale, based on a meta-analysis of 10 trials, has been just −8.65 mm, equating to just a 9% pain reduction.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

ARTHROL Trial of Resveratrol

Similarly, negative results were reported for resveratrol from the ARTHROL trial, with 55% of the resveratrol- and 55% of placebo-treated individuals achieving a 20% reduction in knee pain intensity at 3 months. The actual change in knee pain from baseline to 3 months was −15.7 for resveratrol and −15.2 for placebo on a numerical rating scale that went from 0 (no pain) up to 100 (worst pain).

Resveratrol is found naturally in grapes, peanuts, pine cones, and Chinese knotweed, and there is a growing body of evidence that it may have pleiotropic effects, said investigator Christelle Nguyen, PhD, MD, a professor of physical and rehabilitation medicine at Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.

It’s available in a powder form over the counter as a treatment for multiple ailments, but more recently, became available as an oral formulation. Dr. Nguyen and colleagues wanted to know if this would make a difference to OA knee pain when added to usual care.

A double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized trial was therefore conducted that involved 142 people with knee OA who had been experiencing knee pain for at least 1 month. The participants were equally randomly allocated to receive either oral resveratrol given as two caplets of 20 mg twice daily for the first week, then once daily for a total of 6 months, or a matched placebo.

There was also no effect of resveratrol vs placebo on a host of secondary outcomes measured at 3 and 6 months.

The interpretation is that oral resveratrol may not be effective in this indication or have a biologic effect on the pain pathway, Dr. Nguyen said.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Botulinum Toxin: Over But Not Out?

Dr. Nguyen separately reported data from a new systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of intra-articular (IA) botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) for knee OA pain.

Seven of the 14 randomized controlled trials included in the meta-analysis had looked specifically at knee OA outcomes in the short, intermediate, and long term.

Results showed a nonsignificant trend favoring BoNT-A use, with the standard mean difference in pain of 0.35 (−0.82; 0.12), −0.27 (−0.61; 0.08), and −0.43 (−1.12; 0.26) for short-, intermediate-, and long-term use, respectively.

In contrast, pain reductions were seen with BoNT-A in three trials that included people with OA of the shoulder or base of the thumb. This begs the question as to whether botulinum toxin may still have a role to play, Dr. Nguyen said in an interview.

“It seems like there may be a positive effect for the shoulder joint and base of the thumb,” she told this news organization.

“So, basically, we found differences between large and small to intermediate joints,” Dr. Nguyen added. “It questions the dilution of botulinum toxin into the joint. If it’s a big joint, maybe the dilution is too high,” she suggested.

This hypothesis will be tested in the upcoming RHIBOT II trial that will begin recruitment later this year. This is a follow-on from the RHIBOT trial that was published in The Lancet Rheumatology 2 years ago.

Meanwhile, the use of botulinum toxin is off-label, Dr. Nguyen said. “We use it in our clinics only when first-line treatment had failed for base of thumb OA.” It’s not offered as a stand-alone intervention, and the IA injections need to be given by someone with experience, she said.
 

Methodologically Sound Studies

Commenting on the studies, Nancy E. Lane, MD, said: “There have been small botulinum studies before but not powered enough so that you could confirm or refute hypotheses.”

Dr. Lane, endowed professor of medicine, rheumatology, and aging research and director for the Center for Musculoskeletal Health at the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, added: “Similarly for resveratrol, there have been lots of studies.”

Moreover, Dr. Lane observed that the studies were “really well-designed. They were well-powered. The subjects were selected in such a way that was good rigor in the methodologic design, and there were enough people in the studies so that you could really believe the results.”

The take-home is probably that these approaches do not work, Dr. Lane said, “at least when you apply them to moderate-severe knee OA patients, they don’t seem to make a difference.”

The congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

The DICKENS study of diacerein was an investigator-initiated trial that was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. TRB Chemedica International S.A. provided diacerein free of charge for the trial but was not involved in the implementation or data analysis. Dr. Aitken had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The ARTHROL trial of oral resveratrol was funded by the French Ministry of Health and Solidarity (Ministré des Solidarités et de la Santé). Yvery Laboratory provided the resveratrol caplet and matching placebo free of charge. Dr. Nguyen has financial relationships with Actelion, Grünenthal, Ipsen, Lilly, Meda, Merz, Novartis, Preciphar, Sandoz, Takeda, Thuasne, and UCB.

Dr. Lane had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Data do not back the use of diacerein or resveratrol for managing the pain of knee osteoarthritis (OA), according to the results of two well-performed, multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trials.

During the News in Therapies session at the OARSI 2024 World Congress, the null findings of the DICKENS study and ARTHROL trial were presented alongside a reappraisal of the possible role of botulinum toxin.
 

DICKENS Study of Diacerein

“The role of diacerein in the treatment of OA is controversial,” acknowledged Dawn Aitken, PhD, associate professor at the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. “There are only a few acceptable quality trials to date, and the results are inconsistent,” Dr. Aitken added.

Indeed, a Cochrane review performed in 2014 had concluded that there was “low-quality evidence that diacerein had a small beneficial effect on pain,” she said. The reported overall effect size on a 100-mm visual analog scale, based on a meta-analysis of 10 trials, has been just −8.65 mm, equating to just a 9% pain reduction.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

ARTHROL Trial of Resveratrol

Similarly, negative results were reported for resveratrol from the ARTHROL trial, with 55% of the resveratrol- and 55% of placebo-treated individuals achieving a 20% reduction in knee pain intensity at 3 months. The actual change in knee pain from baseline to 3 months was −15.7 for resveratrol and −15.2 for placebo on a numerical rating scale that went from 0 (no pain) up to 100 (worst pain).

Resveratrol is found naturally in grapes, peanuts, pine cones, and Chinese knotweed, and there is a growing body of evidence that it may have pleiotropic effects, said investigator Christelle Nguyen, PhD, MD, a professor of physical and rehabilitation medicine at Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.

It’s available in a powder form over the counter as a treatment for multiple ailments, but more recently, became available as an oral formulation. Dr. Nguyen and colleagues wanted to know if this would make a difference to OA knee pain when added to usual care.

A double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized trial was therefore conducted that involved 142 people with knee OA who had been experiencing knee pain for at least 1 month. The participants were equally randomly allocated to receive either oral resveratrol given as two caplets of 20 mg twice daily for the first week, then once daily for a total of 6 months, or a matched placebo.

There was also no effect of resveratrol vs placebo on a host of secondary outcomes measured at 3 and 6 months.

The interpretation is that oral resveratrol may not be effective in this indication or have a biologic effect on the pain pathway, Dr. Nguyen said.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Botulinum Toxin: Over But Not Out?

Dr. Nguyen separately reported data from a new systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of intra-articular (IA) botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) for knee OA pain.

Seven of the 14 randomized controlled trials included in the meta-analysis had looked specifically at knee OA outcomes in the short, intermediate, and long term.

Results showed a nonsignificant trend favoring BoNT-A use, with the standard mean difference in pain of 0.35 (−0.82; 0.12), −0.27 (−0.61; 0.08), and −0.43 (−1.12; 0.26) for short-, intermediate-, and long-term use, respectively.

In contrast, pain reductions were seen with BoNT-A in three trials that included people with OA of the shoulder or base of the thumb. This begs the question as to whether botulinum toxin may still have a role to play, Dr. Nguyen said in an interview.

“It seems like there may be a positive effect for the shoulder joint and base of the thumb,” she told this news organization.

“So, basically, we found differences between large and small to intermediate joints,” Dr. Nguyen added. “It questions the dilution of botulinum toxin into the joint. If it’s a big joint, maybe the dilution is too high,” she suggested.

This hypothesis will be tested in the upcoming RHIBOT II trial that will begin recruitment later this year. This is a follow-on from the RHIBOT trial that was published in The Lancet Rheumatology 2 years ago.

Meanwhile, the use of botulinum toxin is off-label, Dr. Nguyen said. “We use it in our clinics only when first-line treatment had failed for base of thumb OA.” It’s not offered as a stand-alone intervention, and the IA injections need to be given by someone with experience, she said.
 

Methodologically Sound Studies

Commenting on the studies, Nancy E. Lane, MD, said: “There have been small botulinum studies before but not powered enough so that you could confirm or refute hypotheses.”

Dr. Lane, endowed professor of medicine, rheumatology, and aging research and director for the Center for Musculoskeletal Health at the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, added: “Similarly for resveratrol, there have been lots of studies.”

Moreover, Dr. Lane observed that the studies were “really well-designed. They were well-powered. The subjects were selected in such a way that was good rigor in the methodologic design, and there were enough people in the studies so that you could really believe the results.”

The take-home is probably that these approaches do not work, Dr. Lane said, “at least when you apply them to moderate-severe knee OA patients, they don’t seem to make a difference.”

The congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

The DICKENS study of diacerein was an investigator-initiated trial that was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. TRB Chemedica International S.A. provided diacerein free of charge for the trial but was not involved in the implementation or data analysis. Dr. Aitken had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The ARTHROL trial of oral resveratrol was funded by the French Ministry of Health and Solidarity (Ministré des Solidarités et de la Santé). Yvery Laboratory provided the resveratrol caplet and matching placebo free of charge. Dr. Nguyen has financial relationships with Actelion, Grünenthal, Ipsen, Lilly, Meda, Merz, Novartis, Preciphar, Sandoz, Takeda, Thuasne, and UCB.

Dr. Lane had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Data do not back the use of diacerein or resveratrol for managing the pain of knee osteoarthritis (OA), according to the results of two well-performed, multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trials.

During the News in Therapies session at the OARSI 2024 World Congress, the null findings of the DICKENS study and ARTHROL trial were presented alongside a reappraisal of the possible role of botulinum toxin.
 

DICKENS Study of Diacerein

“The role of diacerein in the treatment of OA is controversial,” acknowledged Dawn Aitken, PhD, associate professor at the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. “There are only a few acceptable quality trials to date, and the results are inconsistent,” Dr. Aitken added.

Indeed, a Cochrane review performed in 2014 had concluded that there was “low-quality evidence that diacerein had a small beneficial effect on pain,” she said. The reported overall effect size on a 100-mm visual analog scale, based on a meta-analysis of 10 trials, has been just −8.65 mm, equating to just a 9% pain reduction.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

ARTHROL Trial of Resveratrol

Similarly, negative results were reported for resveratrol from the ARTHROL trial, with 55% of the resveratrol- and 55% of placebo-treated individuals achieving a 20% reduction in knee pain intensity at 3 months. The actual change in knee pain from baseline to 3 months was −15.7 for resveratrol and −15.2 for placebo on a numerical rating scale that went from 0 (no pain) up to 100 (worst pain).

Resveratrol is found naturally in grapes, peanuts, pine cones, and Chinese knotweed, and there is a growing body of evidence that it may have pleiotropic effects, said investigator Christelle Nguyen, PhD, MD, a professor of physical and rehabilitation medicine at Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.

It’s available in a powder form over the counter as a treatment for multiple ailments, but more recently, became available as an oral formulation. Dr. Nguyen and colleagues wanted to know if this would make a difference to OA knee pain when added to usual care.

A double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized trial was therefore conducted that involved 142 people with knee OA who had been experiencing knee pain for at least 1 month. The participants were equally randomly allocated to receive either oral resveratrol given as two caplets of 20 mg twice daily for the first week, then once daily for a total of 6 months, or a matched placebo.

There was also no effect of resveratrol vs placebo on a host of secondary outcomes measured at 3 and 6 months.

The interpretation is that oral resveratrol may not be effective in this indication or have a biologic effect on the pain pathway, Dr. Nguyen said.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Botulinum Toxin: Over But Not Out?

Dr. Nguyen separately reported data from a new systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of intra-articular (IA) botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) for knee OA pain.

Seven of the 14 randomized controlled trials included in the meta-analysis had looked specifically at knee OA outcomes in the short, intermediate, and long term.

Results showed a nonsignificant trend favoring BoNT-A use, with the standard mean difference in pain of 0.35 (−0.82; 0.12), −0.27 (−0.61; 0.08), and −0.43 (−1.12; 0.26) for short-, intermediate-, and long-term use, respectively.

In contrast, pain reductions were seen with BoNT-A in three trials that included people with OA of the shoulder or base of the thumb. This begs the question as to whether botulinum toxin may still have a role to play, Dr. Nguyen said in an interview.

“It seems like there may be a positive effect for the shoulder joint and base of the thumb,” she told this news organization.

“So, basically, we found differences between large and small to intermediate joints,” Dr. Nguyen added. “It questions the dilution of botulinum toxin into the joint. If it’s a big joint, maybe the dilution is too high,” she suggested.

This hypothesis will be tested in the upcoming RHIBOT II trial that will begin recruitment later this year. This is a follow-on from the RHIBOT trial that was published in The Lancet Rheumatology 2 years ago.

Meanwhile, the use of botulinum toxin is off-label, Dr. Nguyen said. “We use it in our clinics only when first-line treatment had failed for base of thumb OA.” It’s not offered as a stand-alone intervention, and the IA injections need to be given by someone with experience, she said.
 

Methodologically Sound Studies

Commenting on the studies, Nancy E. Lane, MD, said: “There have been small botulinum studies before but not powered enough so that you could confirm or refute hypotheses.”

Dr. Lane, endowed professor of medicine, rheumatology, and aging research and director for the Center for Musculoskeletal Health at the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, added: “Similarly for resveratrol, there have been lots of studies.”

Moreover, Dr. Lane observed that the studies were “really well-designed. They were well-powered. The subjects were selected in such a way that was good rigor in the methodologic design, and there were enough people in the studies so that you could really believe the results.”

The take-home is probably that these approaches do not work, Dr. Lane said, “at least when you apply them to moderate-severe knee OA patients, they don’t seem to make a difference.”

The congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

The DICKENS study of diacerein was an investigator-initiated trial that was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. TRB Chemedica International S.A. provided diacerein free of charge for the trial but was not involved in the implementation or data analysis. Dr. Aitken had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The ARTHROL trial of oral resveratrol was funded by the French Ministry of Health and Solidarity (Ministré des Solidarités et de la Santé). Yvery Laboratory provided the resveratrol caplet and matching placebo free of charge. Dr. Nguyen has financial relationships with Actelion, Grünenthal, Ipsen, Lilly, Meda, Merz, Novartis, Preciphar, Sandoz, Takeda, Thuasne, and UCB.

Dr. Lane had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Four in five people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fall into “at risk” categories for the initiation of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), according to data from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) Biologics Register in RA (BSRBR-RA).

The EMA decided in January 2023 to implement measures to reduce the risk for serious side effects with JAK inhibitors in the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases. The EMA’s recommendations advise that JAK inhibitors “should be used in the following patients only if no suitable treatment alternatives are available: those aged 65 years or above, those at increased risk of major cardiovascular problems (such as heart attack or stroke), those who smoke or have done so for a long time in the past, and those at increased risk of cancer.” The guidance also says to use JAK inhibitors “with caution in patients with risk factors for blood clots in the lungs and in deep veins (venous thromboembolism [VTE]) ... [and that] the doses should be reduced in patient groups who are at risk of VTE, cancer, or major cardiovascular problems, where possible.”

To gauge the potential impact of the EMA’s decision, researchers analyzed BSRBR-RA data from 1341 individuals with RA who had started treatment with a JAK inhibitor before the agency issued its new recommendations. Among these individuals, 1075 (80.2%) met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion. Half (54%) were current or past smokers, 44% had an increased risk for major cardiovascular events such as heart attack or stroke, 39% were 65 years or older, and 10% had an increased risk for cancer.

Nearly half (49%) of the study population who met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion had received only one (31%) or no (18%) prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), Zixing Tian, a PhD student at the University of Manchester in England, reported at the  annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. Of the remainder, 23% had received two prior bDMARDs, and 28% had previously received three or more bDMARDs.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Considerable Implications

There are potentially two ways of interpreting these data, suggested Ken Baker, BMBCh, PhD, senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“One is that rheumatologists starting these treatments are throwing caution to the wind and ignoring all guidance,” Dr. Baker said.

“The second is perhaps that the EMA guidance is difficult to implement in practice when it involves lots of the comorbidities and risk factors that commonly affect patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in England, also commented on the findings.

Were Cautions Warranted?

Like the US Food and Drug Administration, the EMA has concerns over the use of JAK inhibitors because of the drugs’ potential to increase the risk for serious side effects such as VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, cancer, and all-cause mortality relative to tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors.

Initially, the EMA issued cautions that only related to the use of tofacitinib (Xeljanz), which was the first JAK inhibitor to gain approval for RA and other chronic inflammatory diseases in Europe, but this expanded to include baricitinib (Olumiant) and most recently any member of the drug class, including abrocitinib (Cibinqo), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and upadacitinib (Rinvoq).

The EMA has done a responsible job of looking at the available data and issuing cautions to protect the populations of patients who may be exposed to these drugs, Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, told this news organization. However, they are also severely restricting the populations of patients who can be treated with them. “It’s a complicated situation,” he said.

Shared Decision

“The issue for benefit and risk is there for any drug we use,” said Dr. Taylor, noting that there are over-the-counter drugs that can be “far more dangerous” than JAK inhibitors in terms of cardiovascular risk.

“In my opinion, the really key thing is to be able to communicate the issues with integrity, in a manner that the patient understands, to make sure that the risk is acceptable to them,” Dr. Taylor said.

It is all about optimizing treatment for an individual and proactively managing any other factors that may increase their personal risk for unwanted effects, Maya Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the University of Manchester, said during a debate at the meeting.

“We still have unmet needs for our patient population. Patients aren’t achieving the goals and endpoints that we need,” Dr. Buch said.

“Don’t lose sight of the positive attributes that we’ve seen with JAK inhibitors,” she advised.

“We presume we know what the patient thinks when it comes to a matter of risk assessment, but it is always about tailoring treatment to that individual, and we are sometimes surprised in terms of what the patients want, even in the face of apparent higher risk,” Dr. Buch added.
 

Judicious Use

Iain McInnes, MBChB, PhD, observed during the same debate that it was “hard to argue that drugs are generally unsafe when they have already been approved. It’s also challenging to suggest they are not useful when they are being used.”

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Dr. McInnes, honorary consultant rheumatologist and vice principal and head of the College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, pointed out that the EMA warnings assume that all JAK inhibitors are the same, but is that really the case? This is complex biochemistry, and could newer JAK inhibitors have an improved safety profile?

“There is no free ride in the immune system, and we should bear that in mind,” Dr. McInnes said. “These drugs work ... but we are absolutely flitting along the boundaries of the safety/efficacy window.”

Dr. McInnes told this news organization that clinicians do have to be cautious.

“There’s a paradox in that the very age group that the regulators are now asking us to be cautious about prescribing is pushing JAK inhibitors later and later in the disease course,” he said. This is a time when people would already have other risks for cardiovascular and other events.

“Overall, if used within the regulatory advice, Janus kinase inhibitors are a really useful drug class.”

The BSRBR-RA is funded by a grant from the BSR. The BSR currently receives funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and Sandoz and in the past from Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, SOBI, and UCB. This income finances a wholly separate contract between the BSR and the University of Manchester to host the BSRBR-RA. All decisions concerning study design, data capture, analyses, interpretation, and publication are made autonomously of any industrial contribution. Ms. Tian had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Emery disclosed ties to AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Samsung, and UCB. Dr. Taylor disclosed ties to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB. Dr. Buch disclosed ties to Gilead, AbbVie, Arxx Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, CESAS Medical, Galapagos, Gilead, MediStreams, and Pfizer. Dr. McInnes disclosed ties to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Compugen, Cabaletta Bio, Causeway, Dexterra, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Four in five people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fall into “at risk” categories for the initiation of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), according to data from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) Biologics Register in RA (BSRBR-RA).

The EMA decided in January 2023 to implement measures to reduce the risk for serious side effects with JAK inhibitors in the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases. The EMA’s recommendations advise that JAK inhibitors “should be used in the following patients only if no suitable treatment alternatives are available: those aged 65 years or above, those at increased risk of major cardiovascular problems (such as heart attack or stroke), those who smoke or have done so for a long time in the past, and those at increased risk of cancer.” The guidance also says to use JAK inhibitors “with caution in patients with risk factors for blood clots in the lungs and in deep veins (venous thromboembolism [VTE]) ... [and that] the doses should be reduced in patient groups who are at risk of VTE, cancer, or major cardiovascular problems, where possible.”

To gauge the potential impact of the EMA’s decision, researchers analyzed BSRBR-RA data from 1341 individuals with RA who had started treatment with a JAK inhibitor before the agency issued its new recommendations. Among these individuals, 1075 (80.2%) met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion. Half (54%) were current or past smokers, 44% had an increased risk for major cardiovascular events such as heart attack or stroke, 39% were 65 years or older, and 10% had an increased risk for cancer.

Nearly half (49%) of the study population who met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion had received only one (31%) or no (18%) prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), Zixing Tian, a PhD student at the University of Manchester in England, reported at the  annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. Of the remainder, 23% had received two prior bDMARDs, and 28% had previously received three or more bDMARDs.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Considerable Implications

There are potentially two ways of interpreting these data, suggested Ken Baker, BMBCh, PhD, senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“One is that rheumatologists starting these treatments are throwing caution to the wind and ignoring all guidance,” Dr. Baker said.

“The second is perhaps that the EMA guidance is difficult to implement in practice when it involves lots of the comorbidities and risk factors that commonly affect patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in England, also commented on the findings.

Were Cautions Warranted?

Like the US Food and Drug Administration, the EMA has concerns over the use of JAK inhibitors because of the drugs’ potential to increase the risk for serious side effects such as VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, cancer, and all-cause mortality relative to tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors.

Initially, the EMA issued cautions that only related to the use of tofacitinib (Xeljanz), which was the first JAK inhibitor to gain approval for RA and other chronic inflammatory diseases in Europe, but this expanded to include baricitinib (Olumiant) and most recently any member of the drug class, including abrocitinib (Cibinqo), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and upadacitinib (Rinvoq).

The EMA has done a responsible job of looking at the available data and issuing cautions to protect the populations of patients who may be exposed to these drugs, Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, told this news organization. However, they are also severely restricting the populations of patients who can be treated with them. “It’s a complicated situation,” he said.

Shared Decision

“The issue for benefit and risk is there for any drug we use,” said Dr. Taylor, noting that there are over-the-counter drugs that can be “far more dangerous” than JAK inhibitors in terms of cardiovascular risk.

“In my opinion, the really key thing is to be able to communicate the issues with integrity, in a manner that the patient understands, to make sure that the risk is acceptable to them,” Dr. Taylor said.

It is all about optimizing treatment for an individual and proactively managing any other factors that may increase their personal risk for unwanted effects, Maya Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the University of Manchester, said during a debate at the meeting.

“We still have unmet needs for our patient population. Patients aren’t achieving the goals and endpoints that we need,” Dr. Buch said.

“Don’t lose sight of the positive attributes that we’ve seen with JAK inhibitors,” she advised.

“We presume we know what the patient thinks when it comes to a matter of risk assessment, but it is always about tailoring treatment to that individual, and we are sometimes surprised in terms of what the patients want, even in the face of apparent higher risk,” Dr. Buch added.
 

Judicious Use

Iain McInnes, MBChB, PhD, observed during the same debate that it was “hard to argue that drugs are generally unsafe when they have already been approved. It’s also challenging to suggest they are not useful when they are being used.”

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Dr. McInnes, honorary consultant rheumatologist and vice principal and head of the College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, pointed out that the EMA warnings assume that all JAK inhibitors are the same, but is that really the case? This is complex biochemistry, and could newer JAK inhibitors have an improved safety profile?

“There is no free ride in the immune system, and we should bear that in mind,” Dr. McInnes said. “These drugs work ... but we are absolutely flitting along the boundaries of the safety/efficacy window.”

Dr. McInnes told this news organization that clinicians do have to be cautious.

“There’s a paradox in that the very age group that the regulators are now asking us to be cautious about prescribing is pushing JAK inhibitors later and later in the disease course,” he said. This is a time when people would already have other risks for cardiovascular and other events.

“Overall, if used within the regulatory advice, Janus kinase inhibitors are a really useful drug class.”

The BSRBR-RA is funded by a grant from the BSR. The BSR currently receives funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and Sandoz and in the past from Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, SOBI, and UCB. This income finances a wholly separate contract between the BSR and the University of Manchester to host the BSRBR-RA. All decisions concerning study design, data capture, analyses, interpretation, and publication are made autonomously of any industrial contribution. Ms. Tian had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Emery disclosed ties to AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Samsung, and UCB. Dr. Taylor disclosed ties to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB. Dr. Buch disclosed ties to Gilead, AbbVie, Arxx Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, CESAS Medical, Galapagos, Gilead, MediStreams, and Pfizer. Dr. McInnes disclosed ties to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Compugen, Cabaletta Bio, Causeway, Dexterra, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Four in five people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fall into “at risk” categories for the initiation of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), according to data from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) Biologics Register in RA (BSRBR-RA).

The EMA decided in January 2023 to implement measures to reduce the risk for serious side effects with JAK inhibitors in the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases. The EMA’s recommendations advise that JAK inhibitors “should be used in the following patients only if no suitable treatment alternatives are available: those aged 65 years or above, those at increased risk of major cardiovascular problems (such as heart attack or stroke), those who smoke or have done so for a long time in the past, and those at increased risk of cancer.” The guidance also says to use JAK inhibitors “with caution in patients with risk factors for blood clots in the lungs and in deep veins (venous thromboembolism [VTE]) ... [and that] the doses should be reduced in patient groups who are at risk of VTE, cancer, or major cardiovascular problems, where possible.”

To gauge the potential impact of the EMA’s decision, researchers analyzed BSRBR-RA data from 1341 individuals with RA who had started treatment with a JAK inhibitor before the agency issued its new recommendations. Among these individuals, 1075 (80.2%) met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion. Half (54%) were current or past smokers, 44% had an increased risk for major cardiovascular events such as heart attack or stroke, 39% were 65 years or older, and 10% had an increased risk for cancer.

Nearly half (49%) of the study population who met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion had received only one (31%) or no (18%) prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), Zixing Tian, a PhD student at the University of Manchester in England, reported at the  annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. Of the remainder, 23% had received two prior bDMARDs, and 28% had previously received three or more bDMARDs.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Considerable Implications

There are potentially two ways of interpreting these data, suggested Ken Baker, BMBCh, PhD, senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“One is that rheumatologists starting these treatments are throwing caution to the wind and ignoring all guidance,” Dr. Baker said.

“The second is perhaps that the EMA guidance is difficult to implement in practice when it involves lots of the comorbidities and risk factors that commonly affect patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in England, also commented on the findings.

Were Cautions Warranted?

Like the US Food and Drug Administration, the EMA has concerns over the use of JAK inhibitors because of the drugs’ potential to increase the risk for serious side effects such as VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, cancer, and all-cause mortality relative to tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors.

Initially, the EMA issued cautions that only related to the use of tofacitinib (Xeljanz), which was the first JAK inhibitor to gain approval for RA and other chronic inflammatory diseases in Europe, but this expanded to include baricitinib (Olumiant) and most recently any member of the drug class, including abrocitinib (Cibinqo), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and upadacitinib (Rinvoq).

The EMA has done a responsible job of looking at the available data and issuing cautions to protect the populations of patients who may be exposed to these drugs, Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, told this news organization. However, they are also severely restricting the populations of patients who can be treated with them. “It’s a complicated situation,” he said.

Shared Decision

“The issue for benefit and risk is there for any drug we use,” said Dr. Taylor, noting that there are over-the-counter drugs that can be “far more dangerous” than JAK inhibitors in terms of cardiovascular risk.

“In my opinion, the really key thing is to be able to communicate the issues with integrity, in a manner that the patient understands, to make sure that the risk is acceptable to them,” Dr. Taylor said.

It is all about optimizing treatment for an individual and proactively managing any other factors that may increase their personal risk for unwanted effects, Maya Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the University of Manchester, said during a debate at the meeting.

“We still have unmet needs for our patient population. Patients aren’t achieving the goals and endpoints that we need,” Dr. Buch said.

“Don’t lose sight of the positive attributes that we’ve seen with JAK inhibitors,” she advised.

“We presume we know what the patient thinks when it comes to a matter of risk assessment, but it is always about tailoring treatment to that individual, and we are sometimes surprised in terms of what the patients want, even in the face of apparent higher risk,” Dr. Buch added.
 

Judicious Use

Iain McInnes, MBChB, PhD, observed during the same debate that it was “hard to argue that drugs are generally unsafe when they have already been approved. It’s also challenging to suggest they are not useful when they are being used.”

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Dr. McInnes, honorary consultant rheumatologist and vice principal and head of the College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, pointed out that the EMA warnings assume that all JAK inhibitors are the same, but is that really the case? This is complex biochemistry, and could newer JAK inhibitors have an improved safety profile?

“There is no free ride in the immune system, and we should bear that in mind,” Dr. McInnes said. “These drugs work ... but we are absolutely flitting along the boundaries of the safety/efficacy window.”

Dr. McInnes told this news organization that clinicians do have to be cautious.

“There’s a paradox in that the very age group that the regulators are now asking us to be cautious about prescribing is pushing JAK inhibitors later and later in the disease course,” he said. This is a time when people would already have other risks for cardiovascular and other events.

“Overall, if used within the regulatory advice, Janus kinase inhibitors are a really useful drug class.”

The BSRBR-RA is funded by a grant from the BSR. The BSR currently receives funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and Sandoz and in the past from Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, SOBI, and UCB. This income finances a wholly separate contract between the BSR and the University of Manchester to host the BSRBR-RA. All decisions concerning study design, data capture, analyses, interpretation, and publication are made autonomously of any industrial contribution. Ms. Tian had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Emery disclosed ties to AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Samsung, and UCB. Dr. Taylor disclosed ties to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB. Dr. Buch disclosed ties to Gilead, AbbVie, Arxx Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, CESAS Medical, Galapagos, Gilead, MediStreams, and Pfizer. Dr. McInnes disclosed ties to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Compugen, Cabaletta Bio, Causeway, Dexterra, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

New guidelines to manage peripheral neuropathy related to Sjögren disease have been developed by a multidisciplinary team of physicians from across medicine.

The guidelines will provide an evidence-based resource for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of various peripheral neuropathies related to the disorder.

Up until now, the field has been “haphazard and chaotic,” lead author George Sarka, MD, DrPH, MPH, director of the CME Committee for MemorialCare, Saddleback Medical Center, Laguna Hills, California, and member of the Sjögren Foundation PNS Guidelines Topic Review Group (TRG), told this news organization.

Dr. Sarka discussed the initiative at the American Academy of Neurology 2024 annual meeting.


 

Severe, Complex Illness

Sjögren disease is the second most common autoimmune rheumatic disorder after rheumatoid arthritis, affecting an estimated 4 million Americans. Women make up most of the patient population at a ratio of 9:1.

The condition typically affects the mucous membranes and moisture-secreting glands of the eyes and mouth, resulting in decreased tears and saliva. But peripheral nervous system (PNS) manifestations often precede these symptoms and can occur in up to 60% of Sjögren disease cases.

“Traditionally, Sjögren’s was looked at as a dry eye and dry mouth disease, but we realize now that it’s so much broader than that,” said Dr. Sarka. “It’s a severe, systemic, and complex illness that can affect any body organ or system, and the nervous system is frequently affected.”

PNS manifestations cause more than mere discomfort; they can lead to diagnostic and management challenges, costly treatments, and diminished quality of life.

Getting a proper diagnosis goes a long way toward improving the quality of life for these patients, Steven Mandel, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Northwell, adjunct clinical professor of medicine at NY Medical College, New York City, and member of the TRG, told this news organization.

The problem is, doctors don’t always think an autoimmune disorder is causing the symptoms, said Dr. Sarka. “There’s an old adage in neurology that if you don’t think about it, you’re going to miss it; you have to ask, and that’s what we’re trying to get people to do.”

The condition often accompanies other immune system disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. But as patients are referred back and forth between ophthalmologists, rheumatologists, and neurologists, the condition is often missed. “It could be 4 or 5 years before a definitive diagnosis of Sjögren’s is made,” said Dr. Sarka.

He believes the education system is partly to blame. “Medical schools have been very deficient in teaching people about recognizing Sjögren disease.”

That leaves many physicians at a loss about “what to do with these patients when they walk in the door,” said Dr. Mandel. “They don’t know how to manage them; they don’t know how to diagnose them; and they don’t know how to treat them.”

Developing guidelines with multispecialty collaboration was “absolutely critical” in addressing this knowledge gap, Dr. Mandel added. That process involved “a very rigorous and transparent methodology so that it would be accepted by all the professionals involved in Sjögren’s,” he said.

The process took 3 years and involved amassing and grading the evidence, getting consensus from committee members, developing recommendations, and getting feedback and external review.
 

Scant Evidence

An early literature search revealed very little evidence on PNS manifestations in patients with Sjögren disease, so the guideline committee “leaned very heavily on expert opinion” to develop recommendations, Kathy Hammitt, MA, vice president of Medical and Scientific Affairs, Sjögren’s Foundation, told this news organization.

The literature search also showed different terms are used to describe PNS, “which is where the chaos comes in,” said Dr. Sarka.

Experts from different specialties worked together to define and align nomenclature used by various specialists. They developed definitions for seven PNS categories including mononeuropathy, large fiber neuropathy, small fiber neuropathy, demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, ganglionopathy, vasculitis neuropathy, and autoimmune nervous system neuropathy.

The guidelines pertaining to PNS manifestations encompass a spectrum of neurologic abnormalities, including cranial neuropathies (trigeminal neuropathy or acute facial neuropathy), polyneuropathies (large fiber neuropathy, small fiber neuropathy, demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, vasculitis neuropathy, or ganglionopathy), and autonomic nervous system (ANS) neuropathies (postural tachycardia, orthostatic hypotension, or autonomic dysfunction).
 

Key Steps

The guidelines address two key steps for each PNS manifestation — the workup and evaluation of patients with suspected ANS manifestation including standard evaluations, diagnostic tests, and treatment. The experts developed 31 best practices for diagnosis and workup and 20 treatment recommendations.

Initial assessment of potential ANS involvement includes asking patients about orthostatic postural lightheadedness and difficulties with digestion, urination, sweating, and sexual function.

Treatment of autoimmune diseases typically focuses on relieving symptoms and can include steroids, the anticonvulsant gabapentin, the monoclonal antibody rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin. “The type of neuropathy will mandate or suggest certain therapies over others,” said Dr. Sarka, adding that a patient can have more than one neuropathy.

Therapeutics for Sjögren disease is another example of an area that has been “very haphazard,” he added.

The guidelines are aimed not just at specialists but also at general practitioners who treat many of these patients. But Dr. Hammitt emphasized that neurologists can be “instrumental” in identifying Sjögren disease in patients with PNS symptoms.

“Our hope is that specialists — in this case, neurologists — will recognize the potential for this condition in their PNS patients and ensure referral to a rheumatologist or knowledgeable family practitioner to manage overall care.”

The committee will soon submit its manuscript to the AAN for publication.

“Once published, we will have a robust dissemination strategy to ensure that providers, patients, and policymakers are aware of, and use, this very valuable resource,” said Dr. Hammitt.

No conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New guidelines to manage peripheral neuropathy related to Sjögren disease have been developed by a multidisciplinary team of physicians from across medicine.

The guidelines will provide an evidence-based resource for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of various peripheral neuropathies related to the disorder.

Up until now, the field has been “haphazard and chaotic,” lead author George Sarka, MD, DrPH, MPH, director of the CME Committee for MemorialCare, Saddleback Medical Center, Laguna Hills, California, and member of the Sjögren Foundation PNS Guidelines Topic Review Group (TRG), told this news organization.

Dr. Sarka discussed the initiative at the American Academy of Neurology 2024 annual meeting.


 

Severe, Complex Illness

Sjögren disease is the second most common autoimmune rheumatic disorder after rheumatoid arthritis, affecting an estimated 4 million Americans. Women make up most of the patient population at a ratio of 9:1.

The condition typically affects the mucous membranes and moisture-secreting glands of the eyes and mouth, resulting in decreased tears and saliva. But peripheral nervous system (PNS) manifestations often precede these symptoms and can occur in up to 60% of Sjögren disease cases.

“Traditionally, Sjögren’s was looked at as a dry eye and dry mouth disease, but we realize now that it’s so much broader than that,” said Dr. Sarka. “It’s a severe, systemic, and complex illness that can affect any body organ or system, and the nervous system is frequently affected.”

PNS manifestations cause more than mere discomfort; they can lead to diagnostic and management challenges, costly treatments, and diminished quality of life.

Getting a proper diagnosis goes a long way toward improving the quality of life for these patients, Steven Mandel, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Northwell, adjunct clinical professor of medicine at NY Medical College, New York City, and member of the TRG, told this news organization.

The problem is, doctors don’t always think an autoimmune disorder is causing the symptoms, said Dr. Sarka. “There’s an old adage in neurology that if you don’t think about it, you’re going to miss it; you have to ask, and that’s what we’re trying to get people to do.”

The condition often accompanies other immune system disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. But as patients are referred back and forth between ophthalmologists, rheumatologists, and neurologists, the condition is often missed. “It could be 4 or 5 years before a definitive diagnosis of Sjögren’s is made,” said Dr. Sarka.

He believes the education system is partly to blame. “Medical schools have been very deficient in teaching people about recognizing Sjögren disease.”

That leaves many physicians at a loss about “what to do with these patients when they walk in the door,” said Dr. Mandel. “They don’t know how to manage them; they don’t know how to diagnose them; and they don’t know how to treat them.”

Developing guidelines with multispecialty collaboration was “absolutely critical” in addressing this knowledge gap, Dr. Mandel added. That process involved “a very rigorous and transparent methodology so that it would be accepted by all the professionals involved in Sjögren’s,” he said.

The process took 3 years and involved amassing and grading the evidence, getting consensus from committee members, developing recommendations, and getting feedback and external review.
 

Scant Evidence

An early literature search revealed very little evidence on PNS manifestations in patients with Sjögren disease, so the guideline committee “leaned very heavily on expert opinion” to develop recommendations, Kathy Hammitt, MA, vice president of Medical and Scientific Affairs, Sjögren’s Foundation, told this news organization.

The literature search also showed different terms are used to describe PNS, “which is where the chaos comes in,” said Dr. Sarka.

Experts from different specialties worked together to define and align nomenclature used by various specialists. They developed definitions for seven PNS categories including mononeuropathy, large fiber neuropathy, small fiber neuropathy, demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, ganglionopathy, vasculitis neuropathy, and autoimmune nervous system neuropathy.

The guidelines pertaining to PNS manifestations encompass a spectrum of neurologic abnormalities, including cranial neuropathies (trigeminal neuropathy or acute facial neuropathy), polyneuropathies (large fiber neuropathy, small fiber neuropathy, demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, vasculitis neuropathy, or ganglionopathy), and autonomic nervous system (ANS) neuropathies (postural tachycardia, orthostatic hypotension, or autonomic dysfunction).
 

Key Steps

The guidelines address two key steps for each PNS manifestation — the workup and evaluation of patients with suspected ANS manifestation including standard evaluations, diagnostic tests, and treatment. The experts developed 31 best practices for diagnosis and workup and 20 treatment recommendations.

Initial assessment of potential ANS involvement includes asking patients about orthostatic postural lightheadedness and difficulties with digestion, urination, sweating, and sexual function.

Treatment of autoimmune diseases typically focuses on relieving symptoms and can include steroids, the anticonvulsant gabapentin, the monoclonal antibody rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin. “The type of neuropathy will mandate or suggest certain therapies over others,” said Dr. Sarka, adding that a patient can have more than one neuropathy.

Therapeutics for Sjögren disease is another example of an area that has been “very haphazard,” he added.

The guidelines are aimed not just at specialists but also at general practitioners who treat many of these patients. But Dr. Hammitt emphasized that neurologists can be “instrumental” in identifying Sjögren disease in patients with PNS symptoms.

“Our hope is that specialists — in this case, neurologists — will recognize the potential for this condition in their PNS patients and ensure referral to a rheumatologist or knowledgeable family practitioner to manage overall care.”

The committee will soon submit its manuscript to the AAN for publication.

“Once published, we will have a robust dissemination strategy to ensure that providers, patients, and policymakers are aware of, and use, this very valuable resource,” said Dr. Hammitt.

No conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New guidelines to manage peripheral neuropathy related to Sjögren disease have been developed by a multidisciplinary team of physicians from across medicine.

The guidelines will provide an evidence-based resource for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of various peripheral neuropathies related to the disorder.

Up until now, the field has been “haphazard and chaotic,” lead author George Sarka, MD, DrPH, MPH, director of the CME Committee for MemorialCare, Saddleback Medical Center, Laguna Hills, California, and member of the Sjögren Foundation PNS Guidelines Topic Review Group (TRG), told this news organization.

Dr. Sarka discussed the initiative at the American Academy of Neurology 2024 annual meeting.


 

Severe, Complex Illness

Sjögren disease is the second most common autoimmune rheumatic disorder after rheumatoid arthritis, affecting an estimated 4 million Americans. Women make up most of the patient population at a ratio of 9:1.

The condition typically affects the mucous membranes and moisture-secreting glands of the eyes and mouth, resulting in decreased tears and saliva. But peripheral nervous system (PNS) manifestations often precede these symptoms and can occur in up to 60% of Sjögren disease cases.

“Traditionally, Sjögren’s was looked at as a dry eye and dry mouth disease, but we realize now that it’s so much broader than that,” said Dr. Sarka. “It’s a severe, systemic, and complex illness that can affect any body organ or system, and the nervous system is frequently affected.”

PNS manifestations cause more than mere discomfort; they can lead to diagnostic and management challenges, costly treatments, and diminished quality of life.

Getting a proper diagnosis goes a long way toward improving the quality of life for these patients, Steven Mandel, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Northwell, adjunct clinical professor of medicine at NY Medical College, New York City, and member of the TRG, told this news organization.

The problem is, doctors don’t always think an autoimmune disorder is causing the symptoms, said Dr. Sarka. “There’s an old adage in neurology that if you don’t think about it, you’re going to miss it; you have to ask, and that’s what we’re trying to get people to do.”

The condition often accompanies other immune system disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. But as patients are referred back and forth between ophthalmologists, rheumatologists, and neurologists, the condition is often missed. “It could be 4 or 5 years before a definitive diagnosis of Sjögren’s is made,” said Dr. Sarka.

He believes the education system is partly to blame. “Medical schools have been very deficient in teaching people about recognizing Sjögren disease.”

That leaves many physicians at a loss about “what to do with these patients when they walk in the door,” said Dr. Mandel. “They don’t know how to manage them; they don’t know how to diagnose them; and they don’t know how to treat them.”

Developing guidelines with multispecialty collaboration was “absolutely critical” in addressing this knowledge gap, Dr. Mandel added. That process involved “a very rigorous and transparent methodology so that it would be accepted by all the professionals involved in Sjögren’s,” he said.

The process took 3 years and involved amassing and grading the evidence, getting consensus from committee members, developing recommendations, and getting feedback and external review.
 

Scant Evidence

An early literature search revealed very little evidence on PNS manifestations in patients with Sjögren disease, so the guideline committee “leaned very heavily on expert opinion” to develop recommendations, Kathy Hammitt, MA, vice president of Medical and Scientific Affairs, Sjögren’s Foundation, told this news organization.

The literature search also showed different terms are used to describe PNS, “which is where the chaos comes in,” said Dr. Sarka.

Experts from different specialties worked together to define and align nomenclature used by various specialists. They developed definitions for seven PNS categories including mononeuropathy, large fiber neuropathy, small fiber neuropathy, demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, ganglionopathy, vasculitis neuropathy, and autoimmune nervous system neuropathy.

The guidelines pertaining to PNS manifestations encompass a spectrum of neurologic abnormalities, including cranial neuropathies (trigeminal neuropathy or acute facial neuropathy), polyneuropathies (large fiber neuropathy, small fiber neuropathy, demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, vasculitis neuropathy, or ganglionopathy), and autonomic nervous system (ANS) neuropathies (postural tachycardia, orthostatic hypotension, or autonomic dysfunction).
 

Key Steps

The guidelines address two key steps for each PNS manifestation — the workup and evaluation of patients with suspected ANS manifestation including standard evaluations, diagnostic tests, and treatment. The experts developed 31 best practices for diagnosis and workup and 20 treatment recommendations.

Initial assessment of potential ANS involvement includes asking patients about orthostatic postural lightheadedness and difficulties with digestion, urination, sweating, and sexual function.

Treatment of autoimmune diseases typically focuses on relieving symptoms and can include steroids, the anticonvulsant gabapentin, the monoclonal antibody rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin. “The type of neuropathy will mandate or suggest certain therapies over others,” said Dr. Sarka, adding that a patient can have more than one neuropathy.

Therapeutics for Sjögren disease is another example of an area that has been “very haphazard,” he added.

The guidelines are aimed not just at specialists but also at general practitioners who treat many of these patients. But Dr. Hammitt emphasized that neurologists can be “instrumental” in identifying Sjögren disease in patients with PNS symptoms.

“Our hope is that specialists — in this case, neurologists — will recognize the potential for this condition in their PNS patients and ensure referral to a rheumatologist or knowledgeable family practitioner to manage overall care.”

The committee will soon submit its manuscript to the AAN for publication.

“Once published, we will have a robust dissemination strategy to ensure that providers, patients, and policymakers are aware of, and use, this very valuable resource,” said Dr. Hammitt.

No conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — Ice packs or topical anesthesia applied to the face before thermomechanical fractional injury therapy to treat wrinkles around the eyes provided satisfactory comfort to the patient during the procedure without sacrificing posttreatment outcomes, a small study of the recently cleared device found.

The study enrolled 12 patients who were undergoing treatment for periorbital rhytides, or wrinkles, around the eyes. Seven of them received topical anesthetic cream 20 minutes before the procedure, while five were given ice packs to self-apply for 5 minutes beforehand. Patients received four treatment sessions with a month between sessions and were then evaluated up to 3 months after their last session. Study results were presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

“Based on the approach that we had used, which was to keep the device parameters the same for those who received topical anesthetics and those who received ice, when we looked at the pain levels that the patients had relayed to us when we were doing the procedure, we found that both of them were almost exactly the same in terms of discomfort, a level of 3-4 out of 10, with 10 being the highest discomfort level,” lead investigator Jerome M. Garden, MD, said in an interview after the conference.

“In terms of patient satisfaction using a range of 0-5, again it was fairly equivalent” between the two groups, said Dr. Garden, professor of clinical dermatology and biomedical engineering at Northwestern University, Chicago. “And the overall satisfaction rate was high.”

Dr. Garden

Study Results

The results for the different anesthetic methods were almost identical. Those using ice reported a 0-10 average pain level of 3.95 ± 1.5, while those who received the topical anesthetic reported a pain level of 3.92 ± 1.5. In terms of self-graded improvement at 3-month follow-up, using a scale of 1-4, with 1 representing up to a 25% improvement and 4 a 75%-100% improvement, the patients using ice had a 2.6 ± 0.5 improvement and those using topical cream a 2.8 ± 0.5 improvement, Dr. Garden said during his presentation.

In terms of patient satisfaction, rated on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being very satisfied, the average grade was 3.9 ± 0.9, Dr. Garden added, with 70% rating ≥ 4.

“This is a relatively new device, which uses an approach to help texture changes in wrinkling on the skin in a different fashion than any of the other devices that are currently out there,” Dr. Garden told this news organization after the conference. “I wanted to understand more in depth the different parameters that may impact the outcome” with this device, he added.

The thermomechanical fractional injury device, originally cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2021, with a second-generation device cleared in June 2023, deposits heat into the skin, producing controlled thermal injury to promote collagen and elastin production. The device uses only heat, not a laser, which penetrates the skin. A heat sensation on the skin during the procedure can affect patients differently depending on their level of tolerance, Dr. Garden said during his presentation. 

Managing Patient Discomfort

Kachiu C. Lee, MD, MPH, of the Main Line Center for Laser Surgery in Ardmore, Pennsylvania, has used the device in her own practice and found that “it can definitely get a little bit uncomfortable for patients,” she said in an interview after the conference. 

“I would say that as the doctor, my number one priority is to always make sure my patients are comfortable, especially when treating a sensitive area like the eyes,” added Dr. Lee, who was not involved with the study. “I don’t want them to suddenly jump or move from the discomfort when I have a device right next to their eye. I think that the patient comfort is very important to make sure that we’re managing their discomfort so that the procedure is tolerable.”

Dr. Lee

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — Ice packs or topical anesthesia applied to the face before thermomechanical fractional injury therapy to treat wrinkles around the eyes provided satisfactory comfort to the patient during the procedure without sacrificing posttreatment outcomes, a small study of the recently cleared device found.

The study enrolled 12 patients who were undergoing treatment for periorbital rhytides, or wrinkles, around the eyes. Seven of them received topical anesthetic cream 20 minutes before the procedure, while five were given ice packs to self-apply for 5 minutes beforehand. Patients received four treatment sessions with a month between sessions and were then evaluated up to 3 months after their last session. Study results were presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

“Based on the approach that we had used, which was to keep the device parameters the same for those who received topical anesthetics and those who received ice, when we looked at the pain levels that the patients had relayed to us when we were doing the procedure, we found that both of them were almost exactly the same in terms of discomfort, a level of 3-4 out of 10, with 10 being the highest discomfort level,” lead investigator Jerome M. Garden, MD, said in an interview after the conference.

“In terms of patient satisfaction using a range of 0-5, again it was fairly equivalent” between the two groups, said Dr. Garden, professor of clinical dermatology and biomedical engineering at Northwestern University, Chicago. “And the overall satisfaction rate was high.”

Dr. Garden

Study Results

The results for the different anesthetic methods were almost identical. Those using ice reported a 0-10 average pain level of 3.95 ± 1.5, while those who received the topical anesthetic reported a pain level of 3.92 ± 1.5. In terms of self-graded improvement at 3-month follow-up, using a scale of 1-4, with 1 representing up to a 25% improvement and 4 a 75%-100% improvement, the patients using ice had a 2.6 ± 0.5 improvement and those using topical cream a 2.8 ± 0.5 improvement, Dr. Garden said during his presentation.

In terms of patient satisfaction, rated on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being very satisfied, the average grade was 3.9 ± 0.9, Dr. Garden added, with 70% rating ≥ 4.

“This is a relatively new device, which uses an approach to help texture changes in wrinkling on the skin in a different fashion than any of the other devices that are currently out there,” Dr. Garden told this news organization after the conference. “I wanted to understand more in depth the different parameters that may impact the outcome” with this device, he added.

The thermomechanical fractional injury device, originally cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2021, with a second-generation device cleared in June 2023, deposits heat into the skin, producing controlled thermal injury to promote collagen and elastin production. The device uses only heat, not a laser, which penetrates the skin. A heat sensation on the skin during the procedure can affect patients differently depending on their level of tolerance, Dr. Garden said during his presentation. 

Managing Patient Discomfort

Kachiu C. Lee, MD, MPH, of the Main Line Center for Laser Surgery in Ardmore, Pennsylvania, has used the device in her own practice and found that “it can definitely get a little bit uncomfortable for patients,” she said in an interview after the conference. 

“I would say that as the doctor, my number one priority is to always make sure my patients are comfortable, especially when treating a sensitive area like the eyes,” added Dr. Lee, who was not involved with the study. “I don’t want them to suddenly jump or move from the discomfort when I have a device right next to their eye. I think that the patient comfort is very important to make sure that we’re managing their discomfort so that the procedure is tolerable.”

Dr. Lee

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — Ice packs or topical anesthesia applied to the face before thermomechanical fractional injury therapy to treat wrinkles around the eyes provided satisfactory comfort to the patient during the procedure without sacrificing posttreatment outcomes, a small study of the recently cleared device found.

The study enrolled 12 patients who were undergoing treatment for periorbital rhytides, or wrinkles, around the eyes. Seven of them received topical anesthetic cream 20 minutes before the procedure, while five were given ice packs to self-apply for 5 minutes beforehand. Patients received four treatment sessions with a month between sessions and were then evaluated up to 3 months after their last session. Study results were presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

“Based on the approach that we had used, which was to keep the device parameters the same for those who received topical anesthetics and those who received ice, when we looked at the pain levels that the patients had relayed to us when we were doing the procedure, we found that both of them were almost exactly the same in terms of discomfort, a level of 3-4 out of 10, with 10 being the highest discomfort level,” lead investigator Jerome M. Garden, MD, said in an interview after the conference.

“In terms of patient satisfaction using a range of 0-5, again it was fairly equivalent” between the two groups, said Dr. Garden, professor of clinical dermatology and biomedical engineering at Northwestern University, Chicago. “And the overall satisfaction rate was high.”

Dr. Garden

Study Results

The results for the different anesthetic methods were almost identical. Those using ice reported a 0-10 average pain level of 3.95 ± 1.5, while those who received the topical anesthetic reported a pain level of 3.92 ± 1.5. In terms of self-graded improvement at 3-month follow-up, using a scale of 1-4, with 1 representing up to a 25% improvement and 4 a 75%-100% improvement, the patients using ice had a 2.6 ± 0.5 improvement and those using topical cream a 2.8 ± 0.5 improvement, Dr. Garden said during his presentation.

In terms of patient satisfaction, rated on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being very satisfied, the average grade was 3.9 ± 0.9, Dr. Garden added, with 70% rating ≥ 4.

“This is a relatively new device, which uses an approach to help texture changes in wrinkling on the skin in a different fashion than any of the other devices that are currently out there,” Dr. Garden told this news organization after the conference. “I wanted to understand more in depth the different parameters that may impact the outcome” with this device, he added.

The thermomechanical fractional injury device, originally cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2021, with a second-generation device cleared in June 2023, deposits heat into the skin, producing controlled thermal injury to promote collagen and elastin production. The device uses only heat, not a laser, which penetrates the skin. A heat sensation on the skin during the procedure can affect patients differently depending on their level of tolerance, Dr. Garden said during his presentation. 

Managing Patient Discomfort

Kachiu C. Lee, MD, MPH, of the Main Line Center for Laser Surgery in Ardmore, Pennsylvania, has used the device in her own practice and found that “it can definitely get a little bit uncomfortable for patients,” she said in an interview after the conference. 

“I would say that as the doctor, my number one priority is to always make sure my patients are comfortable, especially when treating a sensitive area like the eyes,” added Dr. Lee, who was not involved with the study. “I don’t want them to suddenly jump or move from the discomfort when I have a device right next to their eye. I think that the patient comfort is very important to make sure that we’re managing their discomfort so that the procedure is tolerable.”

Dr. Lee

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, many pediatric dermatology encounters involve shared decision-making (SDM): a collaborative model in which physicians and patients work together to make health care decisions based on the best evidence and on the patient’s values, priorities, and preferences.

“SDM is a cornerstone of person-centered care,” Dr. Cordoro, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We do it all the time. It can be patient-led, clinician-led, or a patient/family dyad approach. If we do it well, it can improve outcomes. Patients report more satisfying interactions with their care team. It brings adolescent patients especially a sense of independence and they adapt faster to their illness.”

Dr. Cordoro

AHRQ’s Five-Step Approach

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed a five-step approach to SDM known as SHARE: Seek your patient’s participation; Help your patient explore and compare treatment options; Assess your patient’s values and preferences; Reach a decision with your patient, and Evaluate your patient’s decision. “We do this all the time in practice with adult patients, but may not label it as SDM,” said Dr. Cordoro, chief and fellowship director of pediatric dermatology at UCSF.

“Where it gets a little murkier is in pediatric decision-making, which is a complex type of surrogate decision-making.” In this situation the patient — a minor — does not have full autonomy. The challenge for caregivers is that giving or withholding permission for interventions is a difficult role. “Their job is to protect the patient’s well-being while empowering them toward independence,” she said. “It can be hard for caregivers to understand complex information.” The challenge for clinicians, she continued, is to know when to invite SDM. This requires relational and sharp communication skills. “We must consider our patient’s/family’s health literacy and be sure the information we share is understood,” she said. “What are the social and structural determinants of health that are going to influence decision-making? You want to move into a relationship like this with cultural humility so you can understand what their preferences are and how they’re seeing the problem. Because there’s no universal agreement on the age at which minors should be deemed decision-making competent in health care, the approach is nuanced and depends on each individual patient and family.”

Dr. Cordoro proposed the following four-step approach to SDM to use in pediatric dermatology:

Step 1: Share relevant information about the condition and treatment options in a clear and understandable manner. The average US resident is at the seventh-to eighth-grade level, “so we have to avoid medical jargon and use plain language,” Dr. Cordoro said. Then, use the teach-back approach to assess their understanding. “Ask, ‘What is your understanding of the most important points that we talked about?’ Or, ‘Please share with me what you heard so I’m sure we all understand the plan.’ Using these techniques will reduce the barriers to care such as health literacy.”

Step 2: Solicit and understand patient/patient family perspectives, preferences and priorities. The goal here is to uncover their beliefs, concerns, and assumptions that may influence their decisions. “Be mindful of power asymmetry,” she noted. “Many families still believe the doctor is the boss and they are there to be told what to do. Be clear that the patient has a say. Talk directly to the patient about their interests if developmentally appropriate.”

Step 3: Invite patients/family into a shared decision-making conversation. Consider statements like, “There are many reasonable options here. Let’s work together to come up with the decision that’s right for you.” Or, “Let’s start by exploring your specific goals and concerns. As you think about the options I just talked to you about, what’s important to you?” Or, “Do you want to think about this decision with anyone else?”

Step 4: Check back in frequently. Pause between significant points and check in. “See how they’re doing during the conversation,” she said. “At future appointments, remember to solicit their input on additional decisions.”

In Dr. Cordoro’s opinion, one potential pitfall of SDM is an over-reliance on patient decision aids. “Very few are available in dermatology,” she said. “Some are relevant but none specifically to pediatric dermatology. They are often complex and require a high reading comprehension level. This disadvantages patients and families with low health literacy. Keep it clear and simple. Your patients will appreciate it.”

Dr. Cordoro reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, many pediatric dermatology encounters involve shared decision-making (SDM): a collaborative model in which physicians and patients work together to make health care decisions based on the best evidence and on the patient’s values, priorities, and preferences.

“SDM is a cornerstone of person-centered care,” Dr. Cordoro, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We do it all the time. It can be patient-led, clinician-led, or a patient/family dyad approach. If we do it well, it can improve outcomes. Patients report more satisfying interactions with their care team. It brings adolescent patients especially a sense of independence and they adapt faster to their illness.”

Dr. Cordoro

AHRQ’s Five-Step Approach

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed a five-step approach to SDM known as SHARE: Seek your patient’s participation; Help your patient explore and compare treatment options; Assess your patient’s values and preferences; Reach a decision with your patient, and Evaluate your patient’s decision. “We do this all the time in practice with adult patients, but may not label it as SDM,” said Dr. Cordoro, chief and fellowship director of pediatric dermatology at UCSF.

“Where it gets a little murkier is in pediatric decision-making, which is a complex type of surrogate decision-making.” In this situation the patient — a minor — does not have full autonomy. The challenge for caregivers is that giving or withholding permission for interventions is a difficult role. “Their job is to protect the patient’s well-being while empowering them toward independence,” she said. “It can be hard for caregivers to understand complex information.” The challenge for clinicians, she continued, is to know when to invite SDM. This requires relational and sharp communication skills. “We must consider our patient’s/family’s health literacy and be sure the information we share is understood,” she said. “What are the social and structural determinants of health that are going to influence decision-making? You want to move into a relationship like this with cultural humility so you can understand what their preferences are and how they’re seeing the problem. Because there’s no universal agreement on the age at which minors should be deemed decision-making competent in health care, the approach is nuanced and depends on each individual patient and family.”

Dr. Cordoro proposed the following four-step approach to SDM to use in pediatric dermatology:

Step 1: Share relevant information about the condition and treatment options in a clear and understandable manner. The average US resident is at the seventh-to eighth-grade level, “so we have to avoid medical jargon and use plain language,” Dr. Cordoro said. Then, use the teach-back approach to assess their understanding. “Ask, ‘What is your understanding of the most important points that we talked about?’ Or, ‘Please share with me what you heard so I’m sure we all understand the plan.’ Using these techniques will reduce the barriers to care such as health literacy.”

Step 2: Solicit and understand patient/patient family perspectives, preferences and priorities. The goal here is to uncover their beliefs, concerns, and assumptions that may influence their decisions. “Be mindful of power asymmetry,” she noted. “Many families still believe the doctor is the boss and they are there to be told what to do. Be clear that the patient has a say. Talk directly to the patient about their interests if developmentally appropriate.”

Step 3: Invite patients/family into a shared decision-making conversation. Consider statements like, “There are many reasonable options here. Let’s work together to come up with the decision that’s right for you.” Or, “Let’s start by exploring your specific goals and concerns. As you think about the options I just talked to you about, what’s important to you?” Or, “Do you want to think about this decision with anyone else?”

Step 4: Check back in frequently. Pause between significant points and check in. “See how they’re doing during the conversation,” she said. “At future appointments, remember to solicit their input on additional decisions.”

In Dr. Cordoro’s opinion, one potential pitfall of SDM is an over-reliance on patient decision aids. “Very few are available in dermatology,” she said. “Some are relevant but none specifically to pediatric dermatology. They are often complex and require a high reading comprehension level. This disadvantages patients and families with low health literacy. Keep it clear and simple. Your patients will appreciate it.”

Dr. Cordoro reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, many pediatric dermatology encounters involve shared decision-making (SDM): a collaborative model in which physicians and patients work together to make health care decisions based on the best evidence and on the patient’s values, priorities, and preferences.

“SDM is a cornerstone of person-centered care,” Dr. Cordoro, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We do it all the time. It can be patient-led, clinician-led, or a patient/family dyad approach. If we do it well, it can improve outcomes. Patients report more satisfying interactions with their care team. It brings adolescent patients especially a sense of independence and they adapt faster to their illness.”

Dr. Cordoro

AHRQ’s Five-Step Approach

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed a five-step approach to SDM known as SHARE: Seek your patient’s participation; Help your patient explore and compare treatment options; Assess your patient’s values and preferences; Reach a decision with your patient, and Evaluate your patient’s decision. “We do this all the time in practice with adult patients, but may not label it as SDM,” said Dr. Cordoro, chief and fellowship director of pediatric dermatology at UCSF.

“Where it gets a little murkier is in pediatric decision-making, which is a complex type of surrogate decision-making.” In this situation the patient — a minor — does not have full autonomy. The challenge for caregivers is that giving or withholding permission for interventions is a difficult role. “Their job is to protect the patient’s well-being while empowering them toward independence,” she said. “It can be hard for caregivers to understand complex information.” The challenge for clinicians, she continued, is to know when to invite SDM. This requires relational and sharp communication skills. “We must consider our patient’s/family’s health literacy and be sure the information we share is understood,” she said. “What are the social and structural determinants of health that are going to influence decision-making? You want to move into a relationship like this with cultural humility so you can understand what their preferences are and how they’re seeing the problem. Because there’s no universal agreement on the age at which minors should be deemed decision-making competent in health care, the approach is nuanced and depends on each individual patient and family.”

Dr. Cordoro proposed the following four-step approach to SDM to use in pediatric dermatology:

Step 1: Share relevant information about the condition and treatment options in a clear and understandable manner. The average US resident is at the seventh-to eighth-grade level, “so we have to avoid medical jargon and use plain language,” Dr. Cordoro said. Then, use the teach-back approach to assess their understanding. “Ask, ‘What is your understanding of the most important points that we talked about?’ Or, ‘Please share with me what you heard so I’m sure we all understand the plan.’ Using these techniques will reduce the barriers to care such as health literacy.”

Step 2: Solicit and understand patient/patient family perspectives, preferences and priorities. The goal here is to uncover their beliefs, concerns, and assumptions that may influence their decisions. “Be mindful of power asymmetry,” she noted. “Many families still believe the doctor is the boss and they are there to be told what to do. Be clear that the patient has a say. Talk directly to the patient about their interests if developmentally appropriate.”

Step 3: Invite patients/family into a shared decision-making conversation. Consider statements like, “There are many reasonable options here. Let’s work together to come up with the decision that’s right for you.” Or, “Let’s start by exploring your specific goals and concerns. As you think about the options I just talked to you about, what’s important to you?” Or, “Do you want to think about this decision with anyone else?”

Step 4: Check back in frequently. Pause between significant points and check in. “See how they’re doing during the conversation,” she said. “At future appointments, remember to solicit their input on additional decisions.”

In Dr. Cordoro’s opinion, one potential pitfall of SDM is an over-reliance on patient decision aids. “Very few are available in dermatology,” she said. “Some are relevant but none specifically to pediatric dermatology. They are often complex and require a high reading comprehension level. This disadvantages patients and families with low health literacy. Keep it clear and simple. Your patients will appreciate it.”

Dr. Cordoro reported having no relevant disclosures.

VIENNA — Encouraging primary or secondary analyses of trial data for the use of several novel injectables and gene therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA) were reported at the OARSI 2024 World Congress.

Of all the approaches discussed during the News in Therapies session at OARSI 2024, the most intriguing was the use of the placental extract PTP-001 (MOTYS, Bioventus), session chair Nancy E. Lane, MD, of the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, told this news organization.

Other notable presentations of data from trials of investigational agents for knee OA included an update from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate; a phase 2 trial of pentosan polysulfate sodium (PPS), a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide; and an update on phase 2 study results for XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant of interleukin 10 (IL-10).
 

PTP-001 (MOTYS)

Indeed, promising results were seen in a phase 2 trial testing a single intra-articular (IA) injection of PTP-001 vs an IA saline placebo in just over 200 individuals with symptomatic knee OA. Results of this dose-finding study were presented by Alessandra Pavesio, senior vice president and the chief science officer of Bioventus/Doron Therapeutics, Durham, North Carolina.

Ms. Pavesio reported there were decreases in knee pain and improvements in knee function, as measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). These changes were seen after 26 weeks of treatment with PTP-001 given at either a low (100 mg, n = 74) or high (200 mg, n = 40) dose.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Novel Fluticasone Delivery

In the same session, James A. Helliwell, MD, cofounder, director, and chief executive officer of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, presented updated data from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate.

Dr. Helliwell, a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist, explained that EP-104IAR uses proprietary technology to form fluticasone into a crystal that can then be injected directly into the joint. This then slowly diffuses out to provide a highly localized treatment.

The SPRINGBOARD trial recruited just over 300 individuals with moderate knee OA and moderate to severe WOMAC pain and randomly allocated 164 to a single IA injection of EP-104IAR and 164 to a matching vehicle injection as a placebo. The latter was a slightly viscous substance that behaved like hyaluronic acid, Dr. Helliwell said.

The LSM change in total WOMAC score from baseline to week 12 showed a greater improvement with EP-104IAR than with placebo in a per protocol analysis (−2.79 vs −2.07; P = .002). Similar results were seen for the WOMAC subscales of pain (−2.97 vs −2.24; P = .003), function (−2.64 vs −1.99; P = .005), and stiffness (−2.85 vs −2.05; P = .001).

These differences persisted, Dr. Helliwell reported, out to a 20-week assessment for total WOMAC score, function, and stiffness and out to a 15-week assessment for WOMAC pain.

It’s probably no surprise that a steroid works, Dr. Helliwell said, noting that the safety profile of EP-104IAR may be better than that of regular IA steroid injection because it has “few off-target” effects. He reported that there were “minimal, clinically insignificant, and transient effects” of EP-104IAR on serum cortisol. There was no effect on glucose metabolism, even in patients with diabetes, he said.

“There is a group of our patients that we give long-acting steroids to in the joint, so it looked like [the EP-104IAR] safety profile was really good,” Dr. Lane told this news organization. However, she added: “I’m worried about the price tag associated with it.”
 

PPS

Although it perhaps can’t be described as a novel injectable per se, Mukesh Ahuja, MBBS, global clinical head of osteoarthritis at Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals, presented results of the novel use of PPS.

“PPS is a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide that is derived from beechwood trees,” Dr. Ahuja said. “It has a long-track record for treating pain, inflammation, and thrombosis in humans.”

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Gene Therapy

Elsewhere at OARSI 2024, updated data were reported on XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant (v) of IL-10.

Howard Rutman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of Xalud Therapeutics, reported data from a patient subgroup analysis of a phase 2 trial, which evaluated the effects of single and repeat IA injections of XT-150.

Previously, it was found that a single dose of XT-150 (0.15 mg/mL or 0.45 mg/mL) given as a 1-mL IA injection did not meet its primary endpoint of a greater proportion of patients achieving a 30% or more improvement in WOMAC pain at 180 days vs a matching placebo.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

The Best Is Yet to Come?

“There’s a lot of things cooking that haven’t been presented here [at OARSI],” Dr. Lane observed.

“We are figuring out how to regenerate cartilage, and it’s a little different than throwing some stem cells in there. There’s some ground-breaking stuff [coming], it just takes us a while.”

Dr. Lane also noted that researchers were “really figuring out” how joints become painful, which will be a major step in figuring out how to make them less painful for patients.

“We’re making a lot of progress in ways that I don’t think we previously thought of, for example, the weight loss drugs. They probably have a central pain reduction effect, I think there’s a little overlap with the opioid receptors, so that’s pretty exciting. So, we’re getting there,” Dr. Lane said.

The congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Dr. Lane had no relevant conflicts to declare. The trial of PTP-001 (MOTYS) was funded by Bioventus. Ms. Pavesio is an employee of Doron Therapeutics, a subsidiary of Bioventus. The SPRINGBOARD trial with EP-104IAR was funded by Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Helliwell is an employee and stockholder of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. The trial of PPS was funded by Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Ahuja is an employee and stockholder of Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals and holds stock in ChitogenX. The trial of XT-150 was funded by Xalud Therapeutics. Dr. Rutman is an employee and equity holder of the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Encouraging primary or secondary analyses of trial data for the use of several novel injectables and gene therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA) were reported at the OARSI 2024 World Congress.

Of all the approaches discussed during the News in Therapies session at OARSI 2024, the most intriguing was the use of the placental extract PTP-001 (MOTYS, Bioventus), session chair Nancy E. Lane, MD, of the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, told this news organization.

Other notable presentations of data from trials of investigational agents for knee OA included an update from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate; a phase 2 trial of pentosan polysulfate sodium (PPS), a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide; and an update on phase 2 study results for XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant of interleukin 10 (IL-10).
 

PTP-001 (MOTYS)

Indeed, promising results were seen in a phase 2 trial testing a single intra-articular (IA) injection of PTP-001 vs an IA saline placebo in just over 200 individuals with symptomatic knee OA. Results of this dose-finding study were presented by Alessandra Pavesio, senior vice president and the chief science officer of Bioventus/Doron Therapeutics, Durham, North Carolina.

Ms. Pavesio reported there were decreases in knee pain and improvements in knee function, as measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). These changes were seen after 26 weeks of treatment with PTP-001 given at either a low (100 mg, n = 74) or high (200 mg, n = 40) dose.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Novel Fluticasone Delivery

In the same session, James A. Helliwell, MD, cofounder, director, and chief executive officer of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, presented updated data from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate.

Dr. Helliwell, a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist, explained that EP-104IAR uses proprietary technology to form fluticasone into a crystal that can then be injected directly into the joint. This then slowly diffuses out to provide a highly localized treatment.

The SPRINGBOARD trial recruited just over 300 individuals with moderate knee OA and moderate to severe WOMAC pain and randomly allocated 164 to a single IA injection of EP-104IAR and 164 to a matching vehicle injection as a placebo. The latter was a slightly viscous substance that behaved like hyaluronic acid, Dr. Helliwell said.

The LSM change in total WOMAC score from baseline to week 12 showed a greater improvement with EP-104IAR than with placebo in a per protocol analysis (−2.79 vs −2.07; P = .002). Similar results were seen for the WOMAC subscales of pain (−2.97 vs −2.24; P = .003), function (−2.64 vs −1.99; P = .005), and stiffness (−2.85 vs −2.05; P = .001).

These differences persisted, Dr. Helliwell reported, out to a 20-week assessment for total WOMAC score, function, and stiffness and out to a 15-week assessment for WOMAC pain.

It’s probably no surprise that a steroid works, Dr. Helliwell said, noting that the safety profile of EP-104IAR may be better than that of regular IA steroid injection because it has “few off-target” effects. He reported that there were “minimal, clinically insignificant, and transient effects” of EP-104IAR on serum cortisol. There was no effect on glucose metabolism, even in patients with diabetes, he said.

“There is a group of our patients that we give long-acting steroids to in the joint, so it looked like [the EP-104IAR] safety profile was really good,” Dr. Lane told this news organization. However, she added: “I’m worried about the price tag associated with it.”
 

PPS

Although it perhaps can’t be described as a novel injectable per se, Mukesh Ahuja, MBBS, global clinical head of osteoarthritis at Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals, presented results of the novel use of PPS.

“PPS is a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide that is derived from beechwood trees,” Dr. Ahuja said. “It has a long-track record for treating pain, inflammation, and thrombosis in humans.”

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Gene Therapy

Elsewhere at OARSI 2024, updated data were reported on XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant (v) of IL-10.

Howard Rutman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of Xalud Therapeutics, reported data from a patient subgroup analysis of a phase 2 trial, which evaluated the effects of single and repeat IA injections of XT-150.

Previously, it was found that a single dose of XT-150 (0.15 mg/mL or 0.45 mg/mL) given as a 1-mL IA injection did not meet its primary endpoint of a greater proportion of patients achieving a 30% or more improvement in WOMAC pain at 180 days vs a matching placebo.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

The Best Is Yet to Come?

“There’s a lot of things cooking that haven’t been presented here [at OARSI],” Dr. Lane observed.

“We are figuring out how to regenerate cartilage, and it’s a little different than throwing some stem cells in there. There’s some ground-breaking stuff [coming], it just takes us a while.”

Dr. Lane also noted that researchers were “really figuring out” how joints become painful, which will be a major step in figuring out how to make them less painful for patients.

“We’re making a lot of progress in ways that I don’t think we previously thought of, for example, the weight loss drugs. They probably have a central pain reduction effect, I think there’s a little overlap with the opioid receptors, so that’s pretty exciting. So, we’re getting there,” Dr. Lane said.

The congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Dr. Lane had no relevant conflicts to declare. The trial of PTP-001 (MOTYS) was funded by Bioventus. Ms. Pavesio is an employee of Doron Therapeutics, a subsidiary of Bioventus. The SPRINGBOARD trial with EP-104IAR was funded by Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Helliwell is an employee and stockholder of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. The trial of PPS was funded by Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Ahuja is an employee and stockholder of Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals and holds stock in ChitogenX. The trial of XT-150 was funded by Xalud Therapeutics. Dr. Rutman is an employee and equity holder of the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Encouraging primary or secondary analyses of trial data for the use of several novel injectables and gene therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA) were reported at the OARSI 2024 World Congress.

Of all the approaches discussed during the News in Therapies session at OARSI 2024, the most intriguing was the use of the placental extract PTP-001 (MOTYS, Bioventus), session chair Nancy E. Lane, MD, of the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, told this news organization.

Other notable presentations of data from trials of investigational agents for knee OA included an update from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate; a phase 2 trial of pentosan polysulfate sodium (PPS), a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide; and an update on phase 2 study results for XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant of interleukin 10 (IL-10).
 

PTP-001 (MOTYS)

Indeed, promising results were seen in a phase 2 trial testing a single intra-articular (IA) injection of PTP-001 vs an IA saline placebo in just over 200 individuals with symptomatic knee OA. Results of this dose-finding study were presented by Alessandra Pavesio, senior vice president and the chief science officer of Bioventus/Doron Therapeutics, Durham, North Carolina.

Ms. Pavesio reported there were decreases in knee pain and improvements in knee function, as measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). These changes were seen after 26 weeks of treatment with PTP-001 given at either a low (100 mg, n = 74) or high (200 mg, n = 40) dose.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Novel Fluticasone Delivery

In the same session, James A. Helliwell, MD, cofounder, director, and chief executive officer of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, presented updated data from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate.

Dr. Helliwell, a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist, explained that EP-104IAR uses proprietary technology to form fluticasone into a crystal that can then be injected directly into the joint. This then slowly diffuses out to provide a highly localized treatment.

The SPRINGBOARD trial recruited just over 300 individuals with moderate knee OA and moderate to severe WOMAC pain and randomly allocated 164 to a single IA injection of EP-104IAR and 164 to a matching vehicle injection as a placebo. The latter was a slightly viscous substance that behaved like hyaluronic acid, Dr. Helliwell said.

The LSM change in total WOMAC score from baseline to week 12 showed a greater improvement with EP-104IAR than with placebo in a per protocol analysis (−2.79 vs −2.07; P = .002). Similar results were seen for the WOMAC subscales of pain (−2.97 vs −2.24; P = .003), function (−2.64 vs −1.99; P = .005), and stiffness (−2.85 vs −2.05; P = .001).

These differences persisted, Dr. Helliwell reported, out to a 20-week assessment for total WOMAC score, function, and stiffness and out to a 15-week assessment for WOMAC pain.

It’s probably no surprise that a steroid works, Dr. Helliwell said, noting that the safety profile of EP-104IAR may be better than that of regular IA steroid injection because it has “few off-target” effects. He reported that there were “minimal, clinically insignificant, and transient effects” of EP-104IAR on serum cortisol. There was no effect on glucose metabolism, even in patients with diabetes, he said.

“There is a group of our patients that we give long-acting steroids to in the joint, so it looked like [the EP-104IAR] safety profile was really good,” Dr. Lane told this news organization. However, she added: “I’m worried about the price tag associated with it.”
 

PPS

Although it perhaps can’t be described as a novel injectable per se, Mukesh Ahuja, MBBS, global clinical head of osteoarthritis at Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals, presented results of the novel use of PPS.

“PPS is a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide that is derived from beechwood trees,” Dr. Ahuja said. “It has a long-track record for treating pain, inflammation, and thrombosis in humans.”

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

Gene Therapy

Elsewhere at OARSI 2024, updated data were reported on XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant (v) of IL-10.

Howard Rutman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of Xalud Therapeutics, reported data from a patient subgroup analysis of a phase 2 trial, which evaluated the effects of single and repeat IA injections of XT-150.

Previously, it was found that a single dose of XT-150 (0.15 mg/mL or 0.45 mg/mL) given as a 1-mL IA injection did not meet its primary endpoint of a greater proportion of patients achieving a 30% or more improvement in WOMAC pain at 180 days vs a matching placebo.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

The Best Is Yet to Come?

“There’s a lot of things cooking that haven’t been presented here [at OARSI],” Dr. Lane observed.

“We are figuring out how to regenerate cartilage, and it’s a little different than throwing some stem cells in there. There’s some ground-breaking stuff [coming], it just takes us a while.”

Dr. Lane also noted that researchers were “really figuring out” how joints become painful, which will be a major step in figuring out how to make them less painful for patients.

“We’re making a lot of progress in ways that I don’t think we previously thought of, for example, the weight loss drugs. They probably have a central pain reduction effect, I think there’s a little overlap with the opioid receptors, so that’s pretty exciting. So, we’re getting there,” Dr. Lane said.

The congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Dr. Lane had no relevant conflicts to declare. The trial of PTP-001 (MOTYS) was funded by Bioventus. Ms. Pavesio is an employee of Doron Therapeutics, a subsidiary of Bioventus. The SPRINGBOARD trial with EP-104IAR was funded by Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Helliwell is an employee and stockholder of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. The trial of PPS was funded by Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Ahuja is an employee and stockholder of Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals and holds stock in ChitogenX. The trial of XT-150 was funded by Xalud Therapeutics. Dr. Rutman is an employee and equity holder of the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.