From the Journals

TOPLINE:

CD37, a surface protein present on most acute myeloid leukemia (AML) blasts, demonstrates unique internalization properties that enable targeted drug delivery with minimal impact on normal blood cells. Anti-CD37 antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) shows specific cytotoxicity to AML blasts while preserving normal hematopoietic stem cells.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed CD37 expression in 55 untreated, newly diagnosed primary AML samples, along with normal hematopoietic stem cells, peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and AML cell lines.
• Analysis included internalization assays using anti-CD37 antibody conjugated to fluorochrome Alexa Fluor 647, with cells incubated for 2 hours at 37 °C vs on ice to quantify surface and intracellular CD37.
• Investigators conducted in vivo studies using NOD scid gamma mice and NRGS mice treated with 25 mg/mL busulfan, followed by weekly monitoring of disease burden through flow cytometry.

TAKEAWAY:

• CD37 surface expression was identified on all primary AML blasts examined, with varying levels of expression not correlating with European LeukemiaNet classification or overall survival.
• AML blasts demonstrated significantly higher CD37 internalization frequency than normal B cells (P = .001) and monocytes (P = .01), independent of surface expression levels.
• Primary AML samples with activating signaling mutations showed a trend toward increased CD37 internalization frequency (P = .053) than those without signaling mutations.
• Treatment with anti–CD37-DM1 significantly improved clinical outcomes and overall survival in multiple in vivo models of AML while showing minimal toxicity in humanized CD37 knockin mice.

IN PRACTICE:

“CD37 is a surface receptor present on most AML blasts, which has unique internalization properties when compared with normal blood cells. Treatment of AML with anti-CD37 ADC demonstrates specific cytotoxicity in vitro and improved overall survival in vivo,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Erin Jeremy and Esthela Artiga, Ohio State University, Columbus. It was published online on January 14 in Blood Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, variations in CD37 expression in response to laboratory manipulations such as Ficoll-Hypaque cell separation and cryopreservation may have affected the detection of CD37 on AML cells with inherently lower levels of expression. The researchers also note that they were unable to associate pathologic characteristics with membrane trafficking and cytotoxic activity within their cohort of samples.

DISCLOSURES:

Karilyn T. Larkin received research funding from Debiopharm. The remaining authors reported no competing financial interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

CD37, a surface protein present on most acute myeloid leukemia (AML) blasts, demonstrates unique internalization properties that enable targeted drug delivery with minimal impact on normal blood cells. Anti-CD37 antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) shows specific cytotoxicity to AML blasts while preserving normal hematopoietic stem cells.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed CD37 expression in 55 untreated, newly diagnosed primary AML samples, along with normal hematopoietic stem cells, peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and AML cell lines.
• Analysis included internalization assays using anti-CD37 antibody conjugated to fluorochrome Alexa Fluor 647, with cells incubated for 2 hours at 37 °C vs on ice to quantify surface and intracellular CD37.
• Investigators conducted in vivo studies using NOD scid gamma mice and NRGS mice treated with 25 mg/mL busulfan, followed by weekly monitoring of disease burden through flow cytometry.

TAKEAWAY:

• CD37 surface expression was identified on all primary AML blasts examined, with varying levels of expression not correlating with European LeukemiaNet classification or overall survival.
• AML blasts demonstrated significantly higher CD37 internalization frequency than normal B cells (P = .001) and monocytes (P = .01), independent of surface expression levels.
• Primary AML samples with activating signaling mutations showed a trend toward increased CD37 internalization frequency (P = .053) than those without signaling mutations.
• Treatment with anti–CD37-DM1 significantly improved clinical outcomes and overall survival in multiple in vivo models of AML while showing minimal toxicity in humanized CD37 knockin mice.

IN PRACTICE:

“CD37 is a surface receptor present on most AML blasts, which has unique internalization properties when compared with normal blood cells. Treatment of AML with anti-CD37 ADC demonstrates specific cytotoxicity in vitro and improved overall survival in vivo,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Erin Jeremy and Esthela Artiga, Ohio State University, Columbus. It was published online on January 14 in Blood Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, variations in CD37 expression in response to laboratory manipulations such as Ficoll-Hypaque cell separation and cryopreservation may have affected the detection of CD37 on AML cells with inherently lower levels of expression. The researchers also note that they were unable to associate pathologic characteristics with membrane trafficking and cytotoxic activity within their cohort of samples.

DISCLOSURES:

Karilyn T. Larkin received research funding from Debiopharm. The remaining authors reported no competing financial interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

CD37, a surface protein present on most acute myeloid leukemia (AML) blasts, demonstrates unique internalization properties that enable targeted drug delivery with minimal impact on normal blood cells. Anti-CD37 antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) shows specific cytotoxicity to AML blasts while preserving normal hematopoietic stem cells.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed CD37 expression in 55 untreated, newly diagnosed primary AML samples, along with normal hematopoietic stem cells, peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and AML cell lines.
• Analysis included internalization assays using anti-CD37 antibody conjugated to fluorochrome Alexa Fluor 647, with cells incubated for 2 hours at 37 °C vs on ice to quantify surface and intracellular CD37.
• Investigators conducted in vivo studies using NOD scid gamma mice and NRGS mice treated with 25 mg/mL busulfan, followed by weekly monitoring of disease burden through flow cytometry.

TAKEAWAY:

• CD37 surface expression was identified on all primary AML blasts examined, with varying levels of expression not correlating with European LeukemiaNet classification or overall survival.
• AML blasts demonstrated significantly higher CD37 internalization frequency than normal B cells (P = .001) and monocytes (P = .01), independent of surface expression levels.
• Primary AML samples with activating signaling mutations showed a trend toward increased CD37 internalization frequency (P = .053) than those without signaling mutations.
• Treatment with anti–CD37-DM1 significantly improved clinical outcomes and overall survival in multiple in vivo models of AML while showing minimal toxicity in humanized CD37 knockin mice.

IN PRACTICE:

“CD37 is a surface receptor present on most AML blasts, which has unique internalization properties when compared with normal blood cells. Treatment of AML with anti-CD37 ADC demonstrates specific cytotoxicity in vitro and improved overall survival in vivo,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Erin Jeremy and Esthela Artiga, Ohio State University, Columbus. It was published online on January 14 in Blood Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, variations in CD37 expression in response to laboratory manipulations such as Ficoll-Hypaque cell separation and cryopreservation may have affected the detection of CD37 on AML cells with inherently lower levels of expression. The researchers also note that they were unable to associate pathologic characteristics with membrane trafficking and cytotoxic activity within their cohort of samples.

DISCLOSURES:

Karilyn T. Larkin received research funding from Debiopharm. The remaining authors reported no competing financial interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In a retrospective study of 315 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, retreatment with previously refractory drugs achieved an overall response rate of 56.2% and median progression-free survival of 11 months. Longer initial therapy duration and greater time gap between treatments were associated with superior outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers retrospectively reviewed patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who started new systemic therapy for disease progression between January 2015 and April 2022 at their institution.
• Analysis included 315 patients treated with a drug that their disease had previously been refractory to, defined as disease progression while receiving the drug or within 60 days of the last dose.
• Patient characteristics collected at diagnosis included age, sex, International Staging System stage, revised International Staging System stage, and interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization abnormalities.
• Investigators considered the first relapse after January 2015 requiring new systemic therapy as the index relapse and study start time.

TAKEAWAY:

• Analysis revealed an overall response rate of 56.2% and median progression-free survival of 11 months with retreatment.
• Patients with longer initial therapy duration with index drug (> 28.4 months) demonstrated superior progression-free survival (median, 16.9 vs 8.1 months; P < .001).
• Researchers found that patients with longer time gap between initial therapy and retreatment (> 46.1 months) showed better progression-free survival (median, 28.2 vs 8.9 months; P = .016).
• Among the 285 evaluable patients, 26% achieved partial response and 30.2% achieved very good partial response or better with retreatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“Retreatment with previously refractory drugs is a viable option for late-line [relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma]. Patients with a longer gap between initial line of therapy with index drug and retreatment had superior outcomes with retreatment,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Utkarsh Goel, Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online on December 24, 2024, in Blood Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature and single-institution design of the study may introduce bias in terms of patient population and practice patterns. The favorable outcomes observed in patients with longer initial therapy duration and greater time between treatments could reflect selection bias toward more indolent disease biology. Despite adjusting for nonrefractory partner drugs during index relapse, residual bias may limit the ability to attribute outcomes solely to retreatment. The heterogeneous nature of treatments received during index relapse may limit comparisons across different groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Nelson Leung reported ties with AbbVie, Senseonics, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, and Omeros. Yi Lin disclosed relationships with multiple institutions, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, and Janssen Oncology. Shaji Kumar reported ties with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, and Janssen Oncology. Additional disclosures were noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In a retrospective study of 315 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, retreatment with previously refractory drugs achieved an overall response rate of 56.2% and median progression-free survival of 11 months. Longer initial therapy duration and greater time gap between treatments were associated with superior outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers retrospectively reviewed patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who started new systemic therapy for disease progression between January 2015 and April 2022 at their institution.
• Analysis included 315 patients treated with a drug that their disease had previously been refractory to, defined as disease progression while receiving the drug or within 60 days of the last dose.
• Patient characteristics collected at diagnosis included age, sex, International Staging System stage, revised International Staging System stage, and interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization abnormalities.
• Investigators considered the first relapse after January 2015 requiring new systemic therapy as the index relapse and study start time.

TAKEAWAY:

• Analysis revealed an overall response rate of 56.2% and median progression-free survival of 11 months with retreatment.
• Patients with longer initial therapy duration with index drug (> 28.4 months) demonstrated superior progression-free survival (median, 16.9 vs 8.1 months; P < .001).
• Researchers found that patients with longer time gap between initial therapy and retreatment (> 46.1 months) showed better progression-free survival (median, 28.2 vs 8.9 months; P = .016).
• Among the 285 evaluable patients, 26% achieved partial response and 30.2% achieved very good partial response or better with retreatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“Retreatment with previously refractory drugs is a viable option for late-line [relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma]. Patients with a longer gap between initial line of therapy with index drug and retreatment had superior outcomes with retreatment,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Utkarsh Goel, Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online on December 24, 2024, in Blood Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature and single-institution design of the study may introduce bias in terms of patient population and practice patterns. The favorable outcomes observed in patients with longer initial therapy duration and greater time between treatments could reflect selection bias toward more indolent disease biology. Despite adjusting for nonrefractory partner drugs during index relapse, residual bias may limit the ability to attribute outcomes solely to retreatment. The heterogeneous nature of treatments received during index relapse may limit comparisons across different groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Nelson Leung reported ties with AbbVie, Senseonics, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, and Omeros. Yi Lin disclosed relationships with multiple institutions, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, and Janssen Oncology. Shaji Kumar reported ties with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, and Janssen Oncology. Additional disclosures were noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In a retrospective study of 315 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, retreatment with previously refractory drugs achieved an overall response rate of 56.2% and median progression-free survival of 11 months. Longer initial therapy duration and greater time gap between treatments were associated with superior outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers retrospectively reviewed patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who started new systemic therapy for disease progression between January 2015 and April 2022 at their institution.
• Analysis included 315 patients treated with a drug that their disease had previously been refractory to, defined as disease progression while receiving the drug or within 60 days of the last dose.
• Patient characteristics collected at diagnosis included age, sex, International Staging System stage, revised International Staging System stage, and interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization abnormalities.
• Investigators considered the first relapse after January 2015 requiring new systemic therapy as the index relapse and study start time.

TAKEAWAY:

• Analysis revealed an overall response rate of 56.2% and median progression-free survival of 11 months with retreatment.
• Patients with longer initial therapy duration with index drug (> 28.4 months) demonstrated superior progression-free survival (median, 16.9 vs 8.1 months; P < .001).
• Researchers found that patients with longer time gap between initial therapy and retreatment (> 46.1 months) showed better progression-free survival (median, 28.2 vs 8.9 months; P = .016).
• Among the 285 evaluable patients, 26% achieved partial response and 30.2% achieved very good partial response or better with retreatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“Retreatment with previously refractory drugs is a viable option for late-line [relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma]. Patients with a longer gap between initial line of therapy with index drug and retreatment had superior outcomes with retreatment,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Utkarsh Goel, Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online on December 24, 2024, in Blood Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature and single-institution design of the study may introduce bias in terms of patient population and practice patterns. The favorable outcomes observed in patients with longer initial therapy duration and greater time between treatments could reflect selection bias toward more indolent disease biology. Despite adjusting for nonrefractory partner drugs during index relapse, residual bias may limit the ability to attribute outcomes solely to retreatment. The heterogeneous nature of treatments received during index relapse may limit comparisons across different groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Nelson Leung reported ties with AbbVie, Senseonics, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, and Omeros. Yi Lin disclosed relationships with multiple institutions, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, and Janssen Oncology. Shaji Kumar reported ties with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, and Janssen Oncology. Additional disclosures were noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New evidence–based clinical practice guidelines from the Alzheimer’s Association provide updated recommendations on evaluating individuals suspected of having Alzheimer’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease–related neurodegenerative disorders in both primary and specialty care settings.

This is the first update since 2001 for specialists and the first guideline for primary care physicians. Executive summaries of the guidelines were published in three articles online on December 23 in a special issue of Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 

What’s New? 

“With this guideline, we expand the scope of prior guidelines by providing recommendations for practicing clinicians on the process from start to finish,” coauthor Brad Dickerson, MD, director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Frontotemporal Disorders Unit and professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a statement.

“If clinicians adopt these recommendations and healthcare systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings,” Dickerson added in an interview.

Through a modified-Delphi approach and guideline-development process, an expert workgroup representing primary and specialty care reviewed 7374 publications, of which 133 met inclusion criteria.

Based on the information, the workgroup outlined a three-step patient-centered evaluation process, which includes assessing cognitive functional status, identifying the cognitive-behavioral syndrome based on specific symptoms, and determining the likely brain diseases or conditions causing the symptoms.

 

What Are the Key Recommendations?

The guidelines include 19 “practical” recommendations that are applicable to any practice setting. They capture the core elements of a high-quality evaluation and disclosure process, the author said. Here is a brief summary of the recommendations: 

Initial evaluation: Perform a multitiered evaluation for patients who self-report or whose care partner or clinician reports cognitive, behavioral, or functional changes.

Patient-centered communication: Partner with the patient and/or care partner to establish shared goals for the evaluation process; assess the patient’s capacity to engage in goal setting.

Diagnostic formulation: Use a tiered approach to assessments and tests based on individual presentation, risk factors, and profile, aiming to determine the level of impairment, cognitive-behavioral syndrome, and likely causes and contributing factors.

History taking: Gather reliable information from informants about changes in cognition, activities of daily living, mood, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and sensory/motor functions. Document individualized risk factors for cognitive decline.

Examination: Conduct a comprehensive examination of cognition, mood, behavior, and a dementia-focused neurologic evaluation using validated tools.

Laboratory tests: Perform tiered, individualized laboratory evaluations, starting with routine tests for all patients.

Structural imaging: Obtain structural brain imaging (MRI preferred, CT as an alternative) to help establish a cause.

Ongoing communication: Engage in ongoing dialogue with patient/care partner to guide them throughout the diagnostic process.

Diagnostic disclosure: Share findings honestly and compassionately, explaining the syndrome, its severity, probable cause, prognosis, treatment options and support resources.

Specialist referral: Refer patients with atypical, uncertain, early-onset, or rapidly progressing symptoms to a dementia subspecialist.

Neuropsychological testing: Use in instances of diagnostic uncertainty or patients with complex clinical profiles. At a minimum, the neuropsychological evaluation should include normed neuropsychological testing of the domains of learning and memory (in particular delayed free and cued recall/recognition), attention, executive function, visuospatial function, and language.

Advanced diagnostic testing: When diagnostic uncertainty remains, obtain additional laboratory tests tailored to individual patient profiles.

Molecular imaging: In a patient with an established cognitive-behavioral syndrome in whom there is continued diagnostic uncertainty regarding cause(s) after structural imaging, a dementia specialist can obtain molecular imaging with fluorodeoxyglucose PET to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis: Utilize CSF biomarkers to evaluate amyloid beta and tau profiles in cases with unresolved diagnostic uncertainty.

Amyloid PET imaging: Perform amyloid PET scans for patients with persistent diagnostic uncertainty after other assessments.

Genetic counseling and testing: Consider genetic testing for patients with strong autosomal dominant family histories and involve a genetic counselor.

 

Future Directions?

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer and medical affairs lead for the Alzheimer’s Association, encourages clinicians to incorporate these guidelines into their practice.

“These guidelines are important because they guide clinicians in the evaluation of memory complaints, which could have many underlying causes. That is the necessary start for an early and accurate Alzheimer’s diagnosis,” Carrillo said in a statement.

Dickerson said the new guidelines do not address blood-based biomarkers “because nobody really feels that they are ready for prime time yet, even though they’re getting rolled out as clinical products.” 

However, the recommendations will be revised as needed. “That’s one of the values of setting this up as a process; whenever any new development occurs, it will be easy to update the guidelines to show where that new test or new biomarker fits in the overall process,” he said.

 

New Appropriate Use Guidance

A separate workgroup, jointly convened by the Alzheimer’s Association and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, has revised appropriate use criteria (AUC) for amyloid PET imaging and developed AUC for tau PET imaging.

They were simultaneously published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia and The Journal of Nuclear Medicine. They are the first revision since the initial AUC for amyloid PET was introduced in 2013.

“The updated amyloid/tau appropriate use criteria will help ensure these tracers are used in a cost-effective manner and the scan results will be used appropriately to add value to the diagnosis and management of dementia,” said workgroup members Kevin Donohoe, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and Phillip Kuo, MD, with City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.

The AUC include 17 real-world scenarios in which amyloid or tau PET may be considered, with the two tests considered separately and given their own rating for each scenario.

Overall, the strongest evidence for their use includes assessment and prognosis for people with mild cognitive impairment; assessment of people with dementia when the cause is not clearly known; and determining eligibility for treatment with new disease-modifying therapies, and monitoring response to these treatments, the workgroup said.

“Whereas the prior AUC was written at a time when only the deposition of amyloid could be documented, the new therapeutic agents allow us to demonstrate the actual clearance of amyloid during therapy,” Donohoe and Kuo explained.

“These new therapeutic agents are expensive and, as with most medications, may cause unwanted side effects. The most recent version of the AUC includes information about the appropriate use of amyloid imaging for both documenting the presence of amyloid deposits in the brain, making anti-amyloid therapy an option, as well as documenting the effectiveness of the therapeutic agents as amyloid is (or is not) cleared from the brain,” Donahoe and Kuo noted.

The revised AUC also state that, in most cases, amyloid and tau PET tests should not be used for people who do not have cognitive impairment, even if they carry the APOE4 risk-related gene for Alzheimer’s disease; nonmedical use such as for legal concerns, insurance coverage, or employment screening; and in place of genetic testing in patients suspected of carrying a disease-causing genetic mutation.

In a statement, lead author Gil D. Rabinovici, MD, with University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that the AUC “should be considered guidelines for clinicians, not a substitute for careful clinical judgment that considers the full clinical context for each patient with cognitive complaints.”

This research was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association. Disclosures for guideline authors are available with the original articles.

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

New evidence–based clinical practice guidelines from the Alzheimer’s Association provide updated recommendations on evaluating individuals suspected of having Alzheimer’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease–related neurodegenerative disorders in both primary and specialty care settings.

This is the first update since 2001 for specialists and the first guideline for primary care physicians. Executive summaries of the guidelines were published in three articles online on December 23 in a special issue of Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 

What’s New? 

“With this guideline, we expand the scope of prior guidelines by providing recommendations for practicing clinicians on the process from start to finish,” coauthor Brad Dickerson, MD, director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Frontotemporal Disorders Unit and professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a statement.

“If clinicians adopt these recommendations and healthcare systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings,” Dickerson added in an interview.

Through a modified-Delphi approach and guideline-development process, an expert workgroup representing primary and specialty care reviewed 7374 publications, of which 133 met inclusion criteria.

Based on the information, the workgroup outlined a three-step patient-centered evaluation process, which includes assessing cognitive functional status, identifying the cognitive-behavioral syndrome based on specific symptoms, and determining the likely brain diseases or conditions causing the symptoms.

 

What Are the Key Recommendations?

The guidelines include 19 “practical” recommendations that are applicable to any practice setting. They capture the core elements of a high-quality evaluation and disclosure process, the author said. Here is a brief summary of the recommendations: 

Initial evaluation: Perform a multitiered evaluation for patients who self-report or whose care partner or clinician reports cognitive, behavioral, or functional changes.

Patient-centered communication: Partner with the patient and/or care partner to establish shared goals for the evaluation process; assess the patient’s capacity to engage in goal setting.

Diagnostic formulation: Use a tiered approach to assessments and tests based on individual presentation, risk factors, and profile, aiming to determine the level of impairment, cognitive-behavioral syndrome, and likely causes and contributing factors.

History taking: Gather reliable information from informants about changes in cognition, activities of daily living, mood, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and sensory/motor functions. Document individualized risk factors for cognitive decline.

Examination: Conduct a comprehensive examination of cognition, mood, behavior, and a dementia-focused neurologic evaluation using validated tools.

Laboratory tests: Perform tiered, individualized laboratory evaluations, starting with routine tests for all patients.

Structural imaging: Obtain structural brain imaging (MRI preferred, CT as an alternative) to help establish a cause.

Ongoing communication: Engage in ongoing dialogue with patient/care partner to guide them throughout the diagnostic process.

Diagnostic disclosure: Share findings honestly and compassionately, explaining the syndrome, its severity, probable cause, prognosis, treatment options and support resources.

Specialist referral: Refer patients with atypical, uncertain, early-onset, or rapidly progressing symptoms to a dementia subspecialist.

Neuropsychological testing: Use in instances of diagnostic uncertainty or patients with complex clinical profiles. At a minimum, the neuropsychological evaluation should include normed neuropsychological testing of the domains of learning and memory (in particular delayed free and cued recall/recognition), attention, executive function, visuospatial function, and language.

Advanced diagnostic testing: When diagnostic uncertainty remains, obtain additional laboratory tests tailored to individual patient profiles.

Molecular imaging: In a patient with an established cognitive-behavioral syndrome in whom there is continued diagnostic uncertainty regarding cause(s) after structural imaging, a dementia specialist can obtain molecular imaging with fluorodeoxyglucose PET to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis: Utilize CSF biomarkers to evaluate amyloid beta and tau profiles in cases with unresolved diagnostic uncertainty.

Amyloid PET imaging: Perform amyloid PET scans for patients with persistent diagnostic uncertainty after other assessments.

Genetic counseling and testing: Consider genetic testing for patients with strong autosomal dominant family histories and involve a genetic counselor.

 

Future Directions?

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer and medical affairs lead for the Alzheimer’s Association, encourages clinicians to incorporate these guidelines into their practice.

“These guidelines are important because they guide clinicians in the evaluation of memory complaints, which could have many underlying causes. That is the necessary start for an early and accurate Alzheimer’s diagnosis,” Carrillo said in a statement.

Dickerson said the new guidelines do not address blood-based biomarkers “because nobody really feels that they are ready for prime time yet, even though they’re getting rolled out as clinical products.” 

However, the recommendations will be revised as needed. “That’s one of the values of setting this up as a process; whenever any new development occurs, it will be easy to update the guidelines to show where that new test or new biomarker fits in the overall process,” he said.

 

New Appropriate Use Guidance

A separate workgroup, jointly convened by the Alzheimer’s Association and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, has revised appropriate use criteria (AUC) for amyloid PET imaging and developed AUC for tau PET imaging.

They were simultaneously published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia and The Journal of Nuclear Medicine. They are the first revision since the initial AUC for amyloid PET was introduced in 2013.

“The updated amyloid/tau appropriate use criteria will help ensure these tracers are used in a cost-effective manner and the scan results will be used appropriately to add value to the diagnosis and management of dementia,” said workgroup members Kevin Donohoe, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and Phillip Kuo, MD, with City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.

The AUC include 17 real-world scenarios in which amyloid or tau PET may be considered, with the two tests considered separately and given their own rating for each scenario.

Overall, the strongest evidence for their use includes assessment and prognosis for people with mild cognitive impairment; assessment of people with dementia when the cause is not clearly known; and determining eligibility for treatment with new disease-modifying therapies, and monitoring response to these treatments, the workgroup said.

“Whereas the prior AUC was written at a time when only the deposition of amyloid could be documented, the new therapeutic agents allow us to demonstrate the actual clearance of amyloid during therapy,” Donohoe and Kuo explained.

“These new therapeutic agents are expensive and, as with most medications, may cause unwanted side effects. The most recent version of the AUC includes information about the appropriate use of amyloid imaging for both documenting the presence of amyloid deposits in the brain, making anti-amyloid therapy an option, as well as documenting the effectiveness of the therapeutic agents as amyloid is (or is not) cleared from the brain,” Donahoe and Kuo noted.

The revised AUC also state that, in most cases, amyloid and tau PET tests should not be used for people who do not have cognitive impairment, even if they carry the APOE4 risk-related gene for Alzheimer’s disease; nonmedical use such as for legal concerns, insurance coverage, or employment screening; and in place of genetic testing in patients suspected of carrying a disease-causing genetic mutation.

In a statement, lead author Gil D. Rabinovici, MD, with University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that the AUC “should be considered guidelines for clinicians, not a substitute for careful clinical judgment that considers the full clinical context for each patient with cognitive complaints.”

This research was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association. Disclosures for guideline authors are available with the original articles.

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

New evidence–based clinical practice guidelines from the Alzheimer’s Association provide updated recommendations on evaluating individuals suspected of having Alzheimer’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease–related neurodegenerative disorders in both primary and specialty care settings.

This is the first update since 2001 for specialists and the first guideline for primary care physicians. Executive summaries of the guidelines were published in three articles online on December 23 in a special issue of Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 

What’s New? 

“With this guideline, we expand the scope of prior guidelines by providing recommendations for practicing clinicians on the process from start to finish,” coauthor Brad Dickerson, MD, director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Frontotemporal Disorders Unit and professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a statement.

“If clinicians adopt these recommendations and healthcare systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings,” Dickerson added in an interview.

Through a modified-Delphi approach and guideline-development process, an expert workgroup representing primary and specialty care reviewed 7374 publications, of which 133 met inclusion criteria.

Based on the information, the workgroup outlined a three-step patient-centered evaluation process, which includes assessing cognitive functional status, identifying the cognitive-behavioral syndrome based on specific symptoms, and determining the likely brain diseases or conditions causing the symptoms.

 

What Are the Key Recommendations?

The guidelines include 19 “practical” recommendations that are applicable to any practice setting. They capture the core elements of a high-quality evaluation and disclosure process, the author said. Here is a brief summary of the recommendations: 

Initial evaluation: Perform a multitiered evaluation for patients who self-report or whose care partner or clinician reports cognitive, behavioral, or functional changes.

Patient-centered communication: Partner with the patient and/or care partner to establish shared goals for the evaluation process; assess the patient’s capacity to engage in goal setting.

Diagnostic formulation: Use a tiered approach to assessments and tests based on individual presentation, risk factors, and profile, aiming to determine the level of impairment, cognitive-behavioral syndrome, and likely causes and contributing factors.

History taking: Gather reliable information from informants about changes in cognition, activities of daily living, mood, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and sensory/motor functions. Document individualized risk factors for cognitive decline.

Examination: Conduct a comprehensive examination of cognition, mood, behavior, and a dementia-focused neurologic evaluation using validated tools.

Laboratory tests: Perform tiered, individualized laboratory evaluations, starting with routine tests for all patients.

Structural imaging: Obtain structural brain imaging (MRI preferred, CT as an alternative) to help establish a cause.

Ongoing communication: Engage in ongoing dialogue with patient/care partner to guide them throughout the diagnostic process.

Diagnostic disclosure: Share findings honestly and compassionately, explaining the syndrome, its severity, probable cause, prognosis, treatment options and support resources.

Specialist referral: Refer patients with atypical, uncertain, early-onset, or rapidly progressing symptoms to a dementia subspecialist.

Neuropsychological testing: Use in instances of diagnostic uncertainty or patients with complex clinical profiles. At a minimum, the neuropsychological evaluation should include normed neuropsychological testing of the domains of learning and memory (in particular delayed free and cued recall/recognition), attention, executive function, visuospatial function, and language.

Advanced diagnostic testing: When diagnostic uncertainty remains, obtain additional laboratory tests tailored to individual patient profiles.

Molecular imaging: In a patient with an established cognitive-behavioral syndrome in whom there is continued diagnostic uncertainty regarding cause(s) after structural imaging, a dementia specialist can obtain molecular imaging with fluorodeoxyglucose PET to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis: Utilize CSF biomarkers to evaluate amyloid beta and tau profiles in cases with unresolved diagnostic uncertainty.

Amyloid PET imaging: Perform amyloid PET scans for patients with persistent diagnostic uncertainty after other assessments.

Genetic counseling and testing: Consider genetic testing for patients with strong autosomal dominant family histories and involve a genetic counselor.

 

Future Directions?

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer and medical affairs lead for the Alzheimer’s Association, encourages clinicians to incorporate these guidelines into their practice.

“These guidelines are important because they guide clinicians in the evaluation of memory complaints, which could have many underlying causes. That is the necessary start for an early and accurate Alzheimer’s diagnosis,” Carrillo said in a statement.

Dickerson said the new guidelines do not address blood-based biomarkers “because nobody really feels that they are ready for prime time yet, even though they’re getting rolled out as clinical products.” 

However, the recommendations will be revised as needed. “That’s one of the values of setting this up as a process; whenever any new development occurs, it will be easy to update the guidelines to show where that new test or new biomarker fits in the overall process,” he said.

 

New Appropriate Use Guidance

A separate workgroup, jointly convened by the Alzheimer’s Association and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, has revised appropriate use criteria (AUC) for amyloid PET imaging and developed AUC for tau PET imaging.

They were simultaneously published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia and The Journal of Nuclear Medicine. They are the first revision since the initial AUC for amyloid PET was introduced in 2013.

“The updated amyloid/tau appropriate use criteria will help ensure these tracers are used in a cost-effective manner and the scan results will be used appropriately to add value to the diagnosis and management of dementia,” said workgroup members Kevin Donohoe, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and Phillip Kuo, MD, with City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.

The AUC include 17 real-world scenarios in which amyloid or tau PET may be considered, with the two tests considered separately and given their own rating for each scenario.

Overall, the strongest evidence for their use includes assessment and prognosis for people with mild cognitive impairment; assessment of people with dementia when the cause is not clearly known; and determining eligibility for treatment with new disease-modifying therapies, and monitoring response to these treatments, the workgroup said.

“Whereas the prior AUC was written at a time when only the deposition of amyloid could be documented, the new therapeutic agents allow us to demonstrate the actual clearance of amyloid during therapy,” Donohoe and Kuo explained.

“These new therapeutic agents are expensive and, as with most medications, may cause unwanted side effects. The most recent version of the AUC includes information about the appropriate use of amyloid imaging for both documenting the presence of amyloid deposits in the brain, making anti-amyloid therapy an option, as well as documenting the effectiveness of the therapeutic agents as amyloid is (or is not) cleared from the brain,” Donahoe and Kuo noted.

The revised AUC also state that, in most cases, amyloid and tau PET tests should not be used for people who do not have cognitive impairment, even if they carry the APOE4 risk-related gene for Alzheimer’s disease; nonmedical use such as for legal concerns, insurance coverage, or employment screening; and in place of genetic testing in patients suspected of carrying a disease-causing genetic mutation.

In a statement, lead author Gil D. Rabinovici, MD, with University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that the AUC “should be considered guidelines for clinicians, not a substitute for careful clinical judgment that considers the full clinical context for each patient with cognitive complaints.”

This research was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association. Disclosures for guideline authors are available with the original articles.

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

TOPLINE:

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is less common and is associated with higher mortality rates than melanoma, according to a study that also reported that male gender, older age, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) are significant risk factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 19,444 MCC cases and 646,619 melanoma cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2021 using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
• Ambient UVR exposure data were obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s total ozone mapping spectrometer database.
• Risk factors and cancer-specific mortality rates were evaluated for both cancers.

TAKEAWAY:

• Incidence rates per 100,000 person-years of MCC and melanoma were 0.8 and 27.3, respectively.
• Men (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.72 for MCC and 1.23 for melanoma), older age groups (IRR: 2.69 for MCC and 1.62 for melanoma among those 70-79 years; and 5.68 for MCC and 2.26 for melanoma among those 80 years or older) showed higher incidences of MCC and melanoma. Non-Hispanic White individuals were at higher risk for MCC and melanoma than other racial/ethnic groups.
• Exposure to UVR was associated with higher incidences of melanoma (IRR, 1.24-1.49) and MCC (IRR, 1.15-1.20) in non-Hispanic White individuals, particularly on the head and neck. These associations were unclear among racial/ethnic groups.
• Individuals with MCC had a higher risk for cancer-specific mortality than those with melanoma (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% CI, 2.26-2.42). Cancer-specific survival for both cancers improved for cases diagnosed during 2012-2021 vs 2004-2011 (MCC: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89; melanoma: HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76).

IN PRACTICE:

“MCC and melanoma are aggressive skin cancers with similar risk factors including male sex, older age, and UV radiation exposure. Clinicians should be alert to diagnosis of these cancers to allow for prompt treatment,” the authors wrote, adding: “It is encouraging that survival for both cancers has increased in recent years, with the largest gains in survival seen in distant stage melanoma, coinciding with the approval of BRAF and PD-1 inhibitors used for distant stage disease,” although mortality for advanced stage tumors “continues to be very high.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on January 5 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on SEER’s general staging system rather than the American Joint Committee on Cancer standard, and UVR exposure estimates did not account for individual sun protection behaviors or prior residential history. Race and ethnicity served as a proxy for UVR sensitivity, which may introduce misclassification bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Association for Dental Research, and the Colgate-Palmolive Company. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is less common and is associated with higher mortality rates than melanoma, according to a study that also reported that male gender, older age, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) are significant risk factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 19,444 MCC cases and 646,619 melanoma cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2021 using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
• Ambient UVR exposure data were obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s total ozone mapping spectrometer database.
• Risk factors and cancer-specific mortality rates were evaluated for both cancers.

TAKEAWAY:

• Incidence rates per 100,000 person-years of MCC and melanoma were 0.8 and 27.3, respectively.
• Men (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.72 for MCC and 1.23 for melanoma), older age groups (IRR: 2.69 for MCC and 1.62 for melanoma among those 70-79 years; and 5.68 for MCC and 2.26 for melanoma among those 80 years or older) showed higher incidences of MCC and melanoma. Non-Hispanic White individuals were at higher risk for MCC and melanoma than other racial/ethnic groups.
• Exposure to UVR was associated with higher incidences of melanoma (IRR, 1.24-1.49) and MCC (IRR, 1.15-1.20) in non-Hispanic White individuals, particularly on the head and neck. These associations were unclear among racial/ethnic groups.
• Individuals with MCC had a higher risk for cancer-specific mortality than those with melanoma (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% CI, 2.26-2.42). Cancer-specific survival for both cancers improved for cases diagnosed during 2012-2021 vs 2004-2011 (MCC: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89; melanoma: HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76).

IN PRACTICE:

“MCC and melanoma are aggressive skin cancers with similar risk factors including male sex, older age, and UV radiation exposure. Clinicians should be alert to diagnosis of these cancers to allow for prompt treatment,” the authors wrote, adding: “It is encouraging that survival for both cancers has increased in recent years, with the largest gains in survival seen in distant stage melanoma, coinciding with the approval of BRAF and PD-1 inhibitors used for distant stage disease,” although mortality for advanced stage tumors “continues to be very high.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on January 5 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on SEER’s general staging system rather than the American Joint Committee on Cancer standard, and UVR exposure estimates did not account for individual sun protection behaviors or prior residential history. Race and ethnicity served as a proxy for UVR sensitivity, which may introduce misclassification bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Association for Dental Research, and the Colgate-Palmolive Company. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is less common and is associated with higher mortality rates than melanoma, according to a study that also reported that male gender, older age, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) are significant risk factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 19,444 MCC cases and 646,619 melanoma cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2021 using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.
• Ambient UVR exposure data were obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s total ozone mapping spectrometer database.
• Risk factors and cancer-specific mortality rates were evaluated for both cancers.

TAKEAWAY:

• Incidence rates per 100,000 person-years of MCC and melanoma were 0.8 and 27.3, respectively.
• Men (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.72 for MCC and 1.23 for melanoma), older age groups (IRR: 2.69 for MCC and 1.62 for melanoma among those 70-79 years; and 5.68 for MCC and 2.26 for melanoma among those 80 years or older) showed higher incidences of MCC and melanoma. Non-Hispanic White individuals were at higher risk for MCC and melanoma than other racial/ethnic groups.
• Exposure to UVR was associated with higher incidences of melanoma (IRR, 1.24-1.49) and MCC (IRR, 1.15-1.20) in non-Hispanic White individuals, particularly on the head and neck. These associations were unclear among racial/ethnic groups.
• Individuals with MCC had a higher risk for cancer-specific mortality than those with melanoma (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% CI, 2.26-2.42). Cancer-specific survival for both cancers improved for cases diagnosed during 2012-2021 vs 2004-2011 (MCC: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89; melanoma: HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76).

IN PRACTICE:

“MCC and melanoma are aggressive skin cancers with similar risk factors including male sex, older age, and UV radiation exposure. Clinicians should be alert to diagnosis of these cancers to allow for prompt treatment,” the authors wrote, adding: “It is encouraging that survival for both cancers has increased in recent years, with the largest gains in survival seen in distant stage melanoma, coinciding with the approval of BRAF and PD-1 inhibitors used for distant stage disease,” although mortality for advanced stage tumors “continues to be very high.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on January 5 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on SEER’s general staging system rather than the American Joint Committee on Cancer standard, and UVR exposure estimates did not account for individual sun protection behaviors or prior residential history. Race and ethnicity served as a proxy for UVR sensitivity, which may introduce misclassification bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Association for Dental Research, and the Colgate-Palmolive Company. The authors reported no conflict of interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tildrakizumab was well tolerated and achieved sustained response in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis of the scalp in a phase 3 study.

METHODOLOGY:

• A 72-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3b trial enrolled 231 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis of the scalp.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 114) or tildrakizumab (n = 117) until week 16, when patients in the placebo group switched to receive tildrakizumab.
• The primary endpoint, Investigator Global Assessment modified 2011 (IGA) scalp response, was defined as a score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) or an improvement of at least two points at week 16.
• The treatment was stopped at week 52, and participants were observed for another 20 weeks for safety and tolerability.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 16, the response rate was higher in the tildrakizumab group than in the placebo group (49.4% vs 7.3%; P < .00001), and it increased to 62.9% and 56.1% (after crossover), respectively, at week 52.
• Psoriasis Scalp Severity Index 90 (PSSI 90) response rates were 60.7% and 4.9% at week 16 in the tildrakizumab and placebo groups, rising to 65.2% and 57.3%, respectively, at week 52.
• More than 80% of the week 16 responders maintained IGA and PSSI 90 responses at week 52.
• More than 50% of patients in both groups experienced adverse events, with no treatment-related serious toxicity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Tildrakizumab maintains improvements in scalp psoriasis for up to 52 weeks,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Howard L. Sofen, MD, University of California, Los Angeles, led the study, which was published online on December 22, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study excluded patients with predominantly scalp involvement and minimal whole body psoriasis, who might respond differently to the treatment. Results were obtained under controlled clinical conditions and may not be generalizable to clinical practice.

DISCLOSURES:

This study and analyses were funded by Sun Pharma. Sofen reported serving as a clinical investigator for various pharmaceutical companies, including Sun Pharma. Five authors were current or former employees of Sun Pharma and associated companies. Others also disclosed financial ties outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tildrakizumab was well tolerated and achieved sustained response in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis of the scalp in a phase 3 study.

METHODOLOGY:

• A 72-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3b trial enrolled 231 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis of the scalp.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 114) or tildrakizumab (n = 117) until week 16, when patients in the placebo group switched to receive tildrakizumab.
• The primary endpoint, Investigator Global Assessment modified 2011 (IGA) scalp response, was defined as a score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) or an improvement of at least two points at week 16.
• The treatment was stopped at week 52, and participants were observed for another 20 weeks for safety and tolerability.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 16, the response rate was higher in the tildrakizumab group than in the placebo group (49.4% vs 7.3%; P < .00001), and it increased to 62.9% and 56.1% (after crossover), respectively, at week 52.
• Psoriasis Scalp Severity Index 90 (PSSI 90) response rates were 60.7% and 4.9% at week 16 in the tildrakizumab and placebo groups, rising to 65.2% and 57.3%, respectively, at week 52.
• More than 80% of the week 16 responders maintained IGA and PSSI 90 responses at week 52.
• More than 50% of patients in both groups experienced adverse events, with no treatment-related serious toxicity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Tildrakizumab maintains improvements in scalp psoriasis for up to 52 weeks,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Howard L. Sofen, MD, University of California, Los Angeles, led the study, which was published online on December 22, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study excluded patients with predominantly scalp involvement and minimal whole body psoriasis, who might respond differently to the treatment. Results were obtained under controlled clinical conditions and may not be generalizable to clinical practice.

DISCLOSURES:

This study and analyses were funded by Sun Pharma. Sofen reported serving as a clinical investigator for various pharmaceutical companies, including Sun Pharma. Five authors were current or former employees of Sun Pharma and associated companies. Others also disclosed financial ties outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tildrakizumab was well tolerated and achieved sustained response in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis of the scalp in a phase 3 study.

METHODOLOGY:

• A 72-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3b trial enrolled 231 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis of the scalp.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 114) or tildrakizumab (n = 117) until week 16, when patients in the placebo group switched to receive tildrakizumab.
• The primary endpoint, Investigator Global Assessment modified 2011 (IGA) scalp response, was defined as a score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) or an improvement of at least two points at week 16.
• The treatment was stopped at week 52, and participants were observed for another 20 weeks for safety and tolerability.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 16, the response rate was higher in the tildrakizumab group than in the placebo group (49.4% vs 7.3%; P < .00001), and it increased to 62.9% and 56.1% (after crossover), respectively, at week 52.
• Psoriasis Scalp Severity Index 90 (PSSI 90) response rates were 60.7% and 4.9% at week 16 in the tildrakizumab and placebo groups, rising to 65.2% and 57.3%, respectively, at week 52.
• More than 80% of the week 16 responders maintained IGA and PSSI 90 responses at week 52.
• More than 50% of patients in both groups experienced adverse events, with no treatment-related serious toxicity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Tildrakizumab maintains improvements in scalp psoriasis for up to 52 weeks,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Howard L. Sofen, MD, University of California, Los Angeles, led the study, which was published online on December 22, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study excluded patients with predominantly scalp involvement and minimal whole body psoriasis, who might respond differently to the treatment. Results were obtained under controlled clinical conditions and may not be generalizable to clinical practice.

DISCLOSURES:

This study and analyses were funded by Sun Pharma. Sofen reported serving as a clinical investigator for various pharmaceutical companies, including Sun Pharma. Five authors were current or former employees of Sun Pharma and associated companies. Others also disclosed financial ties outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Changes in Krebs von den Lungen 6 (KL-6) levels after 12 months of treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or cyclophosphamide (CYC) are associated with the development of progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) in patients with systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) in the following year.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite available treatments, about 25% of patients with SSc-ILD develop PPF, highlighting the need for reliable early treatment response indicators, such as blood biomarkers, which may help predict the risk for PPF.
• Researchers conducted post hoc analyses of a randomized control trial that compared treatment responses to MMF with those to CYC in patients with SSc-ILD. Patients received either oral CYC for 12 months followed by placebo for 12 months or MMF for 24 months.
• A total of 92 patients with complete biomarker measurements at baseline and 12 months were included in the analysis (mean age, 52.2 years; 73.9% women; 68.5% White).
• The analysis included measurement of multiple blood biomarker levels, including C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6, chemokine ligand 4 (CXCL4), CXCL18, and KL-6. Changes in these levels were evaluated from baseline to 12 months.
• The primary outcome was the development of PPF between 12 and 24 months, defined by meeting at least two of these following conditions: Worsening respiratory symptoms, a decline in forced vital capacity ≥ 5% and/or a decline in diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide ≥ 10%, or radiological disease progression.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 92 patients, 19 developed PPF between 12 and 24 months, with 10 patients in the MMF arm and 9 patients in the CYC arm.
• KL-6 levels increased from baseline to 12 months in patients who developed PPF and decreased in those who did not (mean change, 365.68 vs –207.45 u/mL; P < .001).
• A 0.10-unit increase in KL-6 levels was associated with a 40% increase in the odds of developing PPF in an adjusted analysis (P = .0002).
• In the MMF group, levels of KL-6, CRP, and CXCL4 differed significantly between patients who developed PPF and those who did not (P = .004, P = .04, and P = .038, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“Reliable response biomarkers detectable early in the course of SSc-ILD treatment could minimize exposure to toxic therapies that are not conferring benefit and maximize exposure to alternative therapies that do confer benefit,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth R. Volkmann, MD, MS, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study population consisted of patients who were treatment-naive to MMF and CYC and had a relatively early disease course, potentially limiting generalizability to patients at later disease stages or with different treatment histories. Additionally, biomarker measurements were conducted at 12 months, when treatment response may be detectable through currently available methods, rather than at earlier timepoints.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Department of Defense. MMF was supplied by Hoffmann–La Roche. Some authors reported having financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including Hoffmann–La Roche.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Changes in Krebs von den Lungen 6 (KL-6) levels after 12 months of treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or cyclophosphamide (CYC) are associated with the development of progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) in patients with systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) in the following year.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite available treatments, about 25% of patients with SSc-ILD develop PPF, highlighting the need for reliable early treatment response indicators, such as blood biomarkers, which may help predict the risk for PPF.
• Researchers conducted post hoc analyses of a randomized control trial that compared treatment responses to MMF with those to CYC in patients with SSc-ILD. Patients received either oral CYC for 12 months followed by placebo for 12 months or MMF for 24 months.
• A total of 92 patients with complete biomarker measurements at baseline and 12 months were included in the analysis (mean age, 52.2 years; 73.9% women; 68.5% White).
• The analysis included measurement of multiple blood biomarker levels, including C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6, chemokine ligand 4 (CXCL4), CXCL18, and KL-6. Changes in these levels were evaluated from baseline to 12 months.
• The primary outcome was the development of PPF between 12 and 24 months, defined by meeting at least two of these following conditions: Worsening respiratory symptoms, a decline in forced vital capacity ≥ 5% and/or a decline in diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide ≥ 10%, or radiological disease progression.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 92 patients, 19 developed PPF between 12 and 24 months, with 10 patients in the MMF arm and 9 patients in the CYC arm.
• KL-6 levels increased from baseline to 12 months in patients who developed PPF and decreased in those who did not (mean change, 365.68 vs –207.45 u/mL; P < .001).
• A 0.10-unit increase in KL-6 levels was associated with a 40% increase in the odds of developing PPF in an adjusted analysis (P = .0002).
• In the MMF group, levels of KL-6, CRP, and CXCL4 differed significantly between patients who developed PPF and those who did not (P = .004, P = .04, and P = .038, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“Reliable response biomarkers detectable early in the course of SSc-ILD treatment could minimize exposure to toxic therapies that are not conferring benefit and maximize exposure to alternative therapies that do confer benefit,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth R. Volkmann, MD, MS, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study population consisted of patients who were treatment-naive to MMF and CYC and had a relatively early disease course, potentially limiting generalizability to patients at later disease stages or with different treatment histories. Additionally, biomarker measurements were conducted at 12 months, when treatment response may be detectable through currently available methods, rather than at earlier timepoints.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Department of Defense. MMF was supplied by Hoffmann–La Roche. Some authors reported having financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including Hoffmann–La Roche.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Changes in Krebs von den Lungen 6 (KL-6) levels after 12 months of treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or cyclophosphamide (CYC) are associated with the development of progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) in patients with systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) in the following year.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite available treatments, about 25% of patients with SSc-ILD develop PPF, highlighting the need for reliable early treatment response indicators, such as blood biomarkers, which may help predict the risk for PPF.
• Researchers conducted post hoc analyses of a randomized control trial that compared treatment responses to MMF with those to CYC in patients with SSc-ILD. Patients received either oral CYC for 12 months followed by placebo for 12 months or MMF for 24 months.
• A total of 92 patients with complete biomarker measurements at baseline and 12 months were included in the analysis (mean age, 52.2 years; 73.9% women; 68.5% White).
• The analysis included measurement of multiple blood biomarker levels, including C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6, chemokine ligand 4 (CXCL4), CXCL18, and KL-6. Changes in these levels were evaluated from baseline to 12 months.
• The primary outcome was the development of PPF between 12 and 24 months, defined by meeting at least two of these following conditions: Worsening respiratory symptoms, a decline in forced vital capacity ≥ 5% and/or a decline in diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide ≥ 10%, or radiological disease progression.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 92 patients, 19 developed PPF between 12 and 24 months, with 10 patients in the MMF arm and 9 patients in the CYC arm.
• KL-6 levels increased from baseline to 12 months in patients who developed PPF and decreased in those who did not (mean change, 365.68 vs –207.45 u/mL; P < .001).
• A 0.10-unit increase in KL-6 levels was associated with a 40% increase in the odds of developing PPF in an adjusted analysis (P = .0002).
• In the MMF group, levels of KL-6, CRP, and CXCL4 differed significantly between patients who developed PPF and those who did not (P = .004, P = .04, and P = .038, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“Reliable response biomarkers detectable early in the course of SSc-ILD treatment could minimize exposure to toxic therapies that are not conferring benefit and maximize exposure to alternative therapies that do confer benefit,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth R. Volkmann, MD, MS, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study population consisted of patients who were treatment-naive to MMF and CYC and had a relatively early disease course, potentially limiting generalizability to patients at later disease stages or with different treatment histories. Additionally, biomarker measurements were conducted at 12 months, when treatment response may be detectable through currently available methods, rather than at earlier timepoints.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Department of Defense. MMF was supplied by Hoffmann–La Roche. Some authors reported having financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including Hoffmann–La Roche.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In 2022, autoimmune diseases affected over 15 million individuals in the United States, with women nearly twice as likely to be affected as men and more than one third of affected individuals having more than one autoimmune condition.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used electronic health record (EHR) data from six healthcare systems in the United States between 2011 and 2022 to estimate the prevalence of autoimmune diseases according to sex and age.
• They selected 105 autoimmune diseases from the textbook The Autoimmune Diseases and estimated their prevalence in more than 10 million individuals from these healthcare systems; these statistics were subsequently extrapolated to an estimated US population of 333.3 million.
• An individual was considered to have a diagnosis of an autoimmune disease if they had at least two diagnosis codes for the condition, with the codes being at least 30 days apart.
• A software program was developed to compute the prevalence of autoimmune diseases alone and in aggregate, enabling other researchers to replicate or modify the analysis over time.

TAKEAWAY:

• More than 15 million people, accounting for 4.6% of the US population, were diagnosed with at least one autoimmune disease from January 2011 to June 2022; 34% were diagnosed with more than one autoimmune disease.
• Sex-stratified analysis revealed that 63% of patients diagnosed with autoimmune disease were women, and only 37% were men, establishing a female-to-male ratio of 1.7:1; age-stratified analysis revealed increasing prevalence of autoimmune conditions with age, peaking in individuals aged ≥ 65 years.
• Among individuals with autoimmune diseases, 65% of patients had one condition, whereas 24% had two, 8% had three, and 2% had four or more autoimmune diseases (does not add to 100% due to rounding).
• Rheumatoid arthritis emerged as the most prevalent autoimmune disease, followed by psoriasis, type 1 diabetes, Grave’s disease, and autoimmune thyroiditis; 19 of the top 20 most prevalent autoimmune diseases occurred more frequently in women.

IN PRACTICE:

“Accurate data on the prevalence of autoimmune diseases as a category of disease and for individual autoimmune diseases are needed to further clinical and basic research to improve diagnosis, biomarkers, and therapies for these diseases, which significantly impact the US population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron H. Abend, Autoimmune Registry, Guilford, Connecticut, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of EHR data presented several challenges, including potential inaccuracies in diagnosis codes and the possibility of missing patients with single diagnosis codes because of the two-code requirement. Certain autoimmune diseases evolve over time and involve nonspecific clinical signs and symptoms that can mimic other diseases, potentially resulting in underdiagnosis. Moreover, rare diseases lacking specific diagnosis codes may have been underrepresented.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from Autoimmune Registry; the National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and other sources. Information on potential conflicts of interest was not disclosed.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In 2022, autoimmune diseases affected over 15 million individuals in the United States, with women nearly twice as likely to be affected as men and more than one third of affected individuals having more than one autoimmune condition.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used electronic health record (EHR) data from six healthcare systems in the United States between 2011 and 2022 to estimate the prevalence of autoimmune diseases according to sex and age.
• They selected 105 autoimmune diseases from the textbook The Autoimmune Diseases and estimated their prevalence in more than 10 million individuals from these healthcare systems; these statistics were subsequently extrapolated to an estimated US population of 333.3 million.
• An individual was considered to have a diagnosis of an autoimmune disease if they had at least two diagnosis codes for the condition, with the codes being at least 30 days apart.
• A software program was developed to compute the prevalence of autoimmune diseases alone and in aggregate, enabling other researchers to replicate or modify the analysis over time.

TAKEAWAY:

• More than 15 million people, accounting for 4.6% of the US population, were diagnosed with at least one autoimmune disease from January 2011 to June 2022; 34% were diagnosed with more than one autoimmune disease.
• Sex-stratified analysis revealed that 63% of patients diagnosed with autoimmune disease were women, and only 37% were men, establishing a female-to-male ratio of 1.7:1; age-stratified analysis revealed increasing prevalence of autoimmune conditions with age, peaking in individuals aged ≥ 65 years.
• Among individuals with autoimmune diseases, 65% of patients had one condition, whereas 24% had two, 8% had three, and 2% had four or more autoimmune diseases (does not add to 100% due to rounding).
• Rheumatoid arthritis emerged as the most prevalent autoimmune disease, followed by psoriasis, type 1 diabetes, Grave’s disease, and autoimmune thyroiditis; 19 of the top 20 most prevalent autoimmune diseases occurred more frequently in women.

IN PRACTICE:

“Accurate data on the prevalence of autoimmune diseases as a category of disease and for individual autoimmune diseases are needed to further clinical and basic research to improve diagnosis, biomarkers, and therapies for these diseases, which significantly impact the US population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron H. Abend, Autoimmune Registry, Guilford, Connecticut, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of EHR data presented several challenges, including potential inaccuracies in diagnosis codes and the possibility of missing patients with single diagnosis codes because of the two-code requirement. Certain autoimmune diseases evolve over time and involve nonspecific clinical signs and symptoms that can mimic other diseases, potentially resulting in underdiagnosis. Moreover, rare diseases lacking specific diagnosis codes may have been underrepresented.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from Autoimmune Registry; the National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and other sources. Information on potential conflicts of interest was not disclosed.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In 2022, autoimmune diseases affected over 15 million individuals in the United States, with women nearly twice as likely to be affected as men and more than one third of affected individuals having more than one autoimmune condition.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used electronic health record (EHR) data from six healthcare systems in the United States between 2011 and 2022 to estimate the prevalence of autoimmune diseases according to sex and age.
• They selected 105 autoimmune diseases from the textbook The Autoimmune Diseases and estimated their prevalence in more than 10 million individuals from these healthcare systems; these statistics were subsequently extrapolated to an estimated US population of 333.3 million.
• An individual was considered to have a diagnosis of an autoimmune disease if they had at least two diagnosis codes for the condition, with the codes being at least 30 days apart.
• A software program was developed to compute the prevalence of autoimmune diseases alone and in aggregate, enabling other researchers to replicate or modify the analysis over time.

TAKEAWAY:

• More than 15 million people, accounting for 4.6% of the US population, were diagnosed with at least one autoimmune disease from January 2011 to June 2022; 34% were diagnosed with more than one autoimmune disease.
• Sex-stratified analysis revealed that 63% of patients diagnosed with autoimmune disease were women, and only 37% were men, establishing a female-to-male ratio of 1.7:1; age-stratified analysis revealed increasing prevalence of autoimmune conditions with age, peaking in individuals aged ≥ 65 years.
• Among individuals with autoimmune diseases, 65% of patients had one condition, whereas 24% had two, 8% had three, and 2% had four or more autoimmune diseases (does not add to 100% due to rounding).
• Rheumatoid arthritis emerged as the most prevalent autoimmune disease, followed by psoriasis, type 1 diabetes, Grave’s disease, and autoimmune thyroiditis; 19 of the top 20 most prevalent autoimmune diseases occurred more frequently in women.

IN PRACTICE:

“Accurate data on the prevalence of autoimmune diseases as a category of disease and for individual autoimmune diseases are needed to further clinical and basic research to improve diagnosis, biomarkers, and therapies for these diseases, which significantly impact the US population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron H. Abend, Autoimmune Registry, Guilford, Connecticut, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of EHR data presented several challenges, including potential inaccuracies in diagnosis codes and the possibility of missing patients with single diagnosis codes because of the two-code requirement. Certain autoimmune diseases evolve over time and involve nonspecific clinical signs and symptoms that can mimic other diseases, potentially resulting in underdiagnosis. Moreover, rare diseases lacking specific diagnosis codes may have been underrepresented.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from Autoimmune Registry; the National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and other sources. Information on potential conflicts of interest was not disclosed.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.