Andrew D. Bowser

Two doses of recombinant zoster vaccine significantly reduced incidence of herpes zoster in adults who had undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial indicate.

The incidence of herpes zoster was 30 per 1,000 person-years for patients who received the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (Shingrix) versus 94 per 1,000 person-years for those who received placebo, according to study results.

Recombinant zoster vaccine induced humoral and cellular responses that were strong and occurring at a rate higher than what was seen in the placebo group, said senior author Keith M. Sullivan, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and coauthors, who reported findings on behalf of the Zoster Efficacy Study in Patients Undergoing HSCT (ZOE-HSCT) Study Group.

“The vaccinations were generally well tolerated, and most symptoms were mild and transient and did not substantially deter participants from receiving their second dose,” Dr. Sullivan and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

The risk of herpes zoster is increased for 2-3 years after autologous HSCT because of diminished T-cell immunity, according to the authors.

“Antiviral prophylaxis is commonly administered to patients after HSCT to prevent such complications, but the efficacy depends on adherence to treatment,” they said.

While vaccines could provide long-term protection, immunocompromised individuals receiving live attenuated vaccine would be at increased risk of varicella caused by spread of the vaccine strain, they added.

There have been a few encouraging recent studies of non-live vaccines in this setting, including one large phase 3 trial of a heat-inactivated varicella-zoster virus vaccine that showed patients undergoing autologous HSCT had a 63.8% estimated efficacy in preventing herpes zoster, investigators from that study said in The Lancet (2018 May 26;391[10135]:2116-27).

A phase 1/2a study of the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine in patients undergoing HSCT demonstrated strong humoral and cell-mediated immunity responses, which provided the rationale for studying the vaccine further in the randomized ZOE-HSCT study, according to Dr. Sullivan and coauthors.

Their study included a total of 1,846 adults who had undergone autologous HSCT. They were randomized to receive two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine, the first at 50-70 days after the procedure and the second 1-2 months later.

Herpes zoster cases were seen in 49 and 136 individuals in the vaccine and placebo groups, respectively, which resulted in overall incidences of 30 and 94 per 1,000 person-years.

The incidence rate ratio of a first episode of herpes zoster was 0.36 for individuals receiving at least one dose, which authors said was equivalent to a vaccine efficacy of 63.7%.

That efficacy rate is “very similar” to the estimated efficacy reported for the heat-inactivated varicella-zoster virus vaccine reported in The Lancet, said Dr. Sullivan and coauthors.

However, the heat-inactivated vaccine achieved that level of protection with a four-dose schedule, including one dose given prior to autologous HSCT.

“An advantage of the short 2-dose posttransplantation schedule is that more patients might complete the vaccination program,” they said in a discussion of the results, noting that 94.7% of the recombinant zoster vaccine recipients completed two doses, compared with 81.9% of recipients who received the heat-inactivated herpes zoster vaccine in the previous report.

The study was funded and sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA. Dr. Sullivan reported disclosures related to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Kiadis Pharmaceutical, Roche Genentech, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Coauthors provided disclosures related to GSK, AbbVie, Roche, Gilead, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Morphosys, Helsinn, Celgene, and others.

SOURCE: Bastidas A et al. JAMA. 2019 July 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.9053.

Two doses of recombinant zoster vaccine significantly reduced incidence of herpes zoster in adults who had undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial indicate.

The incidence of herpes zoster was 30 per 1,000 person-years for patients who received the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (Shingrix) versus 94 per 1,000 person-years for those who received placebo, according to study results.

Recombinant zoster vaccine induced humoral and cellular responses that were strong and occurring at a rate higher than what was seen in the placebo group, said senior author Keith M. Sullivan, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and coauthors, who reported findings on behalf of the Zoster Efficacy Study in Patients Undergoing HSCT (ZOE-HSCT) Study Group.

“The vaccinations were generally well tolerated, and most symptoms were mild and transient and did not substantially deter participants from receiving their second dose,” Dr. Sullivan and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

The risk of herpes zoster is increased for 2-3 years after autologous HSCT because of diminished T-cell immunity, according to the authors.

“Antiviral prophylaxis is commonly administered to patients after HSCT to prevent such complications, but the efficacy depends on adherence to treatment,” they said.

While vaccines could provide long-term protection, immunocompromised individuals receiving live attenuated vaccine would be at increased risk of varicella caused by spread of the vaccine strain, they added.

There have been a few encouraging recent studies of non-live vaccines in this setting, including one large phase 3 trial of a heat-inactivated varicella-zoster virus vaccine that showed patients undergoing autologous HSCT had a 63.8% estimated efficacy in preventing herpes zoster, investigators from that study said in The Lancet (2018 May 26;391[10135]:2116-27).

A phase 1/2a study of the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine in patients undergoing HSCT demonstrated strong humoral and cell-mediated immunity responses, which provided the rationale for studying the vaccine further in the randomized ZOE-HSCT study, according to Dr. Sullivan and coauthors.

Their study included a total of 1,846 adults who had undergone autologous HSCT. They were randomized to receive two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine, the first at 50-70 days after the procedure and the second 1-2 months later.

Herpes zoster cases were seen in 49 and 136 individuals in the vaccine and placebo groups, respectively, which resulted in overall incidences of 30 and 94 per 1,000 person-years.

The incidence rate ratio of a first episode of herpes zoster was 0.36 for individuals receiving at least one dose, which authors said was equivalent to a vaccine efficacy of 63.7%.

That efficacy rate is “very similar” to the estimated efficacy reported for the heat-inactivated varicella-zoster virus vaccine reported in The Lancet, said Dr. Sullivan and coauthors.

However, the heat-inactivated vaccine achieved that level of protection with a four-dose schedule, including one dose given prior to autologous HSCT.

“An advantage of the short 2-dose posttransplantation schedule is that more patients might complete the vaccination program,” they said in a discussion of the results, noting that 94.7% of the recombinant zoster vaccine recipients completed two doses, compared with 81.9% of recipients who received the heat-inactivated herpes zoster vaccine in the previous report.

The study was funded and sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA. Dr. Sullivan reported disclosures related to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Kiadis Pharmaceutical, Roche Genentech, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Coauthors provided disclosures related to GSK, AbbVie, Roche, Gilead, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Morphosys, Helsinn, Celgene, and others.

SOURCE: Bastidas A et al. JAMA. 2019 July 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.9053.

Two doses of recombinant zoster vaccine significantly reduced incidence of herpes zoster in adults who had undergone autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial indicate.

The incidence of herpes zoster was 30 per 1,000 person-years for patients who received the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (Shingrix) versus 94 per 1,000 person-years for those who received placebo, according to study results.

Recombinant zoster vaccine induced humoral and cellular responses that were strong and occurring at a rate higher than what was seen in the placebo group, said senior author Keith M. Sullivan, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and coauthors, who reported findings on behalf of the Zoster Efficacy Study in Patients Undergoing HSCT (ZOE-HSCT) Study Group.

“The vaccinations were generally well tolerated, and most symptoms were mild and transient and did not substantially deter participants from receiving their second dose,” Dr. Sullivan and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

The risk of herpes zoster is increased for 2-3 years after autologous HSCT because of diminished T-cell immunity, according to the authors.

“Antiviral prophylaxis is commonly administered to patients after HSCT to prevent such complications, but the efficacy depends on adherence to treatment,” they said.

While vaccines could provide long-term protection, immunocompromised individuals receiving live attenuated vaccine would be at increased risk of varicella caused by spread of the vaccine strain, they added.

There have been a few encouraging recent studies of non-live vaccines in this setting, including one large phase 3 trial of a heat-inactivated varicella-zoster virus vaccine that showed patients undergoing autologous HSCT had a 63.8% estimated efficacy in preventing herpes zoster, investigators from that study said in The Lancet (2018 May 26;391[10135]:2116-27).

A phase 1/2a study of the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine in patients undergoing HSCT demonstrated strong humoral and cell-mediated immunity responses, which provided the rationale for studying the vaccine further in the randomized ZOE-HSCT study, according to Dr. Sullivan and coauthors.

Their study included a total of 1,846 adults who had undergone autologous HSCT. They were randomized to receive two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine, the first at 50-70 days after the procedure and the second 1-2 months later.

Herpes zoster cases were seen in 49 and 136 individuals in the vaccine and placebo groups, respectively, which resulted in overall incidences of 30 and 94 per 1,000 person-years.

The incidence rate ratio of a first episode of herpes zoster was 0.36 for individuals receiving at least one dose, which authors said was equivalent to a vaccine efficacy of 63.7%.

That efficacy rate is “very similar” to the estimated efficacy reported for the heat-inactivated varicella-zoster virus vaccine reported in The Lancet, said Dr. Sullivan and coauthors.

However, the heat-inactivated vaccine achieved that level of protection with a four-dose schedule, including one dose given prior to autologous HSCT.

“An advantage of the short 2-dose posttransplantation schedule is that more patients might complete the vaccination program,” they said in a discussion of the results, noting that 94.7% of the recombinant zoster vaccine recipients completed two doses, compared with 81.9% of recipients who received the heat-inactivated herpes zoster vaccine in the previous report.

The study was funded and sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA. Dr. Sullivan reported disclosures related to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Kiadis Pharmaceutical, Roche Genentech, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Coauthors provided disclosures related to GSK, AbbVie, Roche, Gilead, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Morphosys, Helsinn, Celgene, and others.

SOURCE: Bastidas A et al. JAMA. 2019 July 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.9053.

MILAN – Get ready for a “boxing match” over the next few years, as two treatment categories duke it out for their place in the therapeutic armamentarium for atopic dermatitis (AD), Thomas Bieber, MD, PhD, said in an oral presentation at the World Congress of Dermatology.

“In one corner of the ring you will have the biologics, and in the other corner of the ring, you will have the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors and some other small molecules,” said Dr. Bieber, medical director of dermatology and allergy, at University Hospital Bonn, Germany.

There will be no winner-take-all scenario, since AD is a heterogeneous disease for which a variety of treatments will be needed, Dr. Bieber noted. However, he said, there are clear differences in mode of action, safety, mode of application, price, and more that will be important as dermatologists weigh the choice of biologics versus JAK inhibitors for a specific patient.

“Currently, dupilumab is the only one that is on the market (in the European Union) and this molecule is really a revolution for us,” Dr. Bieber said at the meeting. “But we will see in the next years, many, many other molecules coming up.”

Beyond dupilumab (Dupixent), the interleukin-4 (IL-4) receptor alpha antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, biologics under development include tralokinumab, lebrikizumab, and nemolizumab, among others. Development on the small molecule side includes agents such as ZPL-389, a histamine H4 receptor agonist, but is dominated by JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib(Olumiant), approved by the FDA in 2018 for rheumatoid arthritis; upadacitinib; and abrocitinib, according to Dr. Bieber.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each class of molecule, he said. For example, JAK inhibitors act very rapidly to control itch and improve exacerbations, while biologics are “much slower” and provide delayed control of inflammation, he said. In terms of safety, by contrast, biologics probably offer a “better” benefit-to-risk ratio, with no risk for drug-drug interactions and no monitoring needed, while JAK inhibitors appear to have a “narrow” therapeutic window, with a risk for drug-drug interactions and a need for some monitoring, he said.


JAK inhibitors come in a tablet formulation, which, from the patient perspective, may be more convenient and acceptable compared with repeated injections of biologics every 2 or 4 weeks, Dr. Bieber noted. Another point potentially in favor of JAK inhibitors is price: “I think the current situation tells us clearly that the biologics are the more expensive drugs, while the small molecules typically are much less expensive,” he said.

One theoretical advantage of biologics, he said, is the potential for disease modification, while the disease-modifying potential of JAK inhibitors is unclear, as of yet. “We have not had enough experience with all these molecules in order to understand how we can do that particular job, in terms of switching off the disease,” he said.

In terms of the need for patient stratification in the future, it’s a draw between biologics and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Bieber said. “You will not see any of these drugs doing 100 percent of the job in 100 percent of the patients, so to me, currently from my understanding of this disease, there is no one-size-fits-all molecule.”

Toward that end, machine learning and artificial intelligence may aid in evaluating large amounts of data to better understand AD phenotypes. “That’s really something that is a particular kind of challenge in the next years, in order to improve at-the-end drug development, and the management of our patients,” he concluded.

Dr. Bieber reported disclosures related to LEO Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron, and Sanofi.

MILAN – Get ready for a “boxing match” over the next few years, as two treatment categories duke it out for their place in the therapeutic armamentarium for atopic dermatitis (AD), Thomas Bieber, MD, PhD, said in an oral presentation at the World Congress of Dermatology.

“In one corner of the ring you will have the biologics, and in the other corner of the ring, you will have the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors and some other small molecules,” said Dr. Bieber, medical director of dermatology and allergy, at University Hospital Bonn, Germany.

There will be no winner-take-all scenario, since AD is a heterogeneous disease for which a variety of treatments will be needed, Dr. Bieber noted. However, he said, there are clear differences in mode of action, safety, mode of application, price, and more that will be important as dermatologists weigh the choice of biologics versus JAK inhibitors for a specific patient.

“Currently, dupilumab is the only one that is on the market (in the European Union) and this molecule is really a revolution for us,” Dr. Bieber said at the meeting. “But we will see in the next years, many, many other molecules coming up.”

Beyond dupilumab (Dupixent), the interleukin-4 (IL-4) receptor alpha antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, biologics under development include tralokinumab, lebrikizumab, and nemolizumab, among others. Development on the small molecule side includes agents such as ZPL-389, a histamine H4 receptor agonist, but is dominated by JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib(Olumiant), approved by the FDA in 2018 for rheumatoid arthritis; upadacitinib; and abrocitinib, according to Dr. Bieber.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each class of molecule, he said. For example, JAK inhibitors act very rapidly to control itch and improve exacerbations, while biologics are “much slower” and provide delayed control of inflammation, he said. In terms of safety, by contrast, biologics probably offer a “better” benefit-to-risk ratio, with no risk for drug-drug interactions and no monitoring needed, while JAK inhibitors appear to have a “narrow” therapeutic window, with a risk for drug-drug interactions and a need for some monitoring, he said.


JAK inhibitors come in a tablet formulation, which, from the patient perspective, may be more convenient and acceptable compared with repeated injections of biologics every 2 or 4 weeks, Dr. Bieber noted. Another point potentially in favor of JAK inhibitors is price: “I think the current situation tells us clearly that the biologics are the more expensive drugs, while the small molecules typically are much less expensive,” he said.

One theoretical advantage of biologics, he said, is the potential for disease modification, while the disease-modifying potential of JAK inhibitors is unclear, as of yet. “We have not had enough experience with all these molecules in order to understand how we can do that particular job, in terms of switching off the disease,” he said.

In terms of the need for patient stratification in the future, it’s a draw between biologics and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Bieber said. “You will not see any of these drugs doing 100 percent of the job in 100 percent of the patients, so to me, currently from my understanding of this disease, there is no one-size-fits-all molecule.”

Toward that end, machine learning and artificial intelligence may aid in evaluating large amounts of data to better understand AD phenotypes. “That’s really something that is a particular kind of challenge in the next years, in order to improve at-the-end drug development, and the management of our patients,” he concluded.

Dr. Bieber reported disclosures related to LEO Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron, and Sanofi.

MILAN – Get ready for a “boxing match” over the next few years, as two treatment categories duke it out for their place in the therapeutic armamentarium for atopic dermatitis (AD), Thomas Bieber, MD, PhD, said in an oral presentation at the World Congress of Dermatology.

“In one corner of the ring you will have the biologics, and in the other corner of the ring, you will have the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors and some other small molecules,” said Dr. Bieber, medical director of dermatology and allergy, at University Hospital Bonn, Germany.

There will be no winner-take-all scenario, since AD is a heterogeneous disease for which a variety of treatments will be needed, Dr. Bieber noted. However, he said, there are clear differences in mode of action, safety, mode of application, price, and more that will be important as dermatologists weigh the choice of biologics versus JAK inhibitors for a specific patient.

“Currently, dupilumab is the only one that is on the market (in the European Union) and this molecule is really a revolution for us,” Dr. Bieber said at the meeting. “But we will see in the next years, many, many other molecules coming up.”

Beyond dupilumab (Dupixent), the interleukin-4 (IL-4) receptor alpha antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, biologics under development include tralokinumab, lebrikizumab, and nemolizumab, among others. Development on the small molecule side includes agents such as ZPL-389, a histamine H4 receptor agonist, but is dominated by JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib(Olumiant), approved by the FDA in 2018 for rheumatoid arthritis; upadacitinib; and abrocitinib, according to Dr. Bieber.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each class of molecule, he said. For example, JAK inhibitors act very rapidly to control itch and improve exacerbations, while biologics are “much slower” and provide delayed control of inflammation, he said. In terms of safety, by contrast, biologics probably offer a “better” benefit-to-risk ratio, with no risk for drug-drug interactions and no monitoring needed, while JAK inhibitors appear to have a “narrow” therapeutic window, with a risk for drug-drug interactions and a need for some monitoring, he said.


JAK inhibitors come in a tablet formulation, which, from the patient perspective, may be more convenient and acceptable compared with repeated injections of biologics every 2 or 4 weeks, Dr. Bieber noted. Another point potentially in favor of JAK inhibitors is price: “I think the current situation tells us clearly that the biologics are the more expensive drugs, while the small molecules typically are much less expensive,” he said.

One theoretical advantage of biologics, he said, is the potential for disease modification, while the disease-modifying potential of JAK inhibitors is unclear, as of yet. “We have not had enough experience with all these molecules in order to understand how we can do that particular job, in terms of switching off the disease,” he said.

In terms of the need for patient stratification in the future, it’s a draw between biologics and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Bieber said. “You will not see any of these drugs doing 100 percent of the job in 100 percent of the patients, so to me, currently from my understanding of this disease, there is no one-size-fits-all molecule.”

Toward that end, machine learning and artificial intelligence may aid in evaluating large amounts of data to better understand AD phenotypes. “That’s really something that is a particular kind of challenge in the next years, in order to improve at-the-end drug development, and the management of our patients,” he concluded.

Dr. Bieber reported disclosures related to LEO Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron, and Sanofi.

Two-thirds of patients hospitalized with pneumonia received an excess duration of antibiotics, according to a recent study of more than 6,000 patients.

Longer antibiotic courses did not increase the survival rate or prevent any subsequent health care utilization, authors said; instead, they increased the risk of patient-reported adverse events.

The findings bolster a growing body of evidence showing that short-course therapy for pneumonia is safe and that longer durations are not only unnecessary, but “potentially harmful,” said Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and coinvestigators.

“Reducing excess treatment durations should be a top priority for antibiotic stewardship nationally,” the investigators wrote in their report, which appears in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The primary analysis of their retrospective cohort study included 6,481 individuals with pneumonia treated at 43 hospitals participating in a statewide quality initiative designed to improve care for hospitalized medical patients at risk of adverse events. About half of the patients were women, and the median age was 70 years. Nearly 60% had severe pneumonia.

The primary outcome of the study was the rate of excess antibiotic therapy duration beyond the shortest expected treatment duration consistent with guidelines. Patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), representing about three-quarters of the study cohort, were expected to have a treatment duration of at least 5 days, while patients with health care–acquired pneumonia (HCAP) were expected to have at least 7 days of treatment.

Overall, 4,391 patients (67.8%) had antibiotic courses longer than the shortest effective duration, with a median duration of 8 days, and a median excess duration of 2 days, the researchers noted.

The great majority of excess days (93.2%) were due to antibiotic prescribed at discharge, according to Dr. Vaughn and colleagues.

Excess treatment duration was not linked to any improvement in 30-day mortality, readmission rates, or subsequent emergency department visits, they found.

In a telephone call at 30 days, 38% of patients treated to excess said they had gone to the doctor for an antibiotic-associated adverse event, compared with 31% who received appropriate-length courses (P = .003).

Odds of a patient-reported adverse event were increased by 5% for every excess treatment day, the investigators wrote.

Taken together, these findings have implications for patient care, research efforts, and future guidelines, according to Dr. Vaughn and coinvestigators.

“The next iteration of CAP and HCAP guidelines should explicitly recommend (rather than imply) that providers prescribe the shortest effective duration,” they said in a discussion of their study results.

Dr. Vaughn reported no disclosures related to the study. Coauthors reported grants from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, personal fees from Wiley Publishing, and royalties from Wolters Kluwer Publishing and Oxford University Press, among other disclosures.

SOURCE: Vaughn VM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:153-63. doi: 10.7326/M18-3640.

Two-thirds of patients hospitalized with pneumonia received an excess duration of antibiotics, according to a recent study of more than 6,000 patients.

Longer antibiotic courses did not increase the survival rate or prevent any subsequent health care utilization, authors said; instead, they increased the risk of patient-reported adverse events.

The findings bolster a growing body of evidence showing that short-course therapy for pneumonia is safe and that longer durations are not only unnecessary, but “potentially harmful,” said Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and coinvestigators.

“Reducing excess treatment durations should be a top priority for antibiotic stewardship nationally,” the investigators wrote in their report, which appears in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The primary analysis of their retrospective cohort study included 6,481 individuals with pneumonia treated at 43 hospitals participating in a statewide quality initiative designed to improve care for hospitalized medical patients at risk of adverse events. About half of the patients were women, and the median age was 70 years. Nearly 60% had severe pneumonia.

The primary outcome of the study was the rate of excess antibiotic therapy duration beyond the shortest expected treatment duration consistent with guidelines. Patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), representing about three-quarters of the study cohort, were expected to have a treatment duration of at least 5 days, while patients with health care–acquired pneumonia (HCAP) were expected to have at least 7 days of treatment.

Overall, 4,391 patients (67.8%) had antibiotic courses longer than the shortest effective duration, with a median duration of 8 days, and a median excess duration of 2 days, the researchers noted.

The great majority of excess days (93.2%) were due to antibiotic prescribed at discharge, according to Dr. Vaughn and colleagues.

Excess treatment duration was not linked to any improvement in 30-day mortality, readmission rates, or subsequent emergency department visits, they found.

In a telephone call at 30 days, 38% of patients treated to excess said they had gone to the doctor for an antibiotic-associated adverse event, compared with 31% who received appropriate-length courses (P = .003).

Odds of a patient-reported adverse event were increased by 5% for every excess treatment day, the investigators wrote.

Taken together, these findings have implications for patient care, research efforts, and future guidelines, according to Dr. Vaughn and coinvestigators.

“The next iteration of CAP and HCAP guidelines should explicitly recommend (rather than imply) that providers prescribe the shortest effective duration,” they said in a discussion of their study results.

Dr. Vaughn reported no disclosures related to the study. Coauthors reported grants from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, personal fees from Wiley Publishing, and royalties from Wolters Kluwer Publishing and Oxford University Press, among other disclosures.

SOURCE: Vaughn VM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:153-63. doi: 10.7326/M18-3640.

Two-thirds of patients hospitalized with pneumonia received an excess duration of antibiotics, according to a recent study of more than 6,000 patients.

Longer antibiotic courses did not increase the survival rate or prevent any subsequent health care utilization, authors said; instead, they increased the risk of patient-reported adverse events.

The findings bolster a growing body of evidence showing that short-course therapy for pneumonia is safe and that longer durations are not only unnecessary, but “potentially harmful,” said Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and coinvestigators.

“Reducing excess treatment durations should be a top priority for antibiotic stewardship nationally,” the investigators wrote in their report, which appears in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The primary analysis of their retrospective cohort study included 6,481 individuals with pneumonia treated at 43 hospitals participating in a statewide quality initiative designed to improve care for hospitalized medical patients at risk of adverse events. About half of the patients were women, and the median age was 70 years. Nearly 60% had severe pneumonia.

The primary outcome of the study was the rate of excess antibiotic therapy duration beyond the shortest expected treatment duration consistent with guidelines. Patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), representing about three-quarters of the study cohort, were expected to have a treatment duration of at least 5 days, while patients with health care–acquired pneumonia (HCAP) were expected to have at least 7 days of treatment.

Overall, 4,391 patients (67.8%) had antibiotic courses longer than the shortest effective duration, with a median duration of 8 days, and a median excess duration of 2 days, the researchers noted.

The great majority of excess days (93.2%) were due to antibiotic prescribed at discharge, according to Dr. Vaughn and colleagues.

Excess treatment duration was not linked to any improvement in 30-day mortality, readmission rates, or subsequent emergency department visits, they found.

In a telephone call at 30 days, 38% of patients treated to excess said they had gone to the doctor for an antibiotic-associated adverse event, compared with 31% who received appropriate-length courses (P = .003).

Odds of a patient-reported adverse event were increased by 5% for every excess treatment day, the investigators wrote.

Taken together, these findings have implications for patient care, research efforts, and future guidelines, according to Dr. Vaughn and coinvestigators.

“The next iteration of CAP and HCAP guidelines should explicitly recommend (rather than imply) that providers prescribe the shortest effective duration,” they said in a discussion of their study results.

Dr. Vaughn reported no disclosures related to the study. Coauthors reported grants from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, personal fees from Wiley Publishing, and royalties from Wolters Kluwer Publishing and Oxford University Press, among other disclosures.

SOURCE: Vaughn VM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:153-63. doi: 10.7326/M18-3640.

Older individuals with certain negative risk markers have a very low risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, raising the possibility that some could forgo preventive treatment even if it’s indicated by current standards of risk assessment.

Low levels of coronary artery calcification (CAC), low galectin-3 levels, and absence of carotid plaque were all linked to a lower likelihood of disease than might be expected based on traditional risk assessment, according to the authors of analysis of a large, contemporary cohort of elderly individuals published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Our results hold the potential to markedly improve statin allocation in elderly individuals by de-escalating or even withholding preventive therapy in elderly individuals at truly low atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk despite advancing age,“ wrote Martin Bødtker Mortensen, MD, PhD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital.

Most elderly individuals now qualify for lifelong preventive statin treatment, based on the broader indication for treatment in recent guidelines, and the substantial impact that age has when risk is being calculated, Dr. Mortensen and coauthors said in their report.

“Because frailty, comorbidity, and polypharmacy are increasing concerns in elderly individuals and have been proposed to increase the risk for adverse effects, the appropriateness of treating almost all elderly individuals is questionable,” they said in the report.

In their study, Dr. Mortensen and colleagues evaluated a set of 13 biomarkers or imaging tests that they though had potential to “downgrade” risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). They based their analysis on 5,805 patients in the BioImage Study, a prospective cohort study of elderly men and women with no atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at the time of enrollment in 2008 and 2009. The mean age at the time of enrollment was 69 years, and the mean follow-up in this analysis was 2.7 years.

The overall rate of CHD was 6.1 per 1,000 person-years, though looking at negative risk markers, the event rate was just 0.9 for individuals with CAC of 0 and also 0.9 for those with a CAC of 10 or less, followed by 1.7 for absence of carotid plaque, and 2.6 for galectin-3 in the bottom 25th percentile, according to Dr. Mortensen and coinvestigators. Similarly, the rate of CVD was 9.2 per 1,000 person-years overall, and just 3.2 for a CAC of 0, 2.8 for a CAC of 10 or lower, 4.4 for no carotid plaque, and 4.0 for low galectin-3.


Results were less impressive for other negative risk markers, including normal ankle-brachial index (ABI) test, lack of family history, and low levels of circulating biomarkers such as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and lipoprotein (a).

Investigators also calculated diagnostic likelihood ratios (DLR), a measure they said assesses the value of performing a diagnostic test, with values lower than 1 indicating a specific marker has value for downgrading risk.

Zero or low CAC exerted the greatest downward change in pre- to post-test risk, according to the investigators, with a multivariable-adjusted DLR of 0.20 for CHD, translating into an 80% relative risk reduction. Similarly, the adjusted DLRs for zero or low CAC for CVD were 0.48 and 0.41, respectively, translating into a 59% risk reduction.

Low galectin-3 also resulted in significant downward change in that pre- to post-test risk, investigators added.

The BioImage Study was funded by Abbott, AstraZeneca, Merck, Philips, and Takeda. Dr. Mortensen had no disclosures related to the present analysis. Coauthors provided disclosures related to G3 Pharmaceuticals, Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly/DSI, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich, and PLC/Renal Guard, among others.

SOURCE: Mortensen MB et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jul 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.04.049.

Older individuals with certain negative risk markers have a very low risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, raising the possibility that some could forgo preventive treatment even if it’s indicated by current standards of risk assessment.

Low levels of coronary artery calcification (CAC), low galectin-3 levels, and absence of carotid plaque were all linked to a lower likelihood of disease than might be expected based on traditional risk assessment, according to the authors of analysis of a large, contemporary cohort of elderly individuals published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Our results hold the potential to markedly improve statin allocation in elderly individuals by de-escalating or even withholding preventive therapy in elderly individuals at truly low atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk despite advancing age,“ wrote Martin Bødtker Mortensen, MD, PhD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital.

Most elderly individuals now qualify for lifelong preventive statin treatment, based on the broader indication for treatment in recent guidelines, and the substantial impact that age has when risk is being calculated, Dr. Mortensen and coauthors said in their report.

“Because frailty, comorbidity, and polypharmacy are increasing concerns in elderly individuals and have been proposed to increase the risk for adverse effects, the appropriateness of treating almost all elderly individuals is questionable,” they said in the report.

In their study, Dr. Mortensen and colleagues evaluated a set of 13 biomarkers or imaging tests that they though had potential to “downgrade” risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). They based their analysis on 5,805 patients in the BioImage Study, a prospective cohort study of elderly men and women with no atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at the time of enrollment in 2008 and 2009. The mean age at the time of enrollment was 69 years, and the mean follow-up in this analysis was 2.7 years.

The overall rate of CHD was 6.1 per 1,000 person-years, though looking at negative risk markers, the event rate was just 0.9 for individuals with CAC of 0 and also 0.9 for those with a CAC of 10 or less, followed by 1.7 for absence of carotid plaque, and 2.6 for galectin-3 in the bottom 25th percentile, according to Dr. Mortensen and coinvestigators. Similarly, the rate of CVD was 9.2 per 1,000 person-years overall, and just 3.2 for a CAC of 0, 2.8 for a CAC of 10 or lower, 4.4 for no carotid plaque, and 4.0 for low galectin-3.


Results were less impressive for other negative risk markers, including normal ankle-brachial index (ABI) test, lack of family history, and low levels of circulating biomarkers such as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and lipoprotein (a).

Investigators also calculated diagnostic likelihood ratios (DLR), a measure they said assesses the value of performing a diagnostic test, with values lower than 1 indicating a specific marker has value for downgrading risk.

Zero or low CAC exerted the greatest downward change in pre- to post-test risk, according to the investigators, with a multivariable-adjusted DLR of 0.20 for CHD, translating into an 80% relative risk reduction. Similarly, the adjusted DLRs for zero or low CAC for CVD were 0.48 and 0.41, respectively, translating into a 59% risk reduction.

Low galectin-3 also resulted in significant downward change in that pre- to post-test risk, investigators added.

The BioImage Study was funded by Abbott, AstraZeneca, Merck, Philips, and Takeda. Dr. Mortensen had no disclosures related to the present analysis. Coauthors provided disclosures related to G3 Pharmaceuticals, Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly/DSI, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich, and PLC/Renal Guard, among others.

SOURCE: Mortensen MB et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jul 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.04.049.

Older individuals with certain negative risk markers have a very low risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, raising the possibility that some could forgo preventive treatment even if it’s indicated by current standards of risk assessment.

Low levels of coronary artery calcification (CAC), low galectin-3 levels, and absence of carotid plaque were all linked to a lower likelihood of disease than might be expected based on traditional risk assessment, according to the authors of analysis of a large, contemporary cohort of elderly individuals published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Our results hold the potential to markedly improve statin allocation in elderly individuals by de-escalating or even withholding preventive therapy in elderly individuals at truly low atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk despite advancing age,“ wrote Martin Bødtker Mortensen, MD, PhD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital.

Most elderly individuals now qualify for lifelong preventive statin treatment, based on the broader indication for treatment in recent guidelines, and the substantial impact that age has when risk is being calculated, Dr. Mortensen and coauthors said in their report.

“Because frailty, comorbidity, and polypharmacy are increasing concerns in elderly individuals and have been proposed to increase the risk for adverse effects, the appropriateness of treating almost all elderly individuals is questionable,” they said in the report.

In their study, Dr. Mortensen and colleagues evaluated a set of 13 biomarkers or imaging tests that they though had potential to “downgrade” risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). They based their analysis on 5,805 patients in the BioImage Study, a prospective cohort study of elderly men and women with no atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at the time of enrollment in 2008 and 2009. The mean age at the time of enrollment was 69 years, and the mean follow-up in this analysis was 2.7 years.

The overall rate of CHD was 6.1 per 1,000 person-years, though looking at negative risk markers, the event rate was just 0.9 for individuals with CAC of 0 and also 0.9 for those with a CAC of 10 or less, followed by 1.7 for absence of carotid plaque, and 2.6 for galectin-3 in the bottom 25th percentile, according to Dr. Mortensen and coinvestigators. Similarly, the rate of CVD was 9.2 per 1,000 person-years overall, and just 3.2 for a CAC of 0, 2.8 for a CAC of 10 or lower, 4.4 for no carotid plaque, and 4.0 for low galectin-3.


Results were less impressive for other negative risk markers, including normal ankle-brachial index (ABI) test, lack of family history, and low levels of circulating biomarkers such as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and lipoprotein (a).

Investigators also calculated diagnostic likelihood ratios (DLR), a measure they said assesses the value of performing a diagnostic test, with values lower than 1 indicating a specific marker has value for downgrading risk.

Zero or low CAC exerted the greatest downward change in pre- to post-test risk, according to the investigators, with a multivariable-adjusted DLR of 0.20 for CHD, translating into an 80% relative risk reduction. Similarly, the adjusted DLRs for zero or low CAC for CVD were 0.48 and 0.41, respectively, translating into a 59% risk reduction.

Low galectin-3 also resulted in significant downward change in that pre- to post-test risk, investigators added.

The BioImage Study was funded by Abbott, AstraZeneca, Merck, Philips, and Takeda. Dr. Mortensen had no disclosures related to the present analysis. Coauthors provided disclosures related to G3 Pharmaceuticals, Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly/DSI, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich, and PLC/Renal Guard, among others.

SOURCE: Mortensen MB et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jul 1. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.04.049.

High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and LPA genotypes were linked to increased ischemic stroke risk in a recent large, contemporary general population study, investigators are reporting in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Copyright American Stroke Association

SOURCE: Langsted A, et al. JACC 2019;74[1]: 54-66. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.524

High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and LPA genotypes were linked to increased ischemic stroke risk in a recent large, contemporary general population study, investigators are reporting in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Copyright American Stroke Association

SOURCE: Langsted A, et al. JACC 2019;74[1]: 54-66. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.524

High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and LPA genotypes were linked to increased ischemic stroke risk in a recent large, contemporary general population study, investigators are reporting in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Copyright American Stroke Association

SOURCE: Langsted A, et al. JACC 2019;74[1]: 54-66. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.524

MILAN – A recent meta-analysis found that total margin control surgery substantially cut the risk of recurrence in patients with high-risk keratinocyte carcinomas, Chrysalyne Schmults, MD, said at the World Congress of Dermatology.

While standard excision will cure the vast majority of low-risk basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), those classified as high risk are best treated with the advanced surgical procedure, also referred to as circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment (CCPDMA), said Dr. Schmults, director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

For high-risk cases, CCPDMA has superior outcomes, compared with standard excision, according to results of the meta-analysis conducted by Dr. Schmults and colleagues. The meta-analysis has not yet been published.

The recurrence rate for carcinomas with perineural invasion – a high-risk feature – was 23.28% for standard excision, but just 9.74% for CCPDMA in the meta-analysis of medical literature from 1993 to 2017.

“This is a really big drop,” Dr. Schmults said. “If you do total margin control surgery on your perineural invasive cases, you’re going to drop your recurrence rate by two-thirds, and that’s a really big difference.”

For carcinomas without perineural invasion, the recurrence rate is about 4.5% for standard excision and about 2.0% for CCPDMA, the analysis showed. “That’s a difference, but it’s not a big enough difference that we’re going to start doing total margin control surgery on every single basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma that comes to us,” Dr. Schmults commented.

Using techniques such as Mohs surgery that allow for CCPDMA, nearly 100% of the surgical margin can be seen; by contrast, standard histology allows for visualization of only about 1% of the marginal surface, according to Dr. Schmults.

While CCPDMA may have superior outcomes for high-risk keratinocyte carcinomas, defining what constitutes high risk remains a challenge, particularly for patients with BCCs. “We don’t have good literature on which are the rare, bad basal cells,” she said.

But more clarity may be on the way. In a paper under review for publication on Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) staging criteria for BCC, Dr. Schmults and colleagues describe a subset of patients with BCC at higher risk of metastasis and death based on specific high-risk tumor characteristics.

High risk is better defined for SCCs. According to the BWH classification system for cutaneous SCCs, developed by Dr. Schmults and colleagues, high-risk features include larger tumor diameter, poorly differentiated histology, perineural invasion, and tumor invasion beyond subcutaneous fat or to bone.

Patients with SCC classified as high stage by the BWH system have about a 25% risk of metastasis or death. “These patients really need that total margin control surgery,” Dr. Schmults said.

High-stage SCC patients who did not get Mohs surgery in a study (J Clin Oncol. 2014 Feb 1;32[4]:327-34) conducted by Dr. Schmults and her associates, had a quadrupling in risk of death from disease, compared with those who did get the procedure in a more recent study (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Mar;80[3]:633-8).

“These are fairly small studies,” she pointed out. But the large meta-analysis she presented at the meeting showed the same result, “that the higher the stage, the worse your tumor is, and whether it’s basal cell or squamous cell, the greater the advantage for total margin control surgery.”

Dr. Schmults reported that she is the panel chair for the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines on nonmelanoma skin cancer, and that she was a cutaneous SCC committee member for the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer cancer staging system. She also participated in the development of the BWH staging system for SCC.

MILAN – A recent meta-analysis found that total margin control surgery substantially cut the risk of recurrence in patients with high-risk keratinocyte carcinomas, Chrysalyne Schmults, MD, said at the World Congress of Dermatology.

While standard excision will cure the vast majority of low-risk basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), those classified as high risk are best treated with the advanced surgical procedure, also referred to as circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment (CCPDMA), said Dr. Schmults, director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

For high-risk cases, CCPDMA has superior outcomes, compared with standard excision, according to results of the meta-analysis conducted by Dr. Schmults and colleagues. The meta-analysis has not yet been published.

The recurrence rate for carcinomas with perineural invasion – a high-risk feature – was 23.28% for standard excision, but just 9.74% for CCPDMA in the meta-analysis of medical literature from 1993 to 2017.

“This is a really big drop,” Dr. Schmults said. “If you do total margin control surgery on your perineural invasive cases, you’re going to drop your recurrence rate by two-thirds, and that’s a really big difference.”

For carcinomas without perineural invasion, the recurrence rate is about 4.5% for standard excision and about 2.0% for CCPDMA, the analysis showed. “That’s a difference, but it’s not a big enough difference that we’re going to start doing total margin control surgery on every single basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma that comes to us,” Dr. Schmults commented.

Using techniques such as Mohs surgery that allow for CCPDMA, nearly 100% of the surgical margin can be seen; by contrast, standard histology allows for visualization of only about 1% of the marginal surface, according to Dr. Schmults.

While CCPDMA may have superior outcomes for high-risk keratinocyte carcinomas, defining what constitutes high risk remains a challenge, particularly for patients with BCCs. “We don’t have good literature on which are the rare, bad basal cells,” she said.

But more clarity may be on the way. In a paper under review for publication on Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) staging criteria for BCC, Dr. Schmults and colleagues describe a subset of patients with BCC at higher risk of metastasis and death based on specific high-risk tumor characteristics.

High risk is better defined for SCCs. According to the BWH classification system for cutaneous SCCs, developed by Dr. Schmults and colleagues, high-risk features include larger tumor diameter, poorly differentiated histology, perineural invasion, and tumor invasion beyond subcutaneous fat or to bone.

Patients with SCC classified as high stage by the BWH system have about a 25% risk of metastasis or death. “These patients really need that total margin control surgery,” Dr. Schmults said.

High-stage SCC patients who did not get Mohs surgery in a study (J Clin Oncol. 2014 Feb 1;32[4]:327-34) conducted by Dr. Schmults and her associates, had a quadrupling in risk of death from disease, compared with those who did get the procedure in a more recent study (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Mar;80[3]:633-8).

“These are fairly small studies,” she pointed out. But the large meta-analysis she presented at the meeting showed the same result, “that the higher the stage, the worse your tumor is, and whether it’s basal cell or squamous cell, the greater the advantage for total margin control surgery.”

Dr. Schmults reported that she is the panel chair for the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines on nonmelanoma skin cancer, and that she was a cutaneous SCC committee member for the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer cancer staging system. She also participated in the development of the BWH staging system for SCC.

MILAN – A recent meta-analysis found that total margin control surgery substantially cut the risk of recurrence in patients with high-risk keratinocyte carcinomas, Chrysalyne Schmults, MD, said at the World Congress of Dermatology.

While standard excision will cure the vast majority of low-risk basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), those classified as high risk are best treated with the advanced surgical procedure, also referred to as circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment (CCPDMA), said Dr. Schmults, director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

For high-risk cases, CCPDMA has superior outcomes, compared with standard excision, according to results of the meta-analysis conducted by Dr. Schmults and colleagues. The meta-analysis has not yet been published.

The recurrence rate for carcinomas with perineural invasion – a high-risk feature – was 23.28% for standard excision, but just 9.74% for CCPDMA in the meta-analysis of medical literature from 1993 to 2017.

“This is a really big drop,” Dr. Schmults said. “If you do total margin control surgery on your perineural invasive cases, you’re going to drop your recurrence rate by two-thirds, and that’s a really big difference.”

For carcinomas without perineural invasion, the recurrence rate is about 4.5% for standard excision and about 2.0% for CCPDMA, the analysis showed. “That’s a difference, but it’s not a big enough difference that we’re going to start doing total margin control surgery on every single basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma that comes to us,” Dr. Schmults commented.

Using techniques such as Mohs surgery that allow for CCPDMA, nearly 100% of the surgical margin can be seen; by contrast, standard histology allows for visualization of only about 1% of the marginal surface, according to Dr. Schmults.

While CCPDMA may have superior outcomes for high-risk keratinocyte carcinomas, defining what constitutes high risk remains a challenge, particularly for patients with BCCs. “We don’t have good literature on which are the rare, bad basal cells,” she said.

But more clarity may be on the way. In a paper under review for publication on Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) staging criteria for BCC, Dr. Schmults and colleagues describe a subset of patients with BCC at higher risk of metastasis and death based on specific high-risk tumor characteristics.

High risk is better defined for SCCs. According to the BWH classification system for cutaneous SCCs, developed by Dr. Schmults and colleagues, high-risk features include larger tumor diameter, poorly differentiated histology, perineural invasion, and tumor invasion beyond subcutaneous fat or to bone.

Patients with SCC classified as high stage by the BWH system have about a 25% risk of metastasis or death. “These patients really need that total margin control surgery,” Dr. Schmults said.

High-stage SCC patients who did not get Mohs surgery in a study (J Clin Oncol. 2014 Feb 1;32[4]:327-34) conducted by Dr. Schmults and her associates, had a quadrupling in risk of death from disease, compared with those who did get the procedure in a more recent study (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Mar;80[3]:633-8).

“These are fairly small studies,” she pointed out. But the large meta-analysis she presented at the meeting showed the same result, “that the higher the stage, the worse your tumor is, and whether it’s basal cell or squamous cell, the greater the advantage for total margin control surgery.”

Dr. Schmults reported that she is the panel chair for the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines on nonmelanoma skin cancer, and that she was a cutaneous SCC committee member for the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer cancer staging system. She also participated in the development of the BWH staging system for SCC.

MILAN – A cream-based formulation of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor ruxolitinib maintained its efficacy in the 4-week open-label period of a 16-week randomized phase 2 study of adults with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD), Leon H. Kircik, MD, said at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Improvements in disease severity and itch in patients receiving 1.5% ruxolitinib cream twice daily were sustained over the open-label period, said Dr. Kircik, a dermatologist in Louisville, Ky., affiliated with Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

Patients who switched from vehicle or 0.1% triamcinolone cream to the JAK1/2 selective inhibitor in the open-label period also experienced rapid improvements in disease severity and itch.

“This is a novel treatment that’s a topical JAK inhibitor, which so far we don’t have any in the market for atopic dermatitis, and it does have a very good efficacy and safety profile,” Dr. Kircik said during an oral presentation at the meeting.

Janus kinases modulate inflammatory cytokines implicated in AD, and may also directly modulate itch, Dr. Kircik noted.

The study comprised 307 adults with mild to moderate AD (Investigator’s Global Assessment [IGA] score of 2 or 3) and body surface area involvement of 3%-20%. They were randomized equally to six arms, including vehicle, triamcinolone cream, and ruxolitinib at dosages of 0.15%, 0.5%, 1.5% once daily, or the target dose level of 1.5% twice daily.


After an 8-week double-blind period, there was a 4-week open-label period during which patients randomized to vehicle or triamcinolone were switched to ruxolitinib, and then a 4-week follow-up period during which no treatment was given, Dr. Kircik said.

The mean age of the patients was 35 years, 54% were female, and the median duration of disease was 20.8 years.

In the double-blind period, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream twice daily significantly improved Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score versus vehicle, Dr. Kircik said.

The mean change in EASI scores at weeks 2, 4, and 6 were 52.7%, 71.6%, and 78.5% for ruxolitinib, versus 4.8%, 15.5%, and 26.9% for vehicle (P less than .001 for all comparisons), according to Dr. Kircik.

The patients on the target ruxolitinib dose maintained the improvements in EASI score throughout the open label period, with mean improvement from baseline reaching 81.4% by week 10 and 84.9% by week 12.

Meanwhile, there was a sharp increase in mean EASI score improvement in patients switched to ruxolitinib, according to Dr. Kircik. In the vehicle arm, mean improvement leapt from 26.9% at week 8 to 78.4% by week 12.

Significant reductions in itch scores were seen within 36 hours of starting the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, with itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores of –1.8 versus –0.2 for vehicle at that time point (P less than .0001), he added.

Reduction in itch score was similarly maintained in the ruxolitinib target dose group, and rapidly fell to similar levels for patients switched over to that treatment in the open-label period, Dr. Kircik said.

The target ruxolitinib dose was also noninferior to triamcinolone cream, for which mean change in EASI scores at weeks 2 and 4 were 40.0% and 59.8%, respectively.

Recruitment of patients in phase 3 studies of ruxolitinib cream for AD has just started, Dr. Kircik said.

The TRuE AD1 and TRuE AD2 studies are set to enroll 1,200 adolescents and adults with AD who will be randomized to ruxolitinib cream or vehicle, according to listings on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Dr. Kircik disclosed ties to several companies including Incyte, which was the sponsor of the phase 2 study and the phase 3 studies.

MILAN – A cream-based formulation of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor ruxolitinib maintained its efficacy in the 4-week open-label period of a 16-week randomized phase 2 study of adults with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD), Leon H. Kircik, MD, said at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Improvements in disease severity and itch in patients receiving 1.5% ruxolitinib cream twice daily were sustained over the open-label period, said Dr. Kircik, a dermatologist in Louisville, Ky., affiliated with Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

Patients who switched from vehicle or 0.1% triamcinolone cream to the JAK1/2 selective inhibitor in the open-label period also experienced rapid improvements in disease severity and itch.

“This is a novel treatment that’s a topical JAK inhibitor, which so far we don’t have any in the market for atopic dermatitis, and it does have a very good efficacy and safety profile,” Dr. Kircik said during an oral presentation at the meeting.

Janus kinases modulate inflammatory cytokines implicated in AD, and may also directly modulate itch, Dr. Kircik noted.

The study comprised 307 adults with mild to moderate AD (Investigator’s Global Assessment [IGA] score of 2 or 3) and body surface area involvement of 3%-20%. They were randomized equally to six arms, including vehicle, triamcinolone cream, and ruxolitinib at dosages of 0.15%, 0.5%, 1.5% once daily, or the target dose level of 1.5% twice daily.


After an 8-week double-blind period, there was a 4-week open-label period during which patients randomized to vehicle or triamcinolone were switched to ruxolitinib, and then a 4-week follow-up period during which no treatment was given, Dr. Kircik said.

The mean age of the patients was 35 years, 54% were female, and the median duration of disease was 20.8 years.

In the double-blind period, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream twice daily significantly improved Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score versus vehicle, Dr. Kircik said.

The mean change in EASI scores at weeks 2, 4, and 6 were 52.7%, 71.6%, and 78.5% for ruxolitinib, versus 4.8%, 15.5%, and 26.9% for vehicle (P less than .001 for all comparisons), according to Dr. Kircik.

The patients on the target ruxolitinib dose maintained the improvements in EASI score throughout the open label period, with mean improvement from baseline reaching 81.4% by week 10 and 84.9% by week 12.

Meanwhile, there was a sharp increase in mean EASI score improvement in patients switched to ruxolitinib, according to Dr. Kircik. In the vehicle arm, mean improvement leapt from 26.9% at week 8 to 78.4% by week 12.

Significant reductions in itch scores were seen within 36 hours of starting the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, with itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores of –1.8 versus –0.2 for vehicle at that time point (P less than .0001), he added.

Reduction in itch score was similarly maintained in the ruxolitinib target dose group, and rapidly fell to similar levels for patients switched over to that treatment in the open-label period, Dr. Kircik said.

The target ruxolitinib dose was also noninferior to triamcinolone cream, for which mean change in EASI scores at weeks 2 and 4 were 40.0% and 59.8%, respectively.

Recruitment of patients in phase 3 studies of ruxolitinib cream for AD has just started, Dr. Kircik said.

The TRuE AD1 and TRuE AD2 studies are set to enroll 1,200 adolescents and adults with AD who will be randomized to ruxolitinib cream or vehicle, according to listings on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Dr. Kircik disclosed ties to several companies including Incyte, which was the sponsor of the phase 2 study and the phase 3 studies.

MILAN – A cream-based formulation of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor ruxolitinib maintained its efficacy in the 4-week open-label period of a 16-week randomized phase 2 study of adults with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD), Leon H. Kircik, MD, said at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Improvements in disease severity and itch in patients receiving 1.5% ruxolitinib cream twice daily were sustained over the open-label period, said Dr. Kircik, a dermatologist in Louisville, Ky., affiliated with Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

Patients who switched from vehicle or 0.1% triamcinolone cream to the JAK1/2 selective inhibitor in the open-label period also experienced rapid improvements in disease severity and itch.

“This is a novel treatment that’s a topical JAK inhibitor, which so far we don’t have any in the market for atopic dermatitis, and it does have a very good efficacy and safety profile,” Dr. Kircik said during an oral presentation at the meeting.

Janus kinases modulate inflammatory cytokines implicated in AD, and may also directly modulate itch, Dr. Kircik noted.

The study comprised 307 adults with mild to moderate AD (Investigator’s Global Assessment [IGA] score of 2 or 3) and body surface area involvement of 3%-20%. They were randomized equally to six arms, including vehicle, triamcinolone cream, and ruxolitinib at dosages of 0.15%, 0.5%, 1.5% once daily, or the target dose level of 1.5% twice daily.


After an 8-week double-blind period, there was a 4-week open-label period during which patients randomized to vehicle or triamcinolone were switched to ruxolitinib, and then a 4-week follow-up period during which no treatment was given, Dr. Kircik said.

The mean age of the patients was 35 years, 54% were female, and the median duration of disease was 20.8 years.

In the double-blind period, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream twice daily significantly improved Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score versus vehicle, Dr. Kircik said.

The mean change in EASI scores at weeks 2, 4, and 6 were 52.7%, 71.6%, and 78.5% for ruxolitinib, versus 4.8%, 15.5%, and 26.9% for vehicle (P less than .001 for all comparisons), according to Dr. Kircik.

The patients on the target ruxolitinib dose maintained the improvements in EASI score throughout the open label period, with mean improvement from baseline reaching 81.4% by week 10 and 84.9% by week 12.

Meanwhile, there was a sharp increase in mean EASI score improvement in patients switched to ruxolitinib, according to Dr. Kircik. In the vehicle arm, mean improvement leapt from 26.9% at week 8 to 78.4% by week 12.

Significant reductions in itch scores were seen within 36 hours of starting the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, with itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores of –1.8 versus –0.2 for vehicle at that time point (P less than .0001), he added.

Reduction in itch score was similarly maintained in the ruxolitinib target dose group, and rapidly fell to similar levels for patients switched over to that treatment in the open-label period, Dr. Kircik said.

The target ruxolitinib dose was also noninferior to triamcinolone cream, for which mean change in EASI scores at weeks 2 and 4 were 40.0% and 59.8%, respectively.

Recruitment of patients in phase 3 studies of ruxolitinib cream for AD has just started, Dr. Kircik said.

The TRuE AD1 and TRuE AD2 studies are set to enroll 1,200 adolescents and adults with AD who will be randomized to ruxolitinib cream or vehicle, according to listings on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Dr. Kircik disclosed ties to several companies including Incyte, which was the sponsor of the phase 2 study and the phase 3 studies.

MILAN – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have clear science supporting their use in alopecia areata, and an increasing number of positive studies demonstrate their efficacy in regrowing hair, Brett King, MD, PhD, said at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Although not yet specifically approved for alopecia areata, JAK inhibitors are already making their way into expert authored treatment algorithms for the management of this disease, said Dr. King, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“JAK inhibitors are very much within our reach for the treatment of severe alopecia areata,” Dr. King said in an oral presentation on therapeutic advances for alopecia. “We need to follow the science,” he added. “We would not be here telling a story about JAK inhibitors and these other agents without very bright scientists, so we really have to applaud the people who made this the focus of their research.”
 

JAK science

The science supporting JAK inhibitors can be traced back to a 2014 report by Angela M. Christiano, PhD,, Raphael Clynes, of Columbia University, New York, and others showing that alopecia areata is driven by cytotoxic T lymphocytes, and is reversed by inhibition of the JAK/STAT pathway in mouse models of disease (Nat Med. 2014 Sep;20[9]:1043-9). Those investigators also reported near-complete regrowth of hair in three patients who received oral ruxolitinib, an inhibitor of JAK1 and JAK2, hinting at the potential clinical importance of this targeted approach.

As Dr. King explained, secretion of interleukin (IL)-15 from the hair follicle endothelial cell activates CD8+NKG2D+ T cells leading to secretion of interferon (IFN)-gamma, which has a receptor on the hair follicle epithelial cell, activating that cell to secrete more IL-15.

“IL-15 and IFN-gamma both signal through the JAK/STAT pathway,” he said. “There are over 50 cytokines that signal through the JAK/STAT pathway, including IFN-gamma and IL-15, and on binding their receptor at the cell surface, they pass the baton, if you will, to the JAK enzymes, of which there are 4 members – JAK1, 2, 3 and tyrosine kinase 2. These enzymes subsequently pass the baton to STAT, and STAT translocates to the nucleus, where transcription occurs and disease happens. So we have an opportunity then with a small molecule JAK inhibitor to mediate disease, such that if we give this person a JAK inhibitor, they should regrow hair.”

JAK data

A number of studies of JAK inhibitors support that science, including an open-label study of 66 patients treated with the JAK1/3 inhibitor tofacitinib twice daily (JCI Insight. 2016 Sep 22;1[15]:e89776). About one-third experienced a 50% or greater improvement from baseline, as measured by the severity of alopecia tool (SALT) score over 3 months of treatment, with adverse events limited to grade 1-2 infections, according to the authors, which included Dr. King.

Around the same time, results of an open-label study with ruxolitinib, a JAK1/2 inhibitor, were published showing that 9 of 12 patients had complete or near complete scalp hair regrowth over 6 months of treatment, he said.

In a subsequent retrospective study of 90 patients treated with tofacitinib, about 66%-70% of patients experienced regrowth of hair, depending on the dose received. However, that study also showed that hair regrowth was unlikely in patients with complete or near complete scalp hair loss for 10 years or more, Dr. King said. An additional study showed that tofacitinib may be effective in adolescents as in adults, or even more effective, he added, while another found that low-dose ruxolitinib was as effective as higher dose ruxolitinib for the treatment of severe alopecia areata.

News earlier in 2019 surrounded the results of two randomized, double-blind placebo controlled trials, reported at the annual American Academy of Dermatology meeting in Washington, DC, showing efficacy for investigational oral JAK-targeted agents, a JAK 1/2 inhibitor (CTP-543), and a TYK2/JAK1 inhibitor (PF-06700841) and a JAK3 inhibitor (PF-06651600).

“I think this really is the near future of alopecia areata treatment,” Dr. King said.

No success yet for topical JAKs

One area where JAK inhibitors have not shined yet is in topical formulations. In a pilot study of tofacitinib 2% ointment, only 1 of 10 patients had significant scalp hair growth, while a study of topical ruxolitinib was stopped early and results have not yet been reported, according to Dr. King. “As dermatologists, we’re always interested in topical therapy for skin disease, but I’m not sure that alopecia areata is a disease for which topical JAK inhibitors will be effective,” he said.

Dr. King reported disclosures related to Aclaris Therapeutics, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Dermavant Sciences, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

MILAN – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have clear science supporting their use in alopecia areata, and an increasing number of positive studies demonstrate their efficacy in regrowing hair, Brett King, MD, PhD, said at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Although not yet specifically approved for alopecia areata, JAK inhibitors are already making their way into expert authored treatment algorithms for the management of this disease, said Dr. King, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“JAK inhibitors are very much within our reach for the treatment of severe alopecia areata,” Dr. King said in an oral presentation on therapeutic advances for alopecia. “We need to follow the science,” he added. “We would not be here telling a story about JAK inhibitors and these other agents without very bright scientists, so we really have to applaud the people who made this the focus of their research.”
 

JAK science

The science supporting JAK inhibitors can be traced back to a 2014 report by Angela M. Christiano, PhD,, Raphael Clynes, of Columbia University, New York, and others showing that alopecia areata is driven by cytotoxic T lymphocytes, and is reversed by inhibition of the JAK/STAT pathway in mouse models of disease (Nat Med. 2014 Sep;20[9]:1043-9). Those investigators also reported near-complete regrowth of hair in three patients who received oral ruxolitinib, an inhibitor of JAK1 and JAK2, hinting at the potential clinical importance of this targeted approach.

As Dr. King explained, secretion of interleukin (IL)-15 from the hair follicle endothelial cell activates CD8+NKG2D+ T cells leading to secretion of interferon (IFN)-gamma, which has a receptor on the hair follicle epithelial cell, activating that cell to secrete more IL-15.

“IL-15 and IFN-gamma both signal through the JAK/STAT pathway,” he said. “There are over 50 cytokines that signal through the JAK/STAT pathway, including IFN-gamma and IL-15, and on binding their receptor at the cell surface, they pass the baton, if you will, to the JAK enzymes, of which there are 4 members – JAK1, 2, 3 and tyrosine kinase 2. These enzymes subsequently pass the baton to STAT, and STAT translocates to the nucleus, where transcription occurs and disease happens. So we have an opportunity then with a small molecule JAK inhibitor to mediate disease, such that if we give this person a JAK inhibitor, they should regrow hair.”

JAK data

A number of studies of JAK inhibitors support that science, including an open-label study of 66 patients treated with the JAK1/3 inhibitor tofacitinib twice daily (JCI Insight. 2016 Sep 22;1[15]:e89776). About one-third experienced a 50% or greater improvement from baseline, as measured by the severity of alopecia tool (SALT) score over 3 months of treatment, with adverse events limited to grade 1-2 infections, according to the authors, which included Dr. King.

Around the same time, results of an open-label study with ruxolitinib, a JAK1/2 inhibitor, were published showing that 9 of 12 patients had complete or near complete scalp hair regrowth over 6 months of treatment, he said.

In a subsequent retrospective study of 90 patients treated with tofacitinib, about 66%-70% of patients experienced regrowth of hair, depending on the dose received. However, that study also showed that hair regrowth was unlikely in patients with complete or near complete scalp hair loss for 10 years or more, Dr. King said. An additional study showed that tofacitinib may be effective in adolescents as in adults, or even more effective, he added, while another found that low-dose ruxolitinib was as effective as higher dose ruxolitinib for the treatment of severe alopecia areata.

News earlier in 2019 surrounded the results of two randomized, double-blind placebo controlled trials, reported at the annual American Academy of Dermatology meeting in Washington, DC, showing efficacy for investigational oral JAK-targeted agents, a JAK 1/2 inhibitor (CTP-543), and a TYK2/JAK1 inhibitor (PF-06700841) and a JAK3 inhibitor (PF-06651600).

“I think this really is the near future of alopecia areata treatment,” Dr. King said.

No success yet for topical JAKs

One area where JAK inhibitors have not shined yet is in topical formulations. In a pilot study of tofacitinib 2% ointment, only 1 of 10 patients had significant scalp hair growth, while a study of topical ruxolitinib was stopped early and results have not yet been reported, according to Dr. King. “As dermatologists, we’re always interested in topical therapy for skin disease, but I’m not sure that alopecia areata is a disease for which topical JAK inhibitors will be effective,” he said.

Dr. King reported disclosures related to Aclaris Therapeutics, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Dermavant Sciences, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

MILAN – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have clear science supporting their use in alopecia areata, and an increasing number of positive studies demonstrate their efficacy in regrowing hair, Brett King, MD, PhD, said at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Although not yet specifically approved for alopecia areata, JAK inhibitors are already making their way into expert authored treatment algorithms for the management of this disease, said Dr. King, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“JAK inhibitors are very much within our reach for the treatment of severe alopecia areata,” Dr. King said in an oral presentation on therapeutic advances for alopecia. “We need to follow the science,” he added. “We would not be here telling a story about JAK inhibitors and these other agents without very bright scientists, so we really have to applaud the people who made this the focus of their research.”
 

JAK science

The science supporting JAK inhibitors can be traced back to a 2014 report by Angela M. Christiano, PhD,, Raphael Clynes, of Columbia University, New York, and others showing that alopecia areata is driven by cytotoxic T lymphocytes, and is reversed by inhibition of the JAK/STAT pathway in mouse models of disease (Nat Med. 2014 Sep;20[9]:1043-9). Those investigators also reported near-complete regrowth of hair in three patients who received oral ruxolitinib, an inhibitor of JAK1 and JAK2, hinting at the potential clinical importance of this targeted approach.

As Dr. King explained, secretion of interleukin (IL)-15 from the hair follicle endothelial cell activates CD8+NKG2D+ T cells leading to secretion of interferon (IFN)-gamma, which has a receptor on the hair follicle epithelial cell, activating that cell to secrete more IL-15.

“IL-15 and IFN-gamma both signal through the JAK/STAT pathway,” he said. “There are over 50 cytokines that signal through the JAK/STAT pathway, including IFN-gamma and IL-15, and on binding their receptor at the cell surface, they pass the baton, if you will, to the JAK enzymes, of which there are 4 members – JAK1, 2, 3 and tyrosine kinase 2. These enzymes subsequently pass the baton to STAT, and STAT translocates to the nucleus, where transcription occurs and disease happens. So we have an opportunity then with a small molecule JAK inhibitor to mediate disease, such that if we give this person a JAK inhibitor, they should regrow hair.”

JAK data

A number of studies of JAK inhibitors support that science, including an open-label study of 66 patients treated with the JAK1/3 inhibitor tofacitinib twice daily (JCI Insight. 2016 Sep 22;1[15]:e89776). About one-third experienced a 50% or greater improvement from baseline, as measured by the severity of alopecia tool (SALT) score over 3 months of treatment, with adverse events limited to grade 1-2 infections, according to the authors, which included Dr. King.

Around the same time, results of an open-label study with ruxolitinib, a JAK1/2 inhibitor, were published showing that 9 of 12 patients had complete or near complete scalp hair regrowth over 6 months of treatment, he said.

In a subsequent retrospective study of 90 patients treated with tofacitinib, about 66%-70% of patients experienced regrowth of hair, depending on the dose received. However, that study also showed that hair regrowth was unlikely in patients with complete or near complete scalp hair loss for 10 years or more, Dr. King said. An additional study showed that tofacitinib may be effective in adolescents as in adults, or even more effective, he added, while another found that low-dose ruxolitinib was as effective as higher dose ruxolitinib for the treatment of severe alopecia areata.

News earlier in 2019 surrounded the results of two randomized, double-blind placebo controlled trials, reported at the annual American Academy of Dermatology meeting in Washington, DC, showing efficacy for investigational oral JAK-targeted agents, a JAK 1/2 inhibitor (CTP-543), and a TYK2/JAK1 inhibitor (PF-06700841) and a JAK3 inhibitor (PF-06651600).

“I think this really is the near future of alopecia areata treatment,” Dr. King said.

No success yet for topical JAKs

One area where JAK inhibitors have not shined yet is in topical formulations. In a pilot study of tofacitinib 2% ointment, only 1 of 10 patients had significant scalp hair growth, while a study of topical ruxolitinib was stopped early and results have not yet been reported, according to Dr. King. “As dermatologists, we’re always interested in topical therapy for skin disease, but I’m not sure that alopecia areata is a disease for which topical JAK inhibitors will be effective,” he said.

Dr. King reported disclosures related to Aclaris Therapeutics, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Dermavant Sciences, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

MILAN – Biologics are underprescribed in the elderly, despite evidence that efficacy of biologics is comparable among older and younger patients over time, an analysis of German and Swiss registry data shows.

There was an “imbalance” in the types of medications prescribed for older and younger patients in the registry, with biologics used more frequently in younger patients, according to investigator Matthias Augustin, MD, director of the Institute For Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing in Hamburg, Germany.

However, the efficacy of systemic treatments, including nonbiologic therapies, was comparable between older and younger patients, other than a few differences in response rates early in treatment that disappeared with longer follow-up, Dr. Augustin said at the World Congress of Dermatology. Coupled with evidence from the medical literature, results of this registry data analysis suggest there are “very few reasons” to avoid use of systemic drugs in elderly patients.

“I think we should create awareness and discuss possible reasons that deter dermatologists from prescribing systemic antipsoriatics in elderly patients,” he said.

Concerns about safety and drug interactions in the elderly may be one barrier to prescribing systemic therapy in this patient population: More data on this issue are needed, since the elderly are taking more medications than younger patients and have more contraindications, Dr. Augustin said. “I think this is a job for all registries for the future.”

Older individuals have typically been excluded from psoriasis clinical trials, making it difficult to extrapolate existing safety and efficacy data to those patients, he pointed out.

Accordingly, Dr. Augustin and coinvestigators evaluated prospectively collected data for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who were included in either the German Psoriasis registry (PsoBest) or the Swiss Dermatology Network for Targeted Therapies (SDNTT). They split the cohort into a control group of those younger than 65 years (about 4,600 individuals) and those 65 years or older (about 740 individuals).

A few systemic drugs were used more frequently in the elderly, including apremilast and methotrexate, while most other drugs, including biologics, were used more frequently in younger patients, Dr. Augustin and colleagues found in their analysis. There were a few differences between the elderly and controls related to weight, smoking, and other factors, but not so pronounced that they would explain differences in the use of the systemic therapy.

Response rates to systemic therapies were generally comparable between the elderly and controls, as measured by Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75 responses, PASI scores of 3 or less, and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores of one or less, he added.

One exception was methotrexate, which was more effective in the elderly after 3 and 6 months of treatment, but that difference was no longer apparent after 12 months of treatment, he said. Likewise, cyclosporine showed a higher response rate in younger patients at 3 months, but not at 6 or 12 months.

Based on the findings, “overall, we observed comparable responses between the controls and the elderly,” Dr. Augustin concluded.

The PsoBest registry is sponsored by CVderm, DDG, and BVDD, and “has been established and is operated in close cooperation with the involved pharmaceutical companies whose statutory pharmacovigilance requirements are taken into account,” according to a statement on the PsoBest website. The Swiss registry is supported by Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Celgene, Lilly, and Novartis. The investigators did not report any disclosures.

MILAN – Biologics are underprescribed in the elderly, despite evidence that efficacy of biologics is comparable among older and younger patients over time, an analysis of German and Swiss registry data shows.

There was an “imbalance” in the types of medications prescribed for older and younger patients in the registry, with biologics used more frequently in younger patients, according to investigator Matthias Augustin, MD, director of the Institute For Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing in Hamburg, Germany.

However, the efficacy of systemic treatments, including nonbiologic therapies, was comparable between older and younger patients, other than a few differences in response rates early in treatment that disappeared with longer follow-up, Dr. Augustin said at the World Congress of Dermatology. Coupled with evidence from the medical literature, results of this registry data analysis suggest there are “very few reasons” to avoid use of systemic drugs in elderly patients.

“I think we should create awareness and discuss possible reasons that deter dermatologists from prescribing systemic antipsoriatics in elderly patients,” he said.

Concerns about safety and drug interactions in the elderly may be one barrier to prescribing systemic therapy in this patient population: More data on this issue are needed, since the elderly are taking more medications than younger patients and have more contraindications, Dr. Augustin said. “I think this is a job for all registries for the future.”

Older individuals have typically been excluded from psoriasis clinical trials, making it difficult to extrapolate existing safety and efficacy data to those patients, he pointed out.

Accordingly, Dr. Augustin and coinvestigators evaluated prospectively collected data for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who were included in either the German Psoriasis registry (PsoBest) or the Swiss Dermatology Network for Targeted Therapies (SDNTT). They split the cohort into a control group of those younger than 65 years (about 4,600 individuals) and those 65 years or older (about 740 individuals).

A few systemic drugs were used more frequently in the elderly, including apremilast and methotrexate, while most other drugs, including biologics, were used more frequently in younger patients, Dr. Augustin and colleagues found in their analysis. There were a few differences between the elderly and controls related to weight, smoking, and other factors, but not so pronounced that they would explain differences in the use of the systemic therapy.

Response rates to systemic therapies were generally comparable between the elderly and controls, as measured by Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75 responses, PASI scores of 3 or less, and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores of one or less, he added.

One exception was methotrexate, which was more effective in the elderly after 3 and 6 months of treatment, but that difference was no longer apparent after 12 months of treatment, he said. Likewise, cyclosporine showed a higher response rate in younger patients at 3 months, but not at 6 or 12 months.

Based on the findings, “overall, we observed comparable responses between the controls and the elderly,” Dr. Augustin concluded.

The PsoBest registry is sponsored by CVderm, DDG, and BVDD, and “has been established and is operated in close cooperation with the involved pharmaceutical companies whose statutory pharmacovigilance requirements are taken into account,” according to a statement on the PsoBest website. The Swiss registry is supported by Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Celgene, Lilly, and Novartis. The investigators did not report any disclosures.

MILAN – Biologics are underprescribed in the elderly, despite evidence that efficacy of biologics is comparable among older and younger patients over time, an analysis of German and Swiss registry data shows.

There was an “imbalance” in the types of medications prescribed for older and younger patients in the registry, with biologics used more frequently in younger patients, according to investigator Matthias Augustin, MD, director of the Institute For Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing in Hamburg, Germany.

However, the efficacy of systemic treatments, including nonbiologic therapies, was comparable between older and younger patients, other than a few differences in response rates early in treatment that disappeared with longer follow-up, Dr. Augustin said at the World Congress of Dermatology. Coupled with evidence from the medical literature, results of this registry data analysis suggest there are “very few reasons” to avoid use of systemic drugs in elderly patients.

“I think we should create awareness and discuss possible reasons that deter dermatologists from prescribing systemic antipsoriatics in elderly patients,” he said.

Concerns about safety and drug interactions in the elderly may be one barrier to prescribing systemic therapy in this patient population: More data on this issue are needed, since the elderly are taking more medications than younger patients and have more contraindications, Dr. Augustin said. “I think this is a job for all registries for the future.”

Older individuals have typically been excluded from psoriasis clinical trials, making it difficult to extrapolate existing safety and efficacy data to those patients, he pointed out.

Accordingly, Dr. Augustin and coinvestigators evaluated prospectively collected data for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who were included in either the German Psoriasis registry (PsoBest) or the Swiss Dermatology Network for Targeted Therapies (SDNTT). They split the cohort into a control group of those younger than 65 years (about 4,600 individuals) and those 65 years or older (about 740 individuals).

A few systemic drugs were used more frequently in the elderly, including apremilast and methotrexate, while most other drugs, including biologics, were used more frequently in younger patients, Dr. Augustin and colleagues found in their analysis. There were a few differences between the elderly and controls related to weight, smoking, and other factors, but not so pronounced that they would explain differences in the use of the systemic therapy.

Response rates to systemic therapies were generally comparable between the elderly and controls, as measured by Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75 responses, PASI scores of 3 or less, and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores of one or less, he added.

One exception was methotrexate, which was more effective in the elderly after 3 and 6 months of treatment, but that difference was no longer apparent after 12 months of treatment, he said. Likewise, cyclosporine showed a higher response rate in younger patients at 3 months, but not at 6 or 12 months.

Based on the findings, “overall, we observed comparable responses between the controls and the elderly,” Dr. Augustin concluded.

The PsoBest registry is sponsored by CVderm, DDG, and BVDD, and “has been established and is operated in close cooperation with the involved pharmaceutical companies whose statutory pharmacovigilance requirements are taken into account,” according to a statement on the PsoBest website. The Swiss registry is supported by Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Celgene, Lilly, and Novartis. The investigators did not report any disclosures.

MILAN – Upadacitinib significantly improved itch in a recent randomized, placebo-controlled trial enrolling patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, according to a report presented at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Compared with those in the placebo group, more patients receiving the selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor achieved an itch-free state and maintained it over the 16 weeks of the phase 2b trial, said investigator Kristian Reich, MD, professor of translational research in inflammatory skin diseases at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

These improvements in pruritus occurred early with upadacitinib and were pronounced at the highest dose studied, 30 mg daily, he commented. Treatment with upadacitinib also rapidly and significantly improved clinical signs of AD versus placebo, as previously reported primary endpoint data show.

“It’s a drug that works in eczema,” Dr. Reich said in an oral presentation. “We still do not fully understand what the exact relationship between itch and eczema is. Is there a neurogenic inflammation? Is there an epidermal pathology? But clearly with this drug, it does seem to reduce the itch, it does reduce the eczema, it does this early on, and the 30 mg does seem to be the right dose.”

Upadacitinib is a selective inhibitor of JAK1, a member of the signal transduction cascade for many cytokines implicated in AD, including interleukin-4, IL-13, IL-22, and others, Dr. Reich told attendees at the meeting.


In the phase 2b study, 167 patients with moderate to severe AD were randomized to placebo or upadacitinib at 7.5 mg, 15 mg, or 30 mg daily over a 16-week, double-blind period, followed by a 72-week, blinded extension. The mean age across these groups ranged from 39 to 42 years, and the mean time since onset of symptoms was 24-34 years.

Significantly improvements in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores were seen as early as 2 weeks and were maintained throughout the 16-week, double-blind period, as previously shown. By 16 weeks, the mean percentage improvement in EASI score was 74.4% for upadacitinib 30 mg daily versus 23.0% for placebo (P less than .001).

In this more recent post hoc analysis of itch, the percentage of patients with a weekly rolling average pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) score of 0-1 was significantly higher in the upadacitinib groups, Dr. Reich said.

The placebo-adjusted difference in average pruritus NRS scores of 0-1 was highest in the 30-mg daily group, at 37.7% by week 16 (P less than .001).

Those itch scores correlated with the Patient Global Impression of Severity results, in that almost all patients rating their disease as absent or minimal by that scale also had a pruritus NRS score of 0 (81.6%) or 1 (10.5%), he said.

That link shows the important contribution of itch to the overall rating of disease severity by the patient. “Patients want to be able to say, ‘I have only minimal or absent disease,’ ” he said. “This will likely require that you really get the itch down, for example, to 0 or 1, using this pruritus numerical rating scale.”

Pruritus improvements in favor of upadacitinib were also seen when using Scoring AD itch and Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) itch measures, Dr. Reich said. With POEM, 0% of placebo-treated patients had 0 days of itch in the past week, compared with 28.6% in the upadacitinib 30-mg daily group.

The risk-to-benefit profile of upadacitinib supports proceeding to phase 3 trials in patients with AD, according to Dr. Reich and coinvestigators.

Phase 3 trials of upadacitinib are underway in AD, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis, according to a recent AbbVie press release. The Food and Drug Administration accepted a New Drug Application Accepted For Priority Review for upadacitinib treatment of moderate to severe RA, based on a phase 3 program including more than 4,900 patients, the company announced in February.

Support for the study was provided by AbbVie. Dr. Reich reported disclosures related to AbbVie, Affibody, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Centocor, Covagen, Forward Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Medac Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Takeda, UCB, and XenoPort.

MILAN – Upadacitinib significantly improved itch in a recent randomized, placebo-controlled trial enrolling patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, according to a report presented at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Compared with those in the placebo group, more patients receiving the selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor achieved an itch-free state and maintained it over the 16 weeks of the phase 2b trial, said investigator Kristian Reich, MD, professor of translational research in inflammatory skin diseases at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

These improvements in pruritus occurred early with upadacitinib and were pronounced at the highest dose studied, 30 mg daily, he commented. Treatment with upadacitinib also rapidly and significantly improved clinical signs of AD versus placebo, as previously reported primary endpoint data show.

“It’s a drug that works in eczema,” Dr. Reich said in an oral presentation. “We still do not fully understand what the exact relationship between itch and eczema is. Is there a neurogenic inflammation? Is there an epidermal pathology? But clearly with this drug, it does seem to reduce the itch, it does reduce the eczema, it does this early on, and the 30 mg does seem to be the right dose.”

Upadacitinib is a selective inhibitor of JAK1, a member of the signal transduction cascade for many cytokines implicated in AD, including interleukin-4, IL-13, IL-22, and others, Dr. Reich told attendees at the meeting.


In the phase 2b study, 167 patients with moderate to severe AD were randomized to placebo or upadacitinib at 7.5 mg, 15 mg, or 30 mg daily over a 16-week, double-blind period, followed by a 72-week, blinded extension. The mean age across these groups ranged from 39 to 42 years, and the mean time since onset of symptoms was 24-34 years.

Significantly improvements in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores were seen as early as 2 weeks and were maintained throughout the 16-week, double-blind period, as previously shown. By 16 weeks, the mean percentage improvement in EASI score was 74.4% for upadacitinib 30 mg daily versus 23.0% for placebo (P less than .001).

In this more recent post hoc analysis of itch, the percentage of patients with a weekly rolling average pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) score of 0-1 was significantly higher in the upadacitinib groups, Dr. Reich said.

The placebo-adjusted difference in average pruritus NRS scores of 0-1 was highest in the 30-mg daily group, at 37.7% by week 16 (P less than .001).

Those itch scores correlated with the Patient Global Impression of Severity results, in that almost all patients rating their disease as absent or minimal by that scale also had a pruritus NRS score of 0 (81.6%) or 1 (10.5%), he said.

That link shows the important contribution of itch to the overall rating of disease severity by the patient. “Patients want to be able to say, ‘I have only minimal or absent disease,’ ” he said. “This will likely require that you really get the itch down, for example, to 0 or 1, using this pruritus numerical rating scale.”

Pruritus improvements in favor of upadacitinib were also seen when using Scoring AD itch and Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) itch measures, Dr. Reich said. With POEM, 0% of placebo-treated patients had 0 days of itch in the past week, compared with 28.6% in the upadacitinib 30-mg daily group.

The risk-to-benefit profile of upadacitinib supports proceeding to phase 3 trials in patients with AD, according to Dr. Reich and coinvestigators.

Phase 3 trials of upadacitinib are underway in AD, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis, according to a recent AbbVie press release. The Food and Drug Administration accepted a New Drug Application Accepted For Priority Review for upadacitinib treatment of moderate to severe RA, based on a phase 3 program including more than 4,900 patients, the company announced in February.

Support for the study was provided by AbbVie. Dr. Reich reported disclosures related to AbbVie, Affibody, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Centocor, Covagen, Forward Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Medac Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Takeda, UCB, and XenoPort.

MILAN – Upadacitinib significantly improved itch in a recent randomized, placebo-controlled trial enrolling patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, according to a report presented at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Compared with those in the placebo group, more patients receiving the selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor achieved an itch-free state and maintained it over the 16 weeks of the phase 2b trial, said investigator Kristian Reich, MD, professor of translational research in inflammatory skin diseases at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

These improvements in pruritus occurred early with upadacitinib and were pronounced at the highest dose studied, 30 mg daily, he commented. Treatment with upadacitinib also rapidly and significantly improved clinical signs of AD versus placebo, as previously reported primary endpoint data show.

“It’s a drug that works in eczema,” Dr. Reich said in an oral presentation. “We still do not fully understand what the exact relationship between itch and eczema is. Is there a neurogenic inflammation? Is there an epidermal pathology? But clearly with this drug, it does seem to reduce the itch, it does reduce the eczema, it does this early on, and the 30 mg does seem to be the right dose.”

Upadacitinib is a selective inhibitor of JAK1, a member of the signal transduction cascade for many cytokines implicated in AD, including interleukin-4, IL-13, IL-22, and others, Dr. Reich told attendees at the meeting.


In the phase 2b study, 167 patients with moderate to severe AD were randomized to placebo or upadacitinib at 7.5 mg, 15 mg, or 30 mg daily over a 16-week, double-blind period, followed by a 72-week, blinded extension. The mean age across these groups ranged from 39 to 42 years, and the mean time since onset of symptoms was 24-34 years.

Significantly improvements in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores were seen as early as 2 weeks and were maintained throughout the 16-week, double-blind period, as previously shown. By 16 weeks, the mean percentage improvement in EASI score was 74.4% for upadacitinib 30 mg daily versus 23.0% for placebo (P less than .001).

In this more recent post hoc analysis of itch, the percentage of patients with a weekly rolling average pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) score of 0-1 was significantly higher in the upadacitinib groups, Dr. Reich said.

The placebo-adjusted difference in average pruritus NRS scores of 0-1 was highest in the 30-mg daily group, at 37.7% by week 16 (P less than .001).

Those itch scores correlated with the Patient Global Impression of Severity results, in that almost all patients rating their disease as absent or minimal by that scale also had a pruritus NRS score of 0 (81.6%) or 1 (10.5%), he said.

That link shows the important contribution of itch to the overall rating of disease severity by the patient. “Patients want to be able to say, ‘I have only minimal or absent disease,’ ” he said. “This will likely require that you really get the itch down, for example, to 0 or 1, using this pruritus numerical rating scale.”

Pruritus improvements in favor of upadacitinib were also seen when using Scoring AD itch and Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) itch measures, Dr. Reich said. With POEM, 0% of placebo-treated patients had 0 days of itch in the past week, compared with 28.6% in the upadacitinib 30-mg daily group.

The risk-to-benefit profile of upadacitinib supports proceeding to phase 3 trials in patients with AD, according to Dr. Reich and coinvestigators.

Phase 3 trials of upadacitinib are underway in AD, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis, according to a recent AbbVie press release. The Food and Drug Administration accepted a New Drug Application Accepted For Priority Review for upadacitinib treatment of moderate to severe RA, based on a phase 3 program including more than 4,900 patients, the company announced in February.

Support for the study was provided by AbbVie. Dr. Reich reported disclosures related to AbbVie, Affibody, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Centocor, Covagen, Forward Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Medac Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Takeda, UCB, and XenoPort.