User login
Americans getting more sunburns
, for reasons that are unclear, Nicole L. Bolick, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
On the plus side, utilization of indoor tanning plunged in the United States during the same period, a statistic worth celebrating as a public health and legislative success, noted Dr. Bolick, who was at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, when she conducted her study and is now at East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.
More good news: Her analysis of data from 67,471 nationally representative participants in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Information Survey for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 also demonstrated that the public’s adoption of several key skin cancer prevention behaviors is on the rise, although she added that rates clearly remain suboptimal.
For example, the proportion of Americans who practice sun avoidance climbed from 31.7% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 in a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, alcohol use, location, smoking status, education level, health insurance, and family and personal history of skin cancer.
Similarly, the use of sunscreen always or most of the time when outdoors for more than 1 hour on a warm, sunny day rose from an adjusted 31.5% in 2005 to 33.1% in 2010 and to 34.3% in 2015.
Also, sun protective clothing – long pants, hats, and/or long-sleeved shirts – was utilized always or most of the time by 35.9% of respondents in 2005, 38.4% in 2010, and 37.2% in 2015.
In 2005, 19% of Americans reported having a lifetime history of a physician-performed full body skin examination. The prevalence of this secondary skin cancer prevention measure rose to 22.4% in 2010 and remained the same in 2015.
In the 2005 national survey, 14.1% of respondents reported engaging in indoor tanning within the past year. This figure dropped to 6.2% in 2010 and fell further to 4.1% in 2015.
A history of two or more sunburns within the past year was reported by 18.2% of subjects in 2005, by 21.1% in 2010, and by 19.9% in 2015. It’s unclear whether this unwelcome phenomenon is due to inadequate use of sun protection or increased awareness of the link between sun exposure and skin cancer, with a resultant increase in reporting of sunburns. The influence of climate change is another possible explanation worthy of further study, according to Dr. Bolick.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.
, for reasons that are unclear, Nicole L. Bolick, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
On the plus side, utilization of indoor tanning plunged in the United States during the same period, a statistic worth celebrating as a public health and legislative success, noted Dr. Bolick, who was at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, when she conducted her study and is now at East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.
More good news: Her analysis of data from 67,471 nationally representative participants in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Information Survey for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 also demonstrated that the public’s adoption of several key skin cancer prevention behaviors is on the rise, although she added that rates clearly remain suboptimal.
For example, the proportion of Americans who practice sun avoidance climbed from 31.7% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 in a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, alcohol use, location, smoking status, education level, health insurance, and family and personal history of skin cancer.
Similarly, the use of sunscreen always or most of the time when outdoors for more than 1 hour on a warm, sunny day rose from an adjusted 31.5% in 2005 to 33.1% in 2010 and to 34.3% in 2015.
Also, sun protective clothing – long pants, hats, and/or long-sleeved shirts – was utilized always or most of the time by 35.9% of respondents in 2005, 38.4% in 2010, and 37.2% in 2015.
In 2005, 19% of Americans reported having a lifetime history of a physician-performed full body skin examination. The prevalence of this secondary skin cancer prevention measure rose to 22.4% in 2010 and remained the same in 2015.
In the 2005 national survey, 14.1% of respondents reported engaging in indoor tanning within the past year. This figure dropped to 6.2% in 2010 and fell further to 4.1% in 2015.
A history of two or more sunburns within the past year was reported by 18.2% of subjects in 2005, by 21.1% in 2010, and by 19.9% in 2015. It’s unclear whether this unwelcome phenomenon is due to inadequate use of sun protection or increased awareness of the link between sun exposure and skin cancer, with a resultant increase in reporting of sunburns. The influence of climate change is another possible explanation worthy of further study, according to Dr. Bolick.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.
, for reasons that are unclear, Nicole L. Bolick, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
On the plus side, utilization of indoor tanning plunged in the United States during the same period, a statistic worth celebrating as a public health and legislative success, noted Dr. Bolick, who was at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, when she conducted her study and is now at East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.
More good news: Her analysis of data from 67,471 nationally representative participants in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Information Survey for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015 also demonstrated that the public’s adoption of several key skin cancer prevention behaviors is on the rise, although she added that rates clearly remain suboptimal.
For example, the proportion of Americans who practice sun avoidance climbed from 31.7% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 in a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for demographics, alcohol use, location, smoking status, education level, health insurance, and family and personal history of skin cancer.
Similarly, the use of sunscreen always or most of the time when outdoors for more than 1 hour on a warm, sunny day rose from an adjusted 31.5% in 2005 to 33.1% in 2010 and to 34.3% in 2015.
Also, sun protective clothing – long pants, hats, and/or long-sleeved shirts – was utilized always or most of the time by 35.9% of respondents in 2005, 38.4% in 2010, and 37.2% in 2015.
In 2005, 19% of Americans reported having a lifetime history of a physician-performed full body skin examination. The prevalence of this secondary skin cancer prevention measure rose to 22.4% in 2010 and remained the same in 2015.
In the 2005 national survey, 14.1% of respondents reported engaging in indoor tanning within the past year. This figure dropped to 6.2% in 2010 and fell further to 4.1% in 2015.
A history of two or more sunburns within the past year was reported by 18.2% of subjects in 2005, by 21.1% in 2010, and by 19.9% in 2015. It’s unclear whether this unwelcome phenomenon is due to inadequate use of sun protection or increased awareness of the link between sun exposure and skin cancer, with a resultant increase in reporting of sunburns. The influence of climate change is another possible explanation worthy of further study, according to Dr. Bolick.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.
FROM AAD 20
Ixekizumab deemed effective for pityriasis rubra pilaris
Teri Greiling, MD, PhD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The interleukin-17A inhibitor induced long-term remission of pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) in 4 of the 11 participants in her open-label, single-arm, 24-week clinical trial of ixekizumab (Taltz) at the Food and Drug Administration–approved dosing for psoriasis. Of 11 patients, 7 experienced at least a 50% reduction in signs and symptoms of the disease. Marked quality-of-life improvements occurred as well, reported Dr. Greiling, a dermatologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
PRP is a rare papulosquamous disorder that’s challenging to diagnosis and often difficult to treat. Indeed, there is no FDA-approved treatment. The disorder is characterized by widespread follicular keratotic plaques with scale and notable islands of sparing, often with an accompanying waxy yellow palmoplantar keratoderma with fissuring. There are adult- and childhood-onset forms of PRP, as well as sporadic and familial subtypes. Some cases are associated with variants in the CARD14 gene, known to also play a role in familial psoriasis.
Patients with PRP say the disorder has a major adverse impact on their quality of life. Itching and pain are often prominent features.
The 11 study participants, drawn from throughout the United States, were adults with a mean 12-year history of symptoms. All were required to have both clinical and biopsy evidence of PRP. Five had classic adult-onset PRP, five had atypical adult-onset PRP, and one had classic juvenile-onset PRP. All had moderate or severe disease as reflected in a Physician’s Global Assessment score of 3 or 4 on the 0-4 scale. Of the 11, 10 had previously received various systemic therapies for their PRP without success.
Since there is as yet no established PRP severity grading tool, Dr. Greiling applied the principles of the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). Participants had a mean baseline PASI score of 24.6, a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 18, and itch and pain scores of 7 and 6, respectively, on a self-rated 10-point scale.
The primary outcome in the study was change in PASI score at week 24, which was 4 weeks after the final dose of ixekizumab. The mean score improved from 24.8 at week 0 to 9.7 at week 24. Five patients achieved at least a 75% decrease in PASI score, or PASI 75 response, and 2 had a PASI 90 response. The DLQI improved from 18 to 3, and both itch and pain scores dropped to a median of 1. There was no association between response to treatment and PRP clinical subtype.
The four top responders – those with a PASI 89 or better response at week 24 – remained clear or almost clear at week 36, fully 16 weeks after their last dose of ixekizumab. Patients with an intermediate week 24 response – that is, a 50%-85% reduction in PASI score – all relapsed before week 36. The patient with the worst PASI score at both baseline and 24 weeks decided to continue on ixekizumab dosed every 2 weeks independent of the study, rather than at the FDA-approved dosing every 4 weeks for psoriasis, with a resultant drop to a PASI score of 8 at week 36.
To look at mechanism of benefit, Dr. Greiling used quantitative polymerase chain reaction to examine key cytokine expression in the epidermis and dermis. Not surprisingly, IL-17A expression was markedly reduced at both sites, suggesting the importance of the Th17 axis in the pathophysiology of PRP. In contrast, there was no significant change in IL-23 expression.
No serious or unexpected adverse events occurred in the 24-week study.
“In terms of ixekizumab, compared to other treatments, I definitely think it is more effective than any conventional therapies, such as topical steroids, methotrexate, or acitretin,” she said in an interview.
Asked about other biologics, Dr. Greiling said she hasn’t found tumor necrosis factor inhibitors very helpful in her patients with PRP. A formal trial of the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) has been done elsewhere, and although the results haven’t yet been published, her understanding is that the efficacy was similar to her ixekizumab trial.
“I’ve had some of my ixekizumab patients switch to secukinumab, for insurance reasons, though, and had it not be quite as effective, although still helpful,” she said.
Dr. Greiling is now enrolling patients with PRP in a trial of the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya). It’s her early impression that this may prove to be another therapeutic option.
“I have not yet used brodalumab [Siliq], but I wonder if it would also be helpful, since it seems to have a stronger blockade, working on the IL-17 receptor A,” she said.
She cited two pressing needs that would advance PRP research: the lack of standard criteria for disease diagnosis and the absence of PRP-specific disease measurement tools. “We’re trying to remedy that,” the dermatologist said.
Her study was funded by Eli Lilly. She reported receiving research funding from that company and Janssen.
Teri Greiling, MD, PhD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The interleukin-17A inhibitor induced long-term remission of pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) in 4 of the 11 participants in her open-label, single-arm, 24-week clinical trial of ixekizumab (Taltz) at the Food and Drug Administration–approved dosing for psoriasis. Of 11 patients, 7 experienced at least a 50% reduction in signs and symptoms of the disease. Marked quality-of-life improvements occurred as well, reported Dr. Greiling, a dermatologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
PRP is a rare papulosquamous disorder that’s challenging to diagnosis and often difficult to treat. Indeed, there is no FDA-approved treatment. The disorder is characterized by widespread follicular keratotic plaques with scale and notable islands of sparing, often with an accompanying waxy yellow palmoplantar keratoderma with fissuring. There are adult- and childhood-onset forms of PRP, as well as sporadic and familial subtypes. Some cases are associated with variants in the CARD14 gene, known to also play a role in familial psoriasis.
Patients with PRP say the disorder has a major adverse impact on their quality of life. Itching and pain are often prominent features.
The 11 study participants, drawn from throughout the United States, were adults with a mean 12-year history of symptoms. All were required to have both clinical and biopsy evidence of PRP. Five had classic adult-onset PRP, five had atypical adult-onset PRP, and one had classic juvenile-onset PRP. All had moderate or severe disease as reflected in a Physician’s Global Assessment score of 3 or 4 on the 0-4 scale. Of the 11, 10 had previously received various systemic therapies for their PRP without success.
Since there is as yet no established PRP severity grading tool, Dr. Greiling applied the principles of the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). Participants had a mean baseline PASI score of 24.6, a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 18, and itch and pain scores of 7 and 6, respectively, on a self-rated 10-point scale.
The primary outcome in the study was change in PASI score at week 24, which was 4 weeks after the final dose of ixekizumab. The mean score improved from 24.8 at week 0 to 9.7 at week 24. Five patients achieved at least a 75% decrease in PASI score, or PASI 75 response, and 2 had a PASI 90 response. The DLQI improved from 18 to 3, and both itch and pain scores dropped to a median of 1. There was no association between response to treatment and PRP clinical subtype.
The four top responders – those with a PASI 89 or better response at week 24 – remained clear or almost clear at week 36, fully 16 weeks after their last dose of ixekizumab. Patients with an intermediate week 24 response – that is, a 50%-85% reduction in PASI score – all relapsed before week 36. The patient with the worst PASI score at both baseline and 24 weeks decided to continue on ixekizumab dosed every 2 weeks independent of the study, rather than at the FDA-approved dosing every 4 weeks for psoriasis, with a resultant drop to a PASI score of 8 at week 36.
To look at mechanism of benefit, Dr. Greiling used quantitative polymerase chain reaction to examine key cytokine expression in the epidermis and dermis. Not surprisingly, IL-17A expression was markedly reduced at both sites, suggesting the importance of the Th17 axis in the pathophysiology of PRP. In contrast, there was no significant change in IL-23 expression.
No serious or unexpected adverse events occurred in the 24-week study.
“In terms of ixekizumab, compared to other treatments, I definitely think it is more effective than any conventional therapies, such as topical steroids, methotrexate, or acitretin,” she said in an interview.
Asked about other biologics, Dr. Greiling said she hasn’t found tumor necrosis factor inhibitors very helpful in her patients with PRP. A formal trial of the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) has been done elsewhere, and although the results haven’t yet been published, her understanding is that the efficacy was similar to her ixekizumab trial.
“I’ve had some of my ixekizumab patients switch to secukinumab, for insurance reasons, though, and had it not be quite as effective, although still helpful,” she said.
Dr. Greiling is now enrolling patients with PRP in a trial of the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya). It’s her early impression that this may prove to be another therapeutic option.
“I have not yet used brodalumab [Siliq], but I wonder if it would also be helpful, since it seems to have a stronger blockade, working on the IL-17 receptor A,” she said.
She cited two pressing needs that would advance PRP research: the lack of standard criteria for disease diagnosis and the absence of PRP-specific disease measurement tools. “We’re trying to remedy that,” the dermatologist said.
Her study was funded by Eli Lilly. She reported receiving research funding from that company and Janssen.
Teri Greiling, MD, PhD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The interleukin-17A inhibitor induced long-term remission of pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) in 4 of the 11 participants in her open-label, single-arm, 24-week clinical trial of ixekizumab (Taltz) at the Food and Drug Administration–approved dosing for psoriasis. Of 11 patients, 7 experienced at least a 50% reduction in signs and symptoms of the disease. Marked quality-of-life improvements occurred as well, reported Dr. Greiling, a dermatologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
PRP is a rare papulosquamous disorder that’s challenging to diagnosis and often difficult to treat. Indeed, there is no FDA-approved treatment. The disorder is characterized by widespread follicular keratotic plaques with scale and notable islands of sparing, often with an accompanying waxy yellow palmoplantar keratoderma with fissuring. There are adult- and childhood-onset forms of PRP, as well as sporadic and familial subtypes. Some cases are associated with variants in the CARD14 gene, known to also play a role in familial psoriasis.
Patients with PRP say the disorder has a major adverse impact on their quality of life. Itching and pain are often prominent features.
The 11 study participants, drawn from throughout the United States, were adults with a mean 12-year history of symptoms. All were required to have both clinical and biopsy evidence of PRP. Five had classic adult-onset PRP, five had atypical adult-onset PRP, and one had classic juvenile-onset PRP. All had moderate or severe disease as reflected in a Physician’s Global Assessment score of 3 or 4 on the 0-4 scale. Of the 11, 10 had previously received various systemic therapies for their PRP without success.
Since there is as yet no established PRP severity grading tool, Dr. Greiling applied the principles of the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). Participants had a mean baseline PASI score of 24.6, a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 18, and itch and pain scores of 7 and 6, respectively, on a self-rated 10-point scale.
The primary outcome in the study was change in PASI score at week 24, which was 4 weeks after the final dose of ixekizumab. The mean score improved from 24.8 at week 0 to 9.7 at week 24. Five patients achieved at least a 75% decrease in PASI score, or PASI 75 response, and 2 had a PASI 90 response. The DLQI improved from 18 to 3, and both itch and pain scores dropped to a median of 1. There was no association between response to treatment and PRP clinical subtype.
The four top responders – those with a PASI 89 or better response at week 24 – remained clear or almost clear at week 36, fully 16 weeks after their last dose of ixekizumab. Patients with an intermediate week 24 response – that is, a 50%-85% reduction in PASI score – all relapsed before week 36. The patient with the worst PASI score at both baseline and 24 weeks decided to continue on ixekizumab dosed every 2 weeks independent of the study, rather than at the FDA-approved dosing every 4 weeks for psoriasis, with a resultant drop to a PASI score of 8 at week 36.
To look at mechanism of benefit, Dr. Greiling used quantitative polymerase chain reaction to examine key cytokine expression in the epidermis and dermis. Not surprisingly, IL-17A expression was markedly reduced at both sites, suggesting the importance of the Th17 axis in the pathophysiology of PRP. In contrast, there was no significant change in IL-23 expression.
No serious or unexpected adverse events occurred in the 24-week study.
“In terms of ixekizumab, compared to other treatments, I definitely think it is more effective than any conventional therapies, such as topical steroids, methotrexate, or acitretin,” she said in an interview.
Asked about other biologics, Dr. Greiling said she hasn’t found tumor necrosis factor inhibitors very helpful in her patients with PRP. A formal trial of the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) has been done elsewhere, and although the results haven’t yet been published, her understanding is that the efficacy was similar to her ixekizumab trial.
“I’ve had some of my ixekizumab patients switch to secukinumab, for insurance reasons, though, and had it not be quite as effective, although still helpful,” she said.
Dr. Greiling is now enrolling patients with PRP in a trial of the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab (Tremfya). It’s her early impression that this may prove to be another therapeutic option.
“I have not yet used brodalumab [Siliq], but I wonder if it would also be helpful, since it seems to have a stronger blockade, working on the IL-17 receptor A,” she said.
She cited two pressing needs that would advance PRP research: the lack of standard criteria for disease diagnosis and the absence of PRP-specific disease measurement tools. “We’re trying to remedy that,” the dermatologist said.
Her study was funded by Eli Lilly. She reported receiving research funding from that company and Janssen.
FROM AAD 2020
IV gentamicin improves epidermolysis bullosa
In a pilot study, , Michelle Hao said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Serial skin biopsies and immunofluorescent staining demonstrated the mechanism of benefit: The aminoglycoside promoted creation of new full-length functional collagen fibrils at the dermal-epidermal junction in affected patients, added Ms. Hao, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
“Glycoside-mediated nonsense suppression therapy may provide a novel, low cost, and readily available treatment for RDEB [recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa] patients harboring nonsense mutations,” she declared.
RDEB is a rare, incurable, life-threatening genetic skin disease which manifests as severe skin fragility and widespread blistering. The disease is caused by mutations in a gene coding for collagen type VII alpha 1 (COL7A1), the building block for the anchoring fibrils responsible for dermal-epidermal adherence. Roughly 30% of COL7A1 mutations are nonsense mutations, which result in truncated, nonfunctional collagen type VII.
Ms. Hao and her senior coinvestigators have previously shown that aminoglycoside antibiotics can override nonsense mutations to produce full-length, functioning protein. Indeed, they demonstrated that topical gentamicin in particular induces formation of new collagen type VII and improves wound closure in RDEB patients with nonsense mutations. However, RDEB skin lesions are so widespread that topical therapy becomes impractical. This was the impetus for the phase 1/2 clinical trial of IV gentamicin.
The open-label study included four patients with RDEB with nonsense mutations. All participants received IV gentamicin at 7.5 mg/kg/day for 2 weeks. Two of the four patients then got additional twice-weekly infusions at the same dose for another 3 months. Skin biopsies were obtained from two prospectively monitored open erosive wound sites and two intact skin sites at baseline and 1 and 3 months after treatment.
The primary endpoint was evidence of new collagen type VII at the dermal-epidermal junction post treatment. At baseline, patients averaged only 2% of the amount present in normal skin. One month post treatment, all four patients showed significant gains in expression of functioning collagen type VII, with levels 30%-130% of what’s present in normal skin. This effect proved durable 3 months post treatment.
At the same visits when biopsies were obtained, participants were assessed regarding wound closure, disease activity as measured using the validated Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index (EBDASI), and quality of life as reflected in Skindex-16 scores. All four patients showed improved wound closure at 1 and 3 months post treatment at the monitored sites, as well as better EBDASI and Skindex-16 Symptoms and Skindex-16 Emotion scores, Ms. Hao continued.
Safety assessments revealed no evidence of oto- or nephrotoxicity in the gentamicin-treated patients. And no one developed autoantibodies to collagen type VII in skin or sera in response to the aminoglycoside-induced creation of new collagen type VII.
Ms. Hao said preliminary analysis of the study data suggests that the more convenient schedule of twice-weekly IV gentamicin was as effective with regard to wound closure as daily infusion therapy.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the EB Research Partnership, and the EB Research Foundation.
In a pilot study, , Michelle Hao said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Serial skin biopsies and immunofluorescent staining demonstrated the mechanism of benefit: The aminoglycoside promoted creation of new full-length functional collagen fibrils at the dermal-epidermal junction in affected patients, added Ms. Hao, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
“Glycoside-mediated nonsense suppression therapy may provide a novel, low cost, and readily available treatment for RDEB [recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa] patients harboring nonsense mutations,” she declared.
RDEB is a rare, incurable, life-threatening genetic skin disease which manifests as severe skin fragility and widespread blistering. The disease is caused by mutations in a gene coding for collagen type VII alpha 1 (COL7A1), the building block for the anchoring fibrils responsible for dermal-epidermal adherence. Roughly 30% of COL7A1 mutations are nonsense mutations, which result in truncated, nonfunctional collagen type VII.
Ms. Hao and her senior coinvestigators have previously shown that aminoglycoside antibiotics can override nonsense mutations to produce full-length, functioning protein. Indeed, they demonstrated that topical gentamicin in particular induces formation of new collagen type VII and improves wound closure in RDEB patients with nonsense mutations. However, RDEB skin lesions are so widespread that topical therapy becomes impractical. This was the impetus for the phase 1/2 clinical trial of IV gentamicin.
The open-label study included four patients with RDEB with nonsense mutations. All participants received IV gentamicin at 7.5 mg/kg/day for 2 weeks. Two of the four patients then got additional twice-weekly infusions at the same dose for another 3 months. Skin biopsies were obtained from two prospectively monitored open erosive wound sites and two intact skin sites at baseline and 1 and 3 months after treatment.
The primary endpoint was evidence of new collagen type VII at the dermal-epidermal junction post treatment. At baseline, patients averaged only 2% of the amount present in normal skin. One month post treatment, all four patients showed significant gains in expression of functioning collagen type VII, with levels 30%-130% of what’s present in normal skin. This effect proved durable 3 months post treatment.
At the same visits when biopsies were obtained, participants were assessed regarding wound closure, disease activity as measured using the validated Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index (EBDASI), and quality of life as reflected in Skindex-16 scores. All four patients showed improved wound closure at 1 and 3 months post treatment at the monitored sites, as well as better EBDASI and Skindex-16 Symptoms and Skindex-16 Emotion scores, Ms. Hao continued.
Safety assessments revealed no evidence of oto- or nephrotoxicity in the gentamicin-treated patients. And no one developed autoantibodies to collagen type VII in skin or sera in response to the aminoglycoside-induced creation of new collagen type VII.
Ms. Hao said preliminary analysis of the study data suggests that the more convenient schedule of twice-weekly IV gentamicin was as effective with regard to wound closure as daily infusion therapy.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the EB Research Partnership, and the EB Research Foundation.
In a pilot study, , Michelle Hao said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Serial skin biopsies and immunofluorescent staining demonstrated the mechanism of benefit: The aminoglycoside promoted creation of new full-length functional collagen fibrils at the dermal-epidermal junction in affected patients, added Ms. Hao, a medical student at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
“Glycoside-mediated nonsense suppression therapy may provide a novel, low cost, and readily available treatment for RDEB [recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa] patients harboring nonsense mutations,” she declared.
RDEB is a rare, incurable, life-threatening genetic skin disease which manifests as severe skin fragility and widespread blistering. The disease is caused by mutations in a gene coding for collagen type VII alpha 1 (COL7A1), the building block for the anchoring fibrils responsible for dermal-epidermal adherence. Roughly 30% of COL7A1 mutations are nonsense mutations, which result in truncated, nonfunctional collagen type VII.
Ms. Hao and her senior coinvestigators have previously shown that aminoglycoside antibiotics can override nonsense mutations to produce full-length, functioning protein. Indeed, they demonstrated that topical gentamicin in particular induces formation of new collagen type VII and improves wound closure in RDEB patients with nonsense mutations. However, RDEB skin lesions are so widespread that topical therapy becomes impractical. This was the impetus for the phase 1/2 clinical trial of IV gentamicin.
The open-label study included four patients with RDEB with nonsense mutations. All participants received IV gentamicin at 7.5 mg/kg/day for 2 weeks. Two of the four patients then got additional twice-weekly infusions at the same dose for another 3 months. Skin biopsies were obtained from two prospectively monitored open erosive wound sites and two intact skin sites at baseline and 1 and 3 months after treatment.
The primary endpoint was evidence of new collagen type VII at the dermal-epidermal junction post treatment. At baseline, patients averaged only 2% of the amount present in normal skin. One month post treatment, all four patients showed significant gains in expression of functioning collagen type VII, with levels 30%-130% of what’s present in normal skin. This effect proved durable 3 months post treatment.
At the same visits when biopsies were obtained, participants were assessed regarding wound closure, disease activity as measured using the validated Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index (EBDASI), and quality of life as reflected in Skindex-16 scores. All four patients showed improved wound closure at 1 and 3 months post treatment at the monitored sites, as well as better EBDASI and Skindex-16 Symptoms and Skindex-16 Emotion scores, Ms. Hao continued.
Safety assessments revealed no evidence of oto- or nephrotoxicity in the gentamicin-treated patients. And no one developed autoantibodies to collagen type VII in skin or sera in response to the aminoglycoside-induced creation of new collagen type VII.
Ms. Hao said preliminary analysis of the study data suggests that the more convenient schedule of twice-weekly IV gentamicin was as effective with regard to wound closure as daily infusion therapy.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the EB Research Partnership, and the EB Research Foundation.
FROM AAD 2020
Empagliflozin failed to improve exercise capacity in heart failure
Empagliflozin showed favorable effects on diuretic use and congestion symptoms in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the oral sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor did not improve the primary endpoint of improved exercise capacity in the EMPERIAL-Reduced trial, investigators reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.
In the matching EMPERIAL-Preserved trial, conducted in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), empagliflozin (Jardiance) produced modest improvements in diuretic use, as well as a reduction in unscheduled outpatient visits, compared with placebo-treated controls, although these trends failed to achieve statistical significance. And as in the EMPERIAL-Reduced trial, the SGLT2 inhibitor didn’t move the needle at all on the primary endpoint of improved exercise capacity as measured by 6-minute hall walk distance.
EMPERIAL-Reduced and -Preserved were identically designed, concurrent, phase 3, double-blind, 12-week randomized trials of empagliflozin versus placebo in 312 patients with HFrEF and 315 with HFpEF, defined in EMPERIAL-preserved as a left ventricular ejection fraction above 40%. The majority of participants had type 2 diabetes.
From a baseline median 6-minute walk distance of about 300 meters, the 6-minute walk distance at week 12 was actually 4.0 meters worse in the empagliflozin-treated HFrEF patients than it was in controls and a mere 4.0 meters better than with placebo in empagliflozin-treated patients with HFpEF, reported William T. Abraham, MD, professor of medicine, director of the division of cardiovascular medicine, and associate dean at Ohio State University, Columbus.
He indicated that the audience shouldn’t make too much of the failure to achieve the primary endpoint in the two trials in light of the studies’ major limitations: namely, their relatively small size for purposes of evaluating clinical outcomes and the relatively short 12-week duration.
“In many ways, I would say it’s remarkable that we can observe a positive signal, a favorable signal, in outcomes around congestion. In the case of HFrEF it’s statistically significant, and in HFpEF it’s a trend towards improvement. Of course, there are larger trials ongoing that may confirm these observations. Hopefully the EMPERIAL trials predict a good outcome for those ongoing trials,” Dr. Abraham said.
Piotr Ponikowski, MD, presented the study results for the secondary outcomes of congestion symptoms, diuretic use, and utilization of health care resources. In EMPERIAL-Reduced, intensification of diuretic therapy – often a prelude to acute decompensation and a trip to the hospital – occurred at a rate of 4.5% with empagliflozin and 16.1% with placebo, for a highly significant 73% relative risk reduction. Intensification of loop diuretics occurred in 2.6% of the empagliflozin group and 14.2% of controls, for a 82% risk reduction.
“That’s a pretty significant effect,” observed Dr. Ponikowski, professor of cardiology and head of the department of heart diseases at the Medical University of Wroclaw (Poland).
Moreover, a congestion symptoms score comprising a summary of orthopnea, jugular veinous distention, and edema improved by 47% after 12 weeks on empagliflozin, a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement that grew in magnitude over time and at 12 weeks was twice as large, compared with the reduction in placebo group, he added.
There was a trend for fewer unscheduled outpatient visits in the empagliflozin arm of EMPERIAL-Reduced with a rate of 10.4%, compared with 25.8% in controls; however, this 26% reduction in relative risk did not achieve statistical significance.
Intensification of loop diuretics occurred in 9% of EMPERIAL-Preserved participants on empagliflozin and 13.5% on placebo, but this 34% reduction in risk didn’t reach significance.
Adverse events in the EMPERIAL trials were similar across the active treatment and placebo arms. The benign safety profile was similar to what was seen in the earlier major clinical trials of empagliflozin for treatment of type 2 diabetes.
Session chair Stephane Heymans, MD, PhD, of the University of Maastricht (the Netherlands) noted that a substantial minority of patients in EMPERIAL-Reduced were on the combined neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril and the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan (Entresto), whereas far fewer were in EMPERIAL-Preserved. He wondered if this greater use of background sacubitril/valsartan could explain empagliflozin’s greater efficacy in EMPERIAL-Reduced.
Highly unlikely, according to the investigators.
“It looks like, as is the case with most of our heart failure therapies, that we do see incremental value here. If you met the criteria for these trials, it appears you derived benefit from empagliflozin regardless of whether you were on an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor or not. I think that speaks to the incremental benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors on top of current guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Abraham said.
Dr. Ponikowski observed that the same point was underscored in the DAPA-HF trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with heart failure (DAPA-HF: N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).
“You’ll see that the mortality and morbidity and quality-of-life benefit is in those treated with dapagliflozin with or without angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition; so, regardless of background therapy. And the effect is especially clear in patients on both therapies,” the cardiologist said.
The EMPERIAL trials were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Abraham and Dr. Ponikowksi reported receiving consultant fees from the company for serving on the trials’ executive committee.
Empagliflozin showed favorable effects on diuretic use and congestion symptoms in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the oral sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor did not improve the primary endpoint of improved exercise capacity in the EMPERIAL-Reduced trial, investigators reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.
In the matching EMPERIAL-Preserved trial, conducted in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), empagliflozin (Jardiance) produced modest improvements in diuretic use, as well as a reduction in unscheduled outpatient visits, compared with placebo-treated controls, although these trends failed to achieve statistical significance. And as in the EMPERIAL-Reduced trial, the SGLT2 inhibitor didn’t move the needle at all on the primary endpoint of improved exercise capacity as measured by 6-minute hall walk distance.
EMPERIAL-Reduced and -Preserved were identically designed, concurrent, phase 3, double-blind, 12-week randomized trials of empagliflozin versus placebo in 312 patients with HFrEF and 315 with HFpEF, defined in EMPERIAL-preserved as a left ventricular ejection fraction above 40%. The majority of participants had type 2 diabetes.
From a baseline median 6-minute walk distance of about 300 meters, the 6-minute walk distance at week 12 was actually 4.0 meters worse in the empagliflozin-treated HFrEF patients than it was in controls and a mere 4.0 meters better than with placebo in empagliflozin-treated patients with HFpEF, reported William T. Abraham, MD, professor of medicine, director of the division of cardiovascular medicine, and associate dean at Ohio State University, Columbus.
He indicated that the audience shouldn’t make too much of the failure to achieve the primary endpoint in the two trials in light of the studies’ major limitations: namely, their relatively small size for purposes of evaluating clinical outcomes and the relatively short 12-week duration.
“In many ways, I would say it’s remarkable that we can observe a positive signal, a favorable signal, in outcomes around congestion. In the case of HFrEF it’s statistically significant, and in HFpEF it’s a trend towards improvement. Of course, there are larger trials ongoing that may confirm these observations. Hopefully the EMPERIAL trials predict a good outcome for those ongoing trials,” Dr. Abraham said.
Piotr Ponikowski, MD, presented the study results for the secondary outcomes of congestion symptoms, diuretic use, and utilization of health care resources. In EMPERIAL-Reduced, intensification of diuretic therapy – often a prelude to acute decompensation and a trip to the hospital – occurred at a rate of 4.5% with empagliflozin and 16.1% with placebo, for a highly significant 73% relative risk reduction. Intensification of loop diuretics occurred in 2.6% of the empagliflozin group and 14.2% of controls, for a 82% risk reduction.
“That’s a pretty significant effect,” observed Dr. Ponikowski, professor of cardiology and head of the department of heart diseases at the Medical University of Wroclaw (Poland).
Moreover, a congestion symptoms score comprising a summary of orthopnea, jugular veinous distention, and edema improved by 47% after 12 weeks on empagliflozin, a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement that grew in magnitude over time and at 12 weeks was twice as large, compared with the reduction in placebo group, he added.
There was a trend for fewer unscheduled outpatient visits in the empagliflozin arm of EMPERIAL-Reduced with a rate of 10.4%, compared with 25.8% in controls; however, this 26% reduction in relative risk did not achieve statistical significance.
Intensification of loop diuretics occurred in 9% of EMPERIAL-Preserved participants on empagliflozin and 13.5% on placebo, but this 34% reduction in risk didn’t reach significance.
Adverse events in the EMPERIAL trials were similar across the active treatment and placebo arms. The benign safety profile was similar to what was seen in the earlier major clinical trials of empagliflozin for treatment of type 2 diabetes.
Session chair Stephane Heymans, MD, PhD, of the University of Maastricht (the Netherlands) noted that a substantial minority of patients in EMPERIAL-Reduced were on the combined neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril and the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan (Entresto), whereas far fewer were in EMPERIAL-Preserved. He wondered if this greater use of background sacubitril/valsartan could explain empagliflozin’s greater efficacy in EMPERIAL-Reduced.
Highly unlikely, according to the investigators.
“It looks like, as is the case with most of our heart failure therapies, that we do see incremental value here. If you met the criteria for these trials, it appears you derived benefit from empagliflozin regardless of whether you were on an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor or not. I think that speaks to the incremental benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors on top of current guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Abraham said.
Dr. Ponikowski observed that the same point was underscored in the DAPA-HF trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with heart failure (DAPA-HF: N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).
“You’ll see that the mortality and morbidity and quality-of-life benefit is in those treated with dapagliflozin with or without angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition; so, regardless of background therapy. And the effect is especially clear in patients on both therapies,” the cardiologist said.
The EMPERIAL trials were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Abraham and Dr. Ponikowksi reported receiving consultant fees from the company for serving on the trials’ executive committee.
Empagliflozin showed favorable effects on diuretic use and congestion symptoms in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the oral sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor did not improve the primary endpoint of improved exercise capacity in the EMPERIAL-Reduced trial, investigators reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.
In the matching EMPERIAL-Preserved trial, conducted in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), empagliflozin (Jardiance) produced modest improvements in diuretic use, as well as a reduction in unscheduled outpatient visits, compared with placebo-treated controls, although these trends failed to achieve statistical significance. And as in the EMPERIAL-Reduced trial, the SGLT2 inhibitor didn’t move the needle at all on the primary endpoint of improved exercise capacity as measured by 6-minute hall walk distance.
EMPERIAL-Reduced and -Preserved were identically designed, concurrent, phase 3, double-blind, 12-week randomized trials of empagliflozin versus placebo in 312 patients with HFrEF and 315 with HFpEF, defined in EMPERIAL-preserved as a left ventricular ejection fraction above 40%. The majority of participants had type 2 diabetes.
From a baseline median 6-minute walk distance of about 300 meters, the 6-minute walk distance at week 12 was actually 4.0 meters worse in the empagliflozin-treated HFrEF patients than it was in controls and a mere 4.0 meters better than with placebo in empagliflozin-treated patients with HFpEF, reported William T. Abraham, MD, professor of medicine, director of the division of cardiovascular medicine, and associate dean at Ohio State University, Columbus.
He indicated that the audience shouldn’t make too much of the failure to achieve the primary endpoint in the two trials in light of the studies’ major limitations: namely, their relatively small size for purposes of evaluating clinical outcomes and the relatively short 12-week duration.
“In many ways, I would say it’s remarkable that we can observe a positive signal, a favorable signal, in outcomes around congestion. In the case of HFrEF it’s statistically significant, and in HFpEF it’s a trend towards improvement. Of course, there are larger trials ongoing that may confirm these observations. Hopefully the EMPERIAL trials predict a good outcome for those ongoing trials,” Dr. Abraham said.
Piotr Ponikowski, MD, presented the study results for the secondary outcomes of congestion symptoms, diuretic use, and utilization of health care resources. In EMPERIAL-Reduced, intensification of diuretic therapy – often a prelude to acute decompensation and a trip to the hospital – occurred at a rate of 4.5% with empagliflozin and 16.1% with placebo, for a highly significant 73% relative risk reduction. Intensification of loop diuretics occurred in 2.6% of the empagliflozin group and 14.2% of controls, for a 82% risk reduction.
“That’s a pretty significant effect,” observed Dr. Ponikowski, professor of cardiology and head of the department of heart diseases at the Medical University of Wroclaw (Poland).
Moreover, a congestion symptoms score comprising a summary of orthopnea, jugular veinous distention, and edema improved by 47% after 12 weeks on empagliflozin, a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement that grew in magnitude over time and at 12 weeks was twice as large, compared with the reduction in placebo group, he added.
There was a trend for fewer unscheduled outpatient visits in the empagliflozin arm of EMPERIAL-Reduced with a rate of 10.4%, compared with 25.8% in controls; however, this 26% reduction in relative risk did not achieve statistical significance.
Intensification of loop diuretics occurred in 9% of EMPERIAL-Preserved participants on empagliflozin and 13.5% on placebo, but this 34% reduction in risk didn’t reach significance.
Adverse events in the EMPERIAL trials were similar across the active treatment and placebo arms. The benign safety profile was similar to what was seen in the earlier major clinical trials of empagliflozin for treatment of type 2 diabetes.
Session chair Stephane Heymans, MD, PhD, of the University of Maastricht (the Netherlands) noted that a substantial minority of patients in EMPERIAL-Reduced were on the combined neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril and the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan (Entresto), whereas far fewer were in EMPERIAL-Preserved. He wondered if this greater use of background sacubitril/valsartan could explain empagliflozin’s greater efficacy in EMPERIAL-Reduced.
Highly unlikely, according to the investigators.
“It looks like, as is the case with most of our heart failure therapies, that we do see incremental value here. If you met the criteria for these trials, it appears you derived benefit from empagliflozin regardless of whether you were on an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor or not. I think that speaks to the incremental benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors on top of current guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Abraham said.
Dr. Ponikowski observed that the same point was underscored in the DAPA-HF trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with heart failure (DAPA-HF: N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).
“You’ll see that the mortality and morbidity and quality-of-life benefit is in those treated with dapagliflozin with or without angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition; so, regardless of background therapy. And the effect is especially clear in patients on both therapies,” the cardiologist said.
The EMPERIAL trials were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Abraham and Dr. Ponikowksi reported receiving consultant fees from the company for serving on the trials’ executive committee.
FROM ESC HEART FAILURE 2020
DynamX Bioadaptor coronary stent shows promise in pilot study
The DynamX Bioadaptor – arguably the most original concept in coronary stent design to come along in 3 decades – demonstrated excellent safety and efficacy in a 12-month international, proof-of-concept study, Stefan Verheye, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
“There has been no fundamental change in stent design in over 30 years,” declared Dr. Verheye, codirector of the Antwerp (Belgium) Cardiovascular Center. “The DynamX Bioadaptor is a fundamental innovation in device design.”
The investigational device is a 71-mcm-thick, cobalt-chromium metal platform that elutes novolimus from a biodegradable polymer. Circumferential rings in low-stress sections of the device are held together by polymer connectors, and when the polymer erodes at about 6 months the stent segments are able to disengage from each other while maintaining longitudinal continuity. Dr. Verheye called this process “uncaging” the stented artery. The result is restoration of normal vessel angulation and compliance; the artery is no longer artificially straightened and constrained by a relatively stiff stent. Positive adaptive remodeling is preserved with enhanced vessel pulsatility and maintenance of lumenal area for good blood flow.
Dr. Verheye said the impetus for developing this outside-the-box novel stent platform lies in the recognition of a major unmet need for better drug-eluting stent (DES) performance. “Despite excellent acute outcomes, data with current-generation DES show long-term event rates are high and accrue at a rate of 2%-3% per year without a plateau.”
He was coprincipal investigator for the international study, which included 50 patients who received a DynamX Bioadaptor for a single de novo coronary artery lesion no more than 24 mm in length. The acute performance of the device was similar to that of second-generation DES, with a mean acute gain post procedure of 1.63 mm by quantitative coronary angiography and a mean late lumen loss of 0.12 mm when measured again at 9 or 12 months.
Intravascular ultrasound imaging showed a 3% increase in mean target vessel area and a 5% increase in the stented area from post procedure to 9 or 12 months’ follow-up, with no change in mean lumen area, all of which translates into maintenance of good blood flow over time. In contrast, what typically occurs following implantation of current DES is maintenance of target vessel and device areas, but with a loss in mean lumen area, the cardiologist noted.
There were two cardiac deaths but no cases of target lesion revascularization, device thrombosis, or strut fracture within 12 months of the procedure.
“The Bioadaptor performs similarly to second-generation DES in terms of implantation technique, deliverability, conformability, and radial strength during the healing phase, while showing the promise of mitigating the 2%-3% annualized event rate beyond 1 year,” Dr. Verheye concluded, adding, “Obviously, longer-term follow-up in comparative studies will be needed to show a reduction in the device-oriented events that have been observed with current DES.”
Session cochair Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, of the University of Catania (Italy), declared: “This is an intriguing device because it’s metal, but it’s a kind of pulsatile metal after the biodegradation of the connectors. It’s something I’ve never seen.”
Discussant William Wijns, MD, PhD, said he was “thrilled” by the innovative aspect of the DynamX Bioadaptor, but he’s a long way from being persuaded that the device’s potential physiological advantages will translate into improved clinical outcomes relative to current DES.
“Don’t we all have a strange feeling of deja vu because all these anticipated benefits are the same as those we were told we would see with fully bioresorbable scaffolds? And we know so much after 10 years of experience with bioresorbable scaffolds that probably we will not accept this great story unless we get more and more evidence,” cautioned Dr. Wijns, professor of interventional cardiology at the National University of Ireland, Galway, and chairman of EuroPCR.
The claim regarding bioresorbable scaffolds was that, even though the acute results weren’t as good as with DES, that disadvantage would be outweighed by superior long-term clinical outcomes. But in fact the long-term outcomes turned out to be worse as well.
“We had to give up immediate results with the bioresorbable scaffolds. I don’t think we want to go that route again this time,” the cardiologist said.
Thus, the first thing that’s needed in order to make a convincing case for the Bioadaptor is evidence from a large, randomized, comparative trial demonstrating that the acute performance of the novel device is noninferior to that of current DES, including data on complex lesions. Such a study was supposed to be underway now but has been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, he noted.
Once there is evidence that the acute results with the Bioadaptor are truly comparable with those achieved with current DES, there will be a need for long-term data showing that the device reduces the 2%-3% annualized event rate seen with DES beyond 1 year, Dr. Wijns added.
Dr. Verheye reported receiving consultation fees from study sponsor Elixir Medical as well as from Biotronik. Dr. Wijns reported receiving research grants from MicroPort.
The DynamX Bioadaptor – arguably the most original concept in coronary stent design to come along in 3 decades – demonstrated excellent safety and efficacy in a 12-month international, proof-of-concept study, Stefan Verheye, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
“There has been no fundamental change in stent design in over 30 years,” declared Dr. Verheye, codirector of the Antwerp (Belgium) Cardiovascular Center. “The DynamX Bioadaptor is a fundamental innovation in device design.”
The investigational device is a 71-mcm-thick, cobalt-chromium metal platform that elutes novolimus from a biodegradable polymer. Circumferential rings in low-stress sections of the device are held together by polymer connectors, and when the polymer erodes at about 6 months the stent segments are able to disengage from each other while maintaining longitudinal continuity. Dr. Verheye called this process “uncaging” the stented artery. The result is restoration of normal vessel angulation and compliance; the artery is no longer artificially straightened and constrained by a relatively stiff stent. Positive adaptive remodeling is preserved with enhanced vessel pulsatility and maintenance of lumenal area for good blood flow.
Dr. Verheye said the impetus for developing this outside-the-box novel stent platform lies in the recognition of a major unmet need for better drug-eluting stent (DES) performance. “Despite excellent acute outcomes, data with current-generation DES show long-term event rates are high and accrue at a rate of 2%-3% per year without a plateau.”
He was coprincipal investigator for the international study, which included 50 patients who received a DynamX Bioadaptor for a single de novo coronary artery lesion no more than 24 mm in length. The acute performance of the device was similar to that of second-generation DES, with a mean acute gain post procedure of 1.63 mm by quantitative coronary angiography and a mean late lumen loss of 0.12 mm when measured again at 9 or 12 months.
Intravascular ultrasound imaging showed a 3% increase in mean target vessel area and a 5% increase in the stented area from post procedure to 9 or 12 months’ follow-up, with no change in mean lumen area, all of which translates into maintenance of good blood flow over time. In contrast, what typically occurs following implantation of current DES is maintenance of target vessel and device areas, but with a loss in mean lumen area, the cardiologist noted.
There were two cardiac deaths but no cases of target lesion revascularization, device thrombosis, or strut fracture within 12 months of the procedure.
“The Bioadaptor performs similarly to second-generation DES in terms of implantation technique, deliverability, conformability, and radial strength during the healing phase, while showing the promise of mitigating the 2%-3% annualized event rate beyond 1 year,” Dr. Verheye concluded, adding, “Obviously, longer-term follow-up in comparative studies will be needed to show a reduction in the device-oriented events that have been observed with current DES.”
Session cochair Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, of the University of Catania (Italy), declared: “This is an intriguing device because it’s metal, but it’s a kind of pulsatile metal after the biodegradation of the connectors. It’s something I’ve never seen.”
Discussant William Wijns, MD, PhD, said he was “thrilled” by the innovative aspect of the DynamX Bioadaptor, but he’s a long way from being persuaded that the device’s potential physiological advantages will translate into improved clinical outcomes relative to current DES.
“Don’t we all have a strange feeling of deja vu because all these anticipated benefits are the same as those we were told we would see with fully bioresorbable scaffolds? And we know so much after 10 years of experience with bioresorbable scaffolds that probably we will not accept this great story unless we get more and more evidence,” cautioned Dr. Wijns, professor of interventional cardiology at the National University of Ireland, Galway, and chairman of EuroPCR.
The claim regarding bioresorbable scaffolds was that, even though the acute results weren’t as good as with DES, that disadvantage would be outweighed by superior long-term clinical outcomes. But in fact the long-term outcomes turned out to be worse as well.
“We had to give up immediate results with the bioresorbable scaffolds. I don’t think we want to go that route again this time,” the cardiologist said.
Thus, the first thing that’s needed in order to make a convincing case for the Bioadaptor is evidence from a large, randomized, comparative trial demonstrating that the acute performance of the novel device is noninferior to that of current DES, including data on complex lesions. Such a study was supposed to be underway now but has been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, he noted.
Once there is evidence that the acute results with the Bioadaptor are truly comparable with those achieved with current DES, there will be a need for long-term data showing that the device reduces the 2%-3% annualized event rate seen with DES beyond 1 year, Dr. Wijns added.
Dr. Verheye reported receiving consultation fees from study sponsor Elixir Medical as well as from Biotronik. Dr. Wijns reported receiving research grants from MicroPort.
The DynamX Bioadaptor – arguably the most original concept in coronary stent design to come along in 3 decades – demonstrated excellent safety and efficacy in a 12-month international, proof-of-concept study, Stefan Verheye, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
“There has been no fundamental change in stent design in over 30 years,” declared Dr. Verheye, codirector of the Antwerp (Belgium) Cardiovascular Center. “The DynamX Bioadaptor is a fundamental innovation in device design.”
The investigational device is a 71-mcm-thick, cobalt-chromium metal platform that elutes novolimus from a biodegradable polymer. Circumferential rings in low-stress sections of the device are held together by polymer connectors, and when the polymer erodes at about 6 months the stent segments are able to disengage from each other while maintaining longitudinal continuity. Dr. Verheye called this process “uncaging” the stented artery. The result is restoration of normal vessel angulation and compliance; the artery is no longer artificially straightened and constrained by a relatively stiff stent. Positive adaptive remodeling is preserved with enhanced vessel pulsatility and maintenance of lumenal area for good blood flow.
Dr. Verheye said the impetus for developing this outside-the-box novel stent platform lies in the recognition of a major unmet need for better drug-eluting stent (DES) performance. “Despite excellent acute outcomes, data with current-generation DES show long-term event rates are high and accrue at a rate of 2%-3% per year without a plateau.”
He was coprincipal investigator for the international study, which included 50 patients who received a DynamX Bioadaptor for a single de novo coronary artery lesion no more than 24 mm in length. The acute performance of the device was similar to that of second-generation DES, with a mean acute gain post procedure of 1.63 mm by quantitative coronary angiography and a mean late lumen loss of 0.12 mm when measured again at 9 or 12 months.
Intravascular ultrasound imaging showed a 3% increase in mean target vessel area and a 5% increase in the stented area from post procedure to 9 or 12 months’ follow-up, with no change in mean lumen area, all of which translates into maintenance of good blood flow over time. In contrast, what typically occurs following implantation of current DES is maintenance of target vessel and device areas, but with a loss in mean lumen area, the cardiologist noted.
There were two cardiac deaths but no cases of target lesion revascularization, device thrombosis, or strut fracture within 12 months of the procedure.
“The Bioadaptor performs similarly to second-generation DES in terms of implantation technique, deliverability, conformability, and radial strength during the healing phase, while showing the promise of mitigating the 2%-3% annualized event rate beyond 1 year,” Dr. Verheye concluded, adding, “Obviously, longer-term follow-up in comparative studies will be needed to show a reduction in the device-oriented events that have been observed with current DES.”
Session cochair Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, of the University of Catania (Italy), declared: “This is an intriguing device because it’s metal, but it’s a kind of pulsatile metal after the biodegradation of the connectors. It’s something I’ve never seen.”
Discussant William Wijns, MD, PhD, said he was “thrilled” by the innovative aspect of the DynamX Bioadaptor, but he’s a long way from being persuaded that the device’s potential physiological advantages will translate into improved clinical outcomes relative to current DES.
“Don’t we all have a strange feeling of deja vu because all these anticipated benefits are the same as those we were told we would see with fully bioresorbable scaffolds? And we know so much after 10 years of experience with bioresorbable scaffolds that probably we will not accept this great story unless we get more and more evidence,” cautioned Dr. Wijns, professor of interventional cardiology at the National University of Ireland, Galway, and chairman of EuroPCR.
The claim regarding bioresorbable scaffolds was that, even though the acute results weren’t as good as with DES, that disadvantage would be outweighed by superior long-term clinical outcomes. But in fact the long-term outcomes turned out to be worse as well.
“We had to give up immediate results with the bioresorbable scaffolds. I don’t think we want to go that route again this time,” the cardiologist said.
Thus, the first thing that’s needed in order to make a convincing case for the Bioadaptor is evidence from a large, randomized, comparative trial demonstrating that the acute performance of the novel device is noninferior to that of current DES, including data on complex lesions. Such a study was supposed to be underway now but has been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, he noted.
Once there is evidence that the acute results with the Bioadaptor are truly comparable with those achieved with current DES, there will be a need for long-term data showing that the device reduces the 2%-3% annualized event rate seen with DES beyond 1 year, Dr. Wijns added.
Dr. Verheye reported receiving consultation fees from study sponsor Elixir Medical as well as from Biotronik. Dr. Wijns reported receiving research grants from MicroPort.
REPORTING FROM EUROPCR 2020
Rilzabrutinib shows positive results in phase 2b for pemphigus
accompanied by markedly reduced need for systemic corticosteroids in the phase 2b BELIEVE-PV trial, Dedee F. Murrell, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Moreover, in sharp contrast to the standard first-line treatments for pemphigus – rituximab (Rituxan) and high-dose corticosteroids – the treatment-emergent adverse events that arose with 6 months of rilzabrutinib in BELIEVE-PV were uniformly mild to moderate and transient, added Dr. Murrell, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales and head of the department of dermatology at St. George University Hospital, Sydney.
The phase 2b BELIEVE-PV trial was a small, 24-week, open-label study that included six patients with newly diagnosed pemphigus and nine others with relapsing pemphigus. The primary endpoint was control of disease activity, defined as no new lesions appearing and established lesions beginning to heal. This was achieved in 9 of 15 patients (60%) at 4 weeks and in 13 patients by week 12. Meanwhile, the mean daily dose of prednisone fell from 21 mg at baseline to 6 mg at 24 weeks.
The mean score on the Pemphigus Disease Area Index (PDAI) dropped by 79% from a baseline of 15.5. Ten of 15 subjects improved to a PDAI of 0 or 1 – clear or almost clear skin – by week 24. The complete remission rate, defined as an absence of both new and established lesions while on no or a very low dose of prednisone, was 40% at week 24.
Treatment-emergent adverse events consisted of nausea in four patients, dizziness in two, and abdominal distension in two, all of which were grade 1 or 2.
Based upon these favorable results, the pivotal phase 3, double-blind, international PEGASUS trial is underway, led by Dr. Murrell. The trial will enroll 120 pemphigus patients, randomized to rilzabrutinib at 400 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background steroid tapering.
Rilzabrutinib is also in earlier-stage clinical trials for the treatment of immune thrombocytopenia.
Dr. Murrell reported serving as a consultant to Principia Biopharma, sponsor of the BELIEVE-PV and PEGASUS trials, and has received institutional research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Murrell DF. AAD 2020 LBCT.
accompanied by markedly reduced need for systemic corticosteroids in the phase 2b BELIEVE-PV trial, Dedee F. Murrell, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Moreover, in sharp contrast to the standard first-line treatments for pemphigus – rituximab (Rituxan) and high-dose corticosteroids – the treatment-emergent adverse events that arose with 6 months of rilzabrutinib in BELIEVE-PV were uniformly mild to moderate and transient, added Dr. Murrell, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales and head of the department of dermatology at St. George University Hospital, Sydney.
The phase 2b BELIEVE-PV trial was a small, 24-week, open-label study that included six patients with newly diagnosed pemphigus and nine others with relapsing pemphigus. The primary endpoint was control of disease activity, defined as no new lesions appearing and established lesions beginning to heal. This was achieved in 9 of 15 patients (60%) at 4 weeks and in 13 patients by week 12. Meanwhile, the mean daily dose of prednisone fell from 21 mg at baseline to 6 mg at 24 weeks.
The mean score on the Pemphigus Disease Area Index (PDAI) dropped by 79% from a baseline of 15.5. Ten of 15 subjects improved to a PDAI of 0 or 1 – clear or almost clear skin – by week 24. The complete remission rate, defined as an absence of both new and established lesions while on no or a very low dose of prednisone, was 40% at week 24.
Treatment-emergent adverse events consisted of nausea in four patients, dizziness in two, and abdominal distension in two, all of which were grade 1 or 2.
Based upon these favorable results, the pivotal phase 3, double-blind, international PEGASUS trial is underway, led by Dr. Murrell. The trial will enroll 120 pemphigus patients, randomized to rilzabrutinib at 400 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background steroid tapering.
Rilzabrutinib is also in earlier-stage clinical trials for the treatment of immune thrombocytopenia.
Dr. Murrell reported serving as a consultant to Principia Biopharma, sponsor of the BELIEVE-PV and PEGASUS trials, and has received institutional research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Murrell DF. AAD 2020 LBCT.
accompanied by markedly reduced need for systemic corticosteroids in the phase 2b BELIEVE-PV trial, Dedee F. Murrell, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Moreover, in sharp contrast to the standard first-line treatments for pemphigus – rituximab (Rituxan) and high-dose corticosteroids – the treatment-emergent adverse events that arose with 6 months of rilzabrutinib in BELIEVE-PV were uniformly mild to moderate and transient, added Dr. Murrell, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales and head of the department of dermatology at St. George University Hospital, Sydney.
The phase 2b BELIEVE-PV trial was a small, 24-week, open-label study that included six patients with newly diagnosed pemphigus and nine others with relapsing pemphigus. The primary endpoint was control of disease activity, defined as no new lesions appearing and established lesions beginning to heal. This was achieved in 9 of 15 patients (60%) at 4 weeks and in 13 patients by week 12. Meanwhile, the mean daily dose of prednisone fell from 21 mg at baseline to 6 mg at 24 weeks.
The mean score on the Pemphigus Disease Area Index (PDAI) dropped by 79% from a baseline of 15.5. Ten of 15 subjects improved to a PDAI of 0 or 1 – clear or almost clear skin – by week 24. The complete remission rate, defined as an absence of both new and established lesions while on no or a very low dose of prednisone, was 40% at week 24.
Treatment-emergent adverse events consisted of nausea in four patients, dizziness in two, and abdominal distension in two, all of which were grade 1 or 2.
Based upon these favorable results, the pivotal phase 3, double-blind, international PEGASUS trial is underway, led by Dr. Murrell. The trial will enroll 120 pemphigus patients, randomized to rilzabrutinib at 400 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background steroid tapering.
Rilzabrutinib is also in earlier-stage clinical trials for the treatment of immune thrombocytopenia.
Dr. Murrell reported serving as a consultant to Principia Biopharma, sponsor of the BELIEVE-PV and PEGASUS trials, and has received institutional research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Murrell DF. AAD 2020 LBCT.
FROM AAD 20
COVID-19 pandemic dictates reconsideration of pemphigus therapy
The Dedee F. Murrell, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Together with physicians from the Mayo Clinic, Alexandria (Egypt) University, and Tehran (Iran) University, she recently published updated expert guidance for treatment of this severe, potentially fatal mucocutaneous autoimmune blistering disease, in a letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. She presented some of the key recommendations at AAD 2020.
First off, rituximab (Rituxan), the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris and a biologic considered first-line therapy prepandemic, is ill-advised during the COVID-19 era. Its mechanism of benefit is through B-cell depletion. This is an irreversible effect, and reconstitution of B-cell immunity takes 6-12 months. The absence of this immunologic protection for such a long time poses potentially serious problems for pemphigus patients who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Also, the opportunity to administer intravenous infusions of the biologic becomes unpredictable during pandemic surges, when limitations on nonemergent medical care may be necessary, noted Dr. Murrell, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales and head of dermatology at St. George University Hospital, both in Sydney.
“We have taken the approach of postponing rituximab infusions temporarily, with the aim of delaying peak patient immunosuppression during peak COVID-19 incidence to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes,” Dr. Murrell and coauthors wrote in the letter (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jun;82[6]:e235-6).
The other traditional go-to therapy for pemphigus is corticosteroids. They’re effective, fast acting, and relatively inexpensive. But their nonselective immunosuppressive action boosts infection risk in general, and more specifically it increases the risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 should a patient become infected with SARS-CoV-2.
“A basic therapeutic principle with particular importance during the pandemic is that glucocorticoids and steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil, should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. In active COVID-19 infection, immunosuppressive steroid-sparing medications should be discontinued when possible, although glucocorticoid cessation often cannot be considered due to risk for adrenal insufficiency,” the authors continued.
“Effective as adjuvant treatment in both pemphigus and COVID-19,intravenous immunoglobulin supports immunity and therefore may be useful in this setting,” they wrote. It’s not immunosuppressive, and, they noted, there’s good-quality evidence from a Japanese randomized, double-blind, controlled trial that a 5-day course of intravenous immunoglobulin is effective therapy for pemphigus (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009 Apr;60[4]:595-603).
Moreover, intravenous immunoglobulin is also reportedly effective in severe COVID-19 (Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa102.).
Another option is to consider enrolling a patient with moderate or severe pemphigus vulgaris or foliaceus in the ongoing pivotal phase 3, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled PEGASUS trial of rilzabrutinib, a promising oral reversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The medication has a short half-life and a self-limited immunomodulatory effect. Moreover, the trial is set up for remote patient visits on an outpatient basis via teledermatology, so the 65-week study can continue despite the pandemic. Both newly diagnosed and relapsing patients are eligible for the trial, headed by Dr. Murrell. At AAD 2020 she reported encouraging results from a phase 2b trial of rilzabrutinib.
She is a consultant to Principia Biopharma, sponsor of the PEGASUS trial, and has received institutional research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
The Dedee F. Murrell, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Together with physicians from the Mayo Clinic, Alexandria (Egypt) University, and Tehran (Iran) University, she recently published updated expert guidance for treatment of this severe, potentially fatal mucocutaneous autoimmune blistering disease, in a letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. She presented some of the key recommendations at AAD 2020.
First off, rituximab (Rituxan), the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris and a biologic considered first-line therapy prepandemic, is ill-advised during the COVID-19 era. Its mechanism of benefit is through B-cell depletion. This is an irreversible effect, and reconstitution of B-cell immunity takes 6-12 months. The absence of this immunologic protection for such a long time poses potentially serious problems for pemphigus patients who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Also, the opportunity to administer intravenous infusions of the biologic becomes unpredictable during pandemic surges, when limitations on nonemergent medical care may be necessary, noted Dr. Murrell, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales and head of dermatology at St. George University Hospital, both in Sydney.
“We have taken the approach of postponing rituximab infusions temporarily, with the aim of delaying peak patient immunosuppression during peak COVID-19 incidence to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes,” Dr. Murrell and coauthors wrote in the letter (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jun;82[6]:e235-6).
The other traditional go-to therapy for pemphigus is corticosteroids. They’re effective, fast acting, and relatively inexpensive. But their nonselective immunosuppressive action boosts infection risk in general, and more specifically it increases the risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 should a patient become infected with SARS-CoV-2.
“A basic therapeutic principle with particular importance during the pandemic is that glucocorticoids and steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil, should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. In active COVID-19 infection, immunosuppressive steroid-sparing medications should be discontinued when possible, although glucocorticoid cessation often cannot be considered due to risk for adrenal insufficiency,” the authors continued.
“Effective as adjuvant treatment in both pemphigus and COVID-19,intravenous immunoglobulin supports immunity and therefore may be useful in this setting,” they wrote. It’s not immunosuppressive, and, they noted, there’s good-quality evidence from a Japanese randomized, double-blind, controlled trial that a 5-day course of intravenous immunoglobulin is effective therapy for pemphigus (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009 Apr;60[4]:595-603).
Moreover, intravenous immunoglobulin is also reportedly effective in severe COVID-19 (Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa102.).
Another option is to consider enrolling a patient with moderate or severe pemphigus vulgaris or foliaceus in the ongoing pivotal phase 3, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled PEGASUS trial of rilzabrutinib, a promising oral reversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The medication has a short half-life and a self-limited immunomodulatory effect. Moreover, the trial is set up for remote patient visits on an outpatient basis via teledermatology, so the 65-week study can continue despite the pandemic. Both newly diagnosed and relapsing patients are eligible for the trial, headed by Dr. Murrell. At AAD 2020 she reported encouraging results from a phase 2b trial of rilzabrutinib.
She is a consultant to Principia Biopharma, sponsor of the PEGASUS trial, and has received institutional research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
The Dedee F. Murrell, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Together with physicians from the Mayo Clinic, Alexandria (Egypt) University, and Tehran (Iran) University, she recently published updated expert guidance for treatment of this severe, potentially fatal mucocutaneous autoimmune blistering disease, in a letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. She presented some of the key recommendations at AAD 2020.
First off, rituximab (Rituxan), the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris and a biologic considered first-line therapy prepandemic, is ill-advised during the COVID-19 era. Its mechanism of benefit is through B-cell depletion. This is an irreversible effect, and reconstitution of B-cell immunity takes 6-12 months. The absence of this immunologic protection for such a long time poses potentially serious problems for pemphigus patients who become infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Also, the opportunity to administer intravenous infusions of the biologic becomes unpredictable during pandemic surges, when limitations on nonemergent medical care may be necessary, noted Dr. Murrell, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales and head of dermatology at St. George University Hospital, both in Sydney.
“We have taken the approach of postponing rituximab infusions temporarily, with the aim of delaying peak patient immunosuppression during peak COVID-19 incidence to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes,” Dr. Murrell and coauthors wrote in the letter (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jun;82[6]:e235-6).
The other traditional go-to therapy for pemphigus is corticosteroids. They’re effective, fast acting, and relatively inexpensive. But their nonselective immunosuppressive action boosts infection risk in general, and more specifically it increases the risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 should a patient become infected with SARS-CoV-2.
“A basic therapeutic principle with particular importance during the pandemic is that glucocorticoids and steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil, should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. In active COVID-19 infection, immunosuppressive steroid-sparing medications should be discontinued when possible, although glucocorticoid cessation often cannot be considered due to risk for adrenal insufficiency,” the authors continued.
“Effective as adjuvant treatment in both pemphigus and COVID-19,intravenous immunoglobulin supports immunity and therefore may be useful in this setting,” they wrote. It’s not immunosuppressive, and, they noted, there’s good-quality evidence from a Japanese randomized, double-blind, controlled trial that a 5-day course of intravenous immunoglobulin is effective therapy for pemphigus (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009 Apr;60[4]:595-603).
Moreover, intravenous immunoglobulin is also reportedly effective in severe COVID-19 (Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa102.).
Another option is to consider enrolling a patient with moderate or severe pemphigus vulgaris or foliaceus in the ongoing pivotal phase 3, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled PEGASUS trial of rilzabrutinib, a promising oral reversible Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The medication has a short half-life and a self-limited immunomodulatory effect. Moreover, the trial is set up for remote patient visits on an outpatient basis via teledermatology, so the 65-week study can continue despite the pandemic. Both newly diagnosed and relapsing patients are eligible for the trial, headed by Dr. Murrell. At AAD 2020 she reported encouraging results from a phase 2b trial of rilzabrutinib.
She is a consultant to Principia Biopharma, sponsor of the PEGASUS trial, and has received institutional research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
FROM AAD 20
Acetaminophen beats fentanyl in STEMI
Swapping out intravenous fentanyl in favor of IV acetaminophen in patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) provides comparable pain relief but with desirably higher blood levels of ticagrelor both immediately after primary percutaneous intervention and 1 hour post procedure.
That’s according to results of the Dutch ON-TIME 3 trial, presented by Anne H. Tavenier, MD, at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
“Our trial results have implications for the prehospital treatment of STEMI patients,” said Dr. Tavenier, a cardiologist at the Isala Clinic in Zwolle, the Netherlands.
The explanation for the success of this novel STEMI pain management strategy? The synthetic opioid fentanyl impairs gastrointestinal absorption of oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists such as ticagrelor. Opiates do so as well, whereas acetaminophen does not, she explained.
The potent platelet inhibition provided by oral P2Y12 inhibitors is crucial to successful primary PCI for STEMI. But these platelet inhibitory effects are inherently slowed in STEMI patients owing to hemodynamic changes and delayed GI absorption. And even though both American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend the use of opioids for pain control in STEMI patients, the fact is that these medications further delay the absorption of oral P2Y12 inhibitors. And this delay is further exacerbated by the nausea and vomiting which are common side effects of IV fentanyl, she continued.
The impetus for the ON-TIME 3 trial was straightforward, the cardiologist said: “For years, STEMI patients have been treated with morphine or morphinelike drugs like fentanyl because of pain or sympathetic stress. To date, trials investigating alternative analgesics to opioids have been scarce.”
ON-TIME 3 was a multicenter, open-label, phase 4 clinical trial in which 195 STEMI patients with a self-reported pain score of at least 4 on a 0-10 scale received crushed ticagrelor in the ambulance along with either 1,000 mg of IV acetaminophen or fentanyl at 1-2 mcg/kg.
Ticagrelor blood levels were significantly higher in the IV acetaminophen group when measured just prior to primary PCI (151 ng/mL versus 60 ng/mL in the IV fentanyl group; immediately after PCI (326 versus 115 ng/mL), and 1 hour post PCI (488 versus 372 ng/mL).
However, there was no significant between-group difference in levels of platelet reactivity units measured immediately after primary PCI, Dr. Tavenier added.
Discussant Christoph K. Naber, MD, PhD, confessed that prior to ON-TIME 3 he was unaware that administering opioids to STEMI patients results in delayed absorption of oral P2Y12 inhibitors. Upon delving into the literature, however, he found that this is indeed a well-documented problem.
“The open question I have about this very elegant trial is whether the increased P2Y12 levels will translate into a measurable difference in clinical outcomes,” said Dr. Naber, an interventional cardiologist at the Wilhemshaven (Germany) Clinic.
The answer to that question would require a larger, longer-term trial. And he’s disinclined to wait around for that to happen.
“I think when we look at the risk balance, the risk of switching from an opioid to acetaminophen, if it works for the patient, is rather low. So this might be something to introduce in my practice,” the cardiologist said.
Dr. Tavenier and Dr. Naber reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Tavenier AH. EuroPCR 2020.
Swapping out intravenous fentanyl in favor of IV acetaminophen in patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) provides comparable pain relief but with desirably higher blood levels of ticagrelor both immediately after primary percutaneous intervention and 1 hour post procedure.
That’s according to results of the Dutch ON-TIME 3 trial, presented by Anne H. Tavenier, MD, at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
“Our trial results have implications for the prehospital treatment of STEMI patients,” said Dr. Tavenier, a cardiologist at the Isala Clinic in Zwolle, the Netherlands.
The explanation for the success of this novel STEMI pain management strategy? The synthetic opioid fentanyl impairs gastrointestinal absorption of oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists such as ticagrelor. Opiates do so as well, whereas acetaminophen does not, she explained.
The potent platelet inhibition provided by oral P2Y12 inhibitors is crucial to successful primary PCI for STEMI. But these platelet inhibitory effects are inherently slowed in STEMI patients owing to hemodynamic changes and delayed GI absorption. And even though both American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend the use of opioids for pain control in STEMI patients, the fact is that these medications further delay the absorption of oral P2Y12 inhibitors. And this delay is further exacerbated by the nausea and vomiting which are common side effects of IV fentanyl, she continued.
The impetus for the ON-TIME 3 trial was straightforward, the cardiologist said: “For years, STEMI patients have been treated with morphine or morphinelike drugs like fentanyl because of pain or sympathetic stress. To date, trials investigating alternative analgesics to opioids have been scarce.”
ON-TIME 3 was a multicenter, open-label, phase 4 clinical trial in which 195 STEMI patients with a self-reported pain score of at least 4 on a 0-10 scale received crushed ticagrelor in the ambulance along with either 1,000 mg of IV acetaminophen or fentanyl at 1-2 mcg/kg.
Ticagrelor blood levels were significantly higher in the IV acetaminophen group when measured just prior to primary PCI (151 ng/mL versus 60 ng/mL in the IV fentanyl group; immediately after PCI (326 versus 115 ng/mL), and 1 hour post PCI (488 versus 372 ng/mL).
However, there was no significant between-group difference in levels of platelet reactivity units measured immediately after primary PCI, Dr. Tavenier added.
Discussant Christoph K. Naber, MD, PhD, confessed that prior to ON-TIME 3 he was unaware that administering opioids to STEMI patients results in delayed absorption of oral P2Y12 inhibitors. Upon delving into the literature, however, he found that this is indeed a well-documented problem.
“The open question I have about this very elegant trial is whether the increased P2Y12 levels will translate into a measurable difference in clinical outcomes,” said Dr. Naber, an interventional cardiologist at the Wilhemshaven (Germany) Clinic.
The answer to that question would require a larger, longer-term trial. And he’s disinclined to wait around for that to happen.
“I think when we look at the risk balance, the risk of switching from an opioid to acetaminophen, if it works for the patient, is rather low. So this might be something to introduce in my practice,” the cardiologist said.
Dr. Tavenier and Dr. Naber reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Tavenier AH. EuroPCR 2020.
Swapping out intravenous fentanyl in favor of IV acetaminophen in patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) provides comparable pain relief but with desirably higher blood levels of ticagrelor both immediately after primary percutaneous intervention and 1 hour post procedure.
That’s according to results of the Dutch ON-TIME 3 trial, presented by Anne H. Tavenier, MD, at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.
“Our trial results have implications for the prehospital treatment of STEMI patients,” said Dr. Tavenier, a cardiologist at the Isala Clinic in Zwolle, the Netherlands.
The explanation for the success of this novel STEMI pain management strategy? The synthetic opioid fentanyl impairs gastrointestinal absorption of oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists such as ticagrelor. Opiates do so as well, whereas acetaminophen does not, she explained.
The potent platelet inhibition provided by oral P2Y12 inhibitors is crucial to successful primary PCI for STEMI. But these platelet inhibitory effects are inherently slowed in STEMI patients owing to hemodynamic changes and delayed GI absorption. And even though both American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend the use of opioids for pain control in STEMI patients, the fact is that these medications further delay the absorption of oral P2Y12 inhibitors. And this delay is further exacerbated by the nausea and vomiting which are common side effects of IV fentanyl, she continued.
The impetus for the ON-TIME 3 trial was straightforward, the cardiologist said: “For years, STEMI patients have been treated with morphine or morphinelike drugs like fentanyl because of pain or sympathetic stress. To date, trials investigating alternative analgesics to opioids have been scarce.”
ON-TIME 3 was a multicenter, open-label, phase 4 clinical trial in which 195 STEMI patients with a self-reported pain score of at least 4 on a 0-10 scale received crushed ticagrelor in the ambulance along with either 1,000 mg of IV acetaminophen or fentanyl at 1-2 mcg/kg.
Ticagrelor blood levels were significantly higher in the IV acetaminophen group when measured just prior to primary PCI (151 ng/mL versus 60 ng/mL in the IV fentanyl group; immediately after PCI (326 versus 115 ng/mL), and 1 hour post PCI (488 versus 372 ng/mL).
However, there was no significant between-group difference in levels of platelet reactivity units measured immediately after primary PCI, Dr. Tavenier added.
Discussant Christoph K. Naber, MD, PhD, confessed that prior to ON-TIME 3 he was unaware that administering opioids to STEMI patients results in delayed absorption of oral P2Y12 inhibitors. Upon delving into the literature, however, he found that this is indeed a well-documented problem.
“The open question I have about this very elegant trial is whether the increased P2Y12 levels will translate into a measurable difference in clinical outcomes,” said Dr. Naber, an interventional cardiologist at the Wilhemshaven (Germany) Clinic.
The answer to that question would require a larger, longer-term trial. And he’s disinclined to wait around for that to happen.
“I think when we look at the risk balance, the risk of switching from an opioid to acetaminophen, if it works for the patient, is rather low. So this might be something to introduce in my practice,” the cardiologist said.
Dr. Tavenier and Dr. Naber reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Tavenier AH. EuroPCR 2020.
REPORTING FROM EUROPCR 2020
Topical PDE-4 inhibitor for psoriasis effective in phase 2b trial
Once-daily – including challenging lesions in tough-to-treat intertriginous areas – in a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical trial, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The clinical improvement occurred rapidly. And topical roflumilast’s side effect profile was essentially the same as in vehicle-treated controls, which suggests a potential major advantage for the novel drug in future clinical practice. After all, topical treatment is the mainstay of psoriasis therapy, but the current topical agents – high-potency corticosteroids, vitamin D derivatives, and retinoids – have long-term tolerability, efficacy, or side effect issues, especially in treating sensitive skin areas, including the face and intertriginous areas.
“Roflumilast cream could really be a game changer,” predicted Dr. Lebwohl, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) activity is elevated in psoriatic skin. Indeed, inhibition of PDE-4 via oral apremilast (Otezla) is an established strategy for improving psoriasis through down-regulation of inflammatory cytokines including tumor necrosis factor–alpha, interleukins-17 and -23, and interferon-gamma. Notably, however, roflumilast is orders of magnitude more potent than any other PDE-4 inhibitor. An oral version marketed as Daliresp has been available for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for nearly a decade.
The 12-week, multicenter, phase 2b study included 331 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who were randomized to once-daily 0.3% roflumilast cream, 0.15% roflumilast cream, or vehicle. Three-quarters of participants had a baseline Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3, indicative of moderate disease.
The primary endpoint was achievement of an IGA score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at week 6. The observed improvement was dose related, although both doses of roflumilast were significantly more effective than vehicle. However, peak improvement occurred at week 8, not week 6, with subsequent plateauing of response through week 12. A week 8 IGA of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline occurred in 32% of the high-dose roflumilast group, 25% of those on the 0.15% formulation, and 10% of controls.
“The effect in improvement was very rapid, with a statistically significant improvement compared to vehicle for both concentrations as early as week 2,” Dr. Lebwohl said.
A key secondary endpoint focused on treatment response in intertriginous areas, since “those are the areas where we really don’t want to use steroids because of major irritation problems,” the dermatologist explained. At week 12, treatment success as defined by an intertriginous IGA score of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-point improvement from baseline was seen in 86% of the 0.3% roflumilast cream group, 50% on low-dose therapy, and 29% of controls.
About 65% of subjects on high-dose roflumilast cream reported at least a 4-point reduction in the Worst Itch–Numerical Rating Scale by week 8, as did 58% of those on the low-dose version and 42% of controls. Another secondary endpoint – patient-reported burden of disease as captured in a Psoriasis Symptoms Diary – showed a significant divergence between both doses of roflumilast and vehicle as early as week 2.
“Adverse events were negligible,” Dr. Lebwohl said. “In fact, there was only one discontinuation in the 0.3% arm, compared to none with 0.15% and two with vehicle.”
The phase 3 program is now recruiting participants.
The phase 2b study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Lebwohl reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to that company and numerous others.
Once-daily – including challenging lesions in tough-to-treat intertriginous areas – in a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical trial, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The clinical improvement occurred rapidly. And topical roflumilast’s side effect profile was essentially the same as in vehicle-treated controls, which suggests a potential major advantage for the novel drug in future clinical practice. After all, topical treatment is the mainstay of psoriasis therapy, but the current topical agents – high-potency corticosteroids, vitamin D derivatives, and retinoids – have long-term tolerability, efficacy, or side effect issues, especially in treating sensitive skin areas, including the face and intertriginous areas.
“Roflumilast cream could really be a game changer,” predicted Dr. Lebwohl, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) activity is elevated in psoriatic skin. Indeed, inhibition of PDE-4 via oral apremilast (Otezla) is an established strategy for improving psoriasis through down-regulation of inflammatory cytokines including tumor necrosis factor–alpha, interleukins-17 and -23, and interferon-gamma. Notably, however, roflumilast is orders of magnitude more potent than any other PDE-4 inhibitor. An oral version marketed as Daliresp has been available for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for nearly a decade.
The 12-week, multicenter, phase 2b study included 331 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who were randomized to once-daily 0.3% roflumilast cream, 0.15% roflumilast cream, or vehicle. Three-quarters of participants had a baseline Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3, indicative of moderate disease.
The primary endpoint was achievement of an IGA score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at week 6. The observed improvement was dose related, although both doses of roflumilast were significantly more effective than vehicle. However, peak improvement occurred at week 8, not week 6, with subsequent plateauing of response through week 12. A week 8 IGA of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline occurred in 32% of the high-dose roflumilast group, 25% of those on the 0.15% formulation, and 10% of controls.
“The effect in improvement was very rapid, with a statistically significant improvement compared to vehicle for both concentrations as early as week 2,” Dr. Lebwohl said.
A key secondary endpoint focused on treatment response in intertriginous areas, since “those are the areas where we really don’t want to use steroids because of major irritation problems,” the dermatologist explained. At week 12, treatment success as defined by an intertriginous IGA score of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-point improvement from baseline was seen in 86% of the 0.3% roflumilast cream group, 50% on low-dose therapy, and 29% of controls.
About 65% of subjects on high-dose roflumilast cream reported at least a 4-point reduction in the Worst Itch–Numerical Rating Scale by week 8, as did 58% of those on the low-dose version and 42% of controls. Another secondary endpoint – patient-reported burden of disease as captured in a Psoriasis Symptoms Diary – showed a significant divergence between both doses of roflumilast and vehicle as early as week 2.
“Adverse events were negligible,” Dr. Lebwohl said. “In fact, there was only one discontinuation in the 0.3% arm, compared to none with 0.15% and two with vehicle.”
The phase 3 program is now recruiting participants.
The phase 2b study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Lebwohl reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to that company and numerous others.
Once-daily – including challenging lesions in tough-to-treat intertriginous areas – in a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical trial, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The clinical improvement occurred rapidly. And topical roflumilast’s side effect profile was essentially the same as in vehicle-treated controls, which suggests a potential major advantage for the novel drug in future clinical practice. After all, topical treatment is the mainstay of psoriasis therapy, but the current topical agents – high-potency corticosteroids, vitamin D derivatives, and retinoids – have long-term tolerability, efficacy, or side effect issues, especially in treating sensitive skin areas, including the face and intertriginous areas.
“Roflumilast cream could really be a game changer,” predicted Dr. Lebwohl, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) activity is elevated in psoriatic skin. Indeed, inhibition of PDE-4 via oral apremilast (Otezla) is an established strategy for improving psoriasis through down-regulation of inflammatory cytokines including tumor necrosis factor–alpha, interleukins-17 and -23, and interferon-gamma. Notably, however, roflumilast is orders of magnitude more potent than any other PDE-4 inhibitor. An oral version marketed as Daliresp has been available for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for nearly a decade.
The 12-week, multicenter, phase 2b study included 331 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who were randomized to once-daily 0.3% roflumilast cream, 0.15% roflumilast cream, or vehicle. Three-quarters of participants had a baseline Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3, indicative of moderate disease.
The primary endpoint was achievement of an IGA score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at week 6. The observed improvement was dose related, although both doses of roflumilast were significantly more effective than vehicle. However, peak improvement occurred at week 8, not week 6, with subsequent plateauing of response through week 12. A week 8 IGA of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline occurred in 32% of the high-dose roflumilast group, 25% of those on the 0.15% formulation, and 10% of controls.
“The effect in improvement was very rapid, with a statistically significant improvement compared to vehicle for both concentrations as early as week 2,” Dr. Lebwohl said.
A key secondary endpoint focused on treatment response in intertriginous areas, since “those are the areas where we really don’t want to use steroids because of major irritation problems,” the dermatologist explained. At week 12, treatment success as defined by an intertriginous IGA score of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-point improvement from baseline was seen in 86% of the 0.3% roflumilast cream group, 50% on low-dose therapy, and 29% of controls.
About 65% of subjects on high-dose roflumilast cream reported at least a 4-point reduction in the Worst Itch–Numerical Rating Scale by week 8, as did 58% of those on the low-dose version and 42% of controls. Another secondary endpoint – patient-reported burden of disease as captured in a Psoriasis Symptoms Diary – showed a significant divergence between both doses of roflumilast and vehicle as early as week 2.
“Adverse events were negligible,” Dr. Lebwohl said. “In fact, there was only one discontinuation in the 0.3% arm, compared to none with 0.15% and two with vehicle.”
The phase 3 program is now recruiting participants.
The phase 2b study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Lebwohl reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to that company and numerous others.
FROM AAD 20
Influenza vaccine efficacy called undiminished in MS
, Jackie Nguyen reported at the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine published cohort studies including 417 MS patients and more than 500 healthy controls, all of whom received inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine.
The impetus for this project was a recognition that the great majority of the research on the impact of influenza vaccine in patients with MS has focused on safety and MS relapse rates. In contrast, the nine studies included in the meta-analysis contained data on influenza vaccine efficacy as reflected in the ability to mount an adequate immune response. This was defined in standard fashion either by seroconversion, which required at least a fourfold increase in antibody titers following vaccination, or seroprotection, with a postvaccination antihemagglutination immunoglobulin G titer of at least 40. The analysis included patients with MS irrespective of disease duration or severity or treatment regimen, noted Ms. Nguyen, a third-year medical student at Nova Southeastern University College of Allopathic Medicine in Davie, Fla.
The researchers found that there was no significant difference between patients with MS and healthy controls in the rates of an adequate immune response for influenza H1N1, H3N2, or influenza B virus. “The vaccine should thus continue to be recommended for MS patients, as the data shows it to be efficacious,” she said.
Her conclusion is consistent with guidance provided in the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline update on immunization in MS, highlighted elsewhere at CMSC 2020 in a presentation by Marijean Buhse, PhD, of Stony Brook University in New York.
The guideline, updated for the first time in 17 years, states that all MS patients should be advised to receive influenza vaccine annually: “With known risks of exacerbation and other morbidity with influenza infection and no identified risks of exacerbation with influenza vaccines, benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios. The exception involves the relatively few MS patients having a specific contraindication to the influenza vaccine, such as a previous severe reaction, noted Dr. Buhse, who wasn’t involved in developing the evidence-based guidelines.
The available evidence indicates that some but not all disease-modifying therapies for MS reduce the effectiveness of vaccination against influenza.
According to the guideline, “it is possible” that persons with MS being treated with glatiramer acetate have a reduced likelihood of seroprotection from influenza vaccine, a conclusion the guidelines committee drew with “low confidence in the evidence.” Further, the guideline states that “it is probable” MS patients on fingolimod have a lower likelihood of obtaining seroprotection from influenza vaccine than patients not on the drug, with moderate confidence in the evidence. Also, it is deemed probable that patients with MS who are taking mitoxantrone have a reduced likelihood of response to influenza vaccination, compared with healthy controls. But it is probable that patients with MS who are receiving interferon-beta have no diminution in the likelihood of seroprotection. According to the guideline, there is insufficient evidence to say whether patients with MS who are on natalizumab, teriflunomide, or methotrexate have a diminished response to influenza vaccination.
Dr. Buhse noted that rituximab is off-label therapy for MS, so there are no data available regarding the likelihood of seroprotection in response to influenza vaccination in that setting. However, rituximab profoundly decreases the immunogenicity of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in rheumatoid arthritis patients. It is therefore recommended that inactivated influenza vaccine be given to patients with MS at least 2 weeks prior to starting rituximab or 6 months after the last dose in order to optimize the humoral results. Ms. Nguyen reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation. Dr. Buhse reported having received honoraria from Genzyme and Biogen.
, Jackie Nguyen reported at the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine published cohort studies including 417 MS patients and more than 500 healthy controls, all of whom received inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine.
The impetus for this project was a recognition that the great majority of the research on the impact of influenza vaccine in patients with MS has focused on safety and MS relapse rates. In contrast, the nine studies included in the meta-analysis contained data on influenza vaccine efficacy as reflected in the ability to mount an adequate immune response. This was defined in standard fashion either by seroconversion, which required at least a fourfold increase in antibody titers following vaccination, or seroprotection, with a postvaccination antihemagglutination immunoglobulin G titer of at least 40. The analysis included patients with MS irrespective of disease duration or severity or treatment regimen, noted Ms. Nguyen, a third-year medical student at Nova Southeastern University College of Allopathic Medicine in Davie, Fla.
The researchers found that there was no significant difference between patients with MS and healthy controls in the rates of an adequate immune response for influenza H1N1, H3N2, or influenza B virus. “The vaccine should thus continue to be recommended for MS patients, as the data shows it to be efficacious,” she said.
Her conclusion is consistent with guidance provided in the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline update on immunization in MS, highlighted elsewhere at CMSC 2020 in a presentation by Marijean Buhse, PhD, of Stony Brook University in New York.
The guideline, updated for the first time in 17 years, states that all MS patients should be advised to receive influenza vaccine annually: “With known risks of exacerbation and other morbidity with influenza infection and no identified risks of exacerbation with influenza vaccines, benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios. The exception involves the relatively few MS patients having a specific contraindication to the influenza vaccine, such as a previous severe reaction, noted Dr. Buhse, who wasn’t involved in developing the evidence-based guidelines.
The available evidence indicates that some but not all disease-modifying therapies for MS reduce the effectiveness of vaccination against influenza.
According to the guideline, “it is possible” that persons with MS being treated with glatiramer acetate have a reduced likelihood of seroprotection from influenza vaccine, a conclusion the guidelines committee drew with “low confidence in the evidence.” Further, the guideline states that “it is probable” MS patients on fingolimod have a lower likelihood of obtaining seroprotection from influenza vaccine than patients not on the drug, with moderate confidence in the evidence. Also, it is deemed probable that patients with MS who are taking mitoxantrone have a reduced likelihood of response to influenza vaccination, compared with healthy controls. But it is probable that patients with MS who are receiving interferon-beta have no diminution in the likelihood of seroprotection. According to the guideline, there is insufficient evidence to say whether patients with MS who are on natalizumab, teriflunomide, or methotrexate have a diminished response to influenza vaccination.
Dr. Buhse noted that rituximab is off-label therapy for MS, so there are no data available regarding the likelihood of seroprotection in response to influenza vaccination in that setting. However, rituximab profoundly decreases the immunogenicity of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in rheumatoid arthritis patients. It is therefore recommended that inactivated influenza vaccine be given to patients with MS at least 2 weeks prior to starting rituximab or 6 months after the last dose in order to optimize the humoral results. Ms. Nguyen reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation. Dr. Buhse reported having received honoraria from Genzyme and Biogen.
, Jackie Nguyen reported at the virtual annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine published cohort studies including 417 MS patients and more than 500 healthy controls, all of whom received inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine.
The impetus for this project was a recognition that the great majority of the research on the impact of influenza vaccine in patients with MS has focused on safety and MS relapse rates. In contrast, the nine studies included in the meta-analysis contained data on influenza vaccine efficacy as reflected in the ability to mount an adequate immune response. This was defined in standard fashion either by seroconversion, which required at least a fourfold increase in antibody titers following vaccination, or seroprotection, with a postvaccination antihemagglutination immunoglobulin G titer of at least 40. The analysis included patients with MS irrespective of disease duration or severity or treatment regimen, noted Ms. Nguyen, a third-year medical student at Nova Southeastern University College of Allopathic Medicine in Davie, Fla.
The researchers found that there was no significant difference between patients with MS and healthy controls in the rates of an adequate immune response for influenza H1N1, H3N2, or influenza B virus. “The vaccine should thus continue to be recommended for MS patients, as the data shows it to be efficacious,” she said.
Her conclusion is consistent with guidance provided in the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline update on immunization in MS, highlighted elsewhere at CMSC 2020 in a presentation by Marijean Buhse, PhD, of Stony Brook University in New York.
The guideline, updated for the first time in 17 years, states that all MS patients should be advised to receive influenza vaccine annually: “With known risks of exacerbation and other morbidity with influenza infection and no identified risks of exacerbation with influenza vaccines, benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios. The exception involves the relatively few MS patients having a specific contraindication to the influenza vaccine, such as a previous severe reaction, noted Dr. Buhse, who wasn’t involved in developing the evidence-based guidelines.
The available evidence indicates that some but not all disease-modifying therapies for MS reduce the effectiveness of vaccination against influenza.
According to the guideline, “it is possible” that persons with MS being treated with glatiramer acetate have a reduced likelihood of seroprotection from influenza vaccine, a conclusion the guidelines committee drew with “low confidence in the evidence.” Further, the guideline states that “it is probable” MS patients on fingolimod have a lower likelihood of obtaining seroprotection from influenza vaccine than patients not on the drug, with moderate confidence in the evidence. Also, it is deemed probable that patients with MS who are taking mitoxantrone have a reduced likelihood of response to influenza vaccination, compared with healthy controls. But it is probable that patients with MS who are receiving interferon-beta have no diminution in the likelihood of seroprotection. According to the guideline, there is insufficient evidence to say whether patients with MS who are on natalizumab, teriflunomide, or methotrexate have a diminished response to influenza vaccination.
Dr. Buhse noted that rituximab is off-label therapy for MS, so there are no data available regarding the likelihood of seroprotection in response to influenza vaccination in that setting. However, rituximab profoundly decreases the immunogenicity of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines in rheumatoid arthritis patients. It is therefore recommended that inactivated influenza vaccine be given to patients with MS at least 2 weeks prior to starting rituximab or 6 months after the last dose in order to optimize the humoral results. Ms. Nguyen reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation. Dr. Buhse reported having received honoraria from Genzyme and Biogen.
REPORTING FROM CMSC 2020