User login
Trifarotene sails through 52-week acne trial
James Q. Del Rosso, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The study is noteworthy because, even though roughly half of patients with facial acne also have truncal acne, there is actually very little clinical trial data on the treatment of truncal acne other than this new long-term study and the two earlier pivotal phase 3, 12-week trials which led to the October 2019 approval of trifarotene 50 mcg/g cream (Aklief) as the first novel retinoid for acne to reach the market in 20 years, observed Dr. Del Rosso, research director at JDR Research in Las Vegas and a member of the dermatology faculty at Touro University in Henderson, Nev.
The 52-week study, known as SATISFY, began with 454 patients with moderate facial and truncal acne who treated themselves with trifarotene once daily. Among the 348 patients who completed the full year, 67% achieved a score of 0 or 1 – clear or almost clear – with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline by Investigator’s Global Assessment on their facial acne, and 65% met the same measure of success on the trunk. Moreover, 58% of patients met that standard at both acne sites.
The IGA success rate rose throughout the study period without ever reaching a plateau. However, it should be noted that 23% of participants dropped out of the study over the course of the year.
Mean tolerability scores reflecting redness, scaling, stinging or burning, and skin dryness remained well below the threshold for mild severity, peaking at weeks 2-4 of the study. The most common treatment-related adverse events were mild to moderate itching and irritation, each occurring in less than 5% of subjects.
Trifarotene is a first-in-class retinoid that specifically targets the retinoic acid receptor gamma, the most common cutaneous retinoic acid receptor.
Dr. Del Rosso reported serving as an investigator and consultant for Galderma, which sponsored the study and markets trifarotene cream.
James Q. Del Rosso, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The study is noteworthy because, even though roughly half of patients with facial acne also have truncal acne, there is actually very little clinical trial data on the treatment of truncal acne other than this new long-term study and the two earlier pivotal phase 3, 12-week trials which led to the October 2019 approval of trifarotene 50 mcg/g cream (Aklief) as the first novel retinoid for acne to reach the market in 20 years, observed Dr. Del Rosso, research director at JDR Research in Las Vegas and a member of the dermatology faculty at Touro University in Henderson, Nev.
The 52-week study, known as SATISFY, began with 454 patients with moderate facial and truncal acne who treated themselves with trifarotene once daily. Among the 348 patients who completed the full year, 67% achieved a score of 0 or 1 – clear or almost clear – with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline by Investigator’s Global Assessment on their facial acne, and 65% met the same measure of success on the trunk. Moreover, 58% of patients met that standard at both acne sites.
The IGA success rate rose throughout the study period without ever reaching a plateau. However, it should be noted that 23% of participants dropped out of the study over the course of the year.
Mean tolerability scores reflecting redness, scaling, stinging or burning, and skin dryness remained well below the threshold for mild severity, peaking at weeks 2-4 of the study. The most common treatment-related adverse events were mild to moderate itching and irritation, each occurring in less than 5% of subjects.
Trifarotene is a first-in-class retinoid that specifically targets the retinoic acid receptor gamma, the most common cutaneous retinoic acid receptor.
Dr. Del Rosso reported serving as an investigator and consultant for Galderma, which sponsored the study and markets trifarotene cream.
James Q. Del Rosso, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The study is noteworthy because, even though roughly half of patients with facial acne also have truncal acne, there is actually very little clinical trial data on the treatment of truncal acne other than this new long-term study and the two earlier pivotal phase 3, 12-week trials which led to the October 2019 approval of trifarotene 50 mcg/g cream (Aklief) as the first novel retinoid for acne to reach the market in 20 years, observed Dr. Del Rosso, research director at JDR Research in Las Vegas and a member of the dermatology faculty at Touro University in Henderson, Nev.
The 52-week study, known as SATISFY, began with 454 patients with moderate facial and truncal acne who treated themselves with trifarotene once daily. Among the 348 patients who completed the full year, 67% achieved a score of 0 or 1 – clear or almost clear – with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline by Investigator’s Global Assessment on their facial acne, and 65% met the same measure of success on the trunk. Moreover, 58% of patients met that standard at both acne sites.
The IGA success rate rose throughout the study period without ever reaching a plateau. However, it should be noted that 23% of participants dropped out of the study over the course of the year.
Mean tolerability scores reflecting redness, scaling, stinging or burning, and skin dryness remained well below the threshold for mild severity, peaking at weeks 2-4 of the study. The most common treatment-related adverse events were mild to moderate itching and irritation, each occurring in less than 5% of subjects.
Trifarotene is a first-in-class retinoid that specifically targets the retinoic acid receptor gamma, the most common cutaneous retinoic acid receptor.
Dr. Del Rosso reported serving as an investigator and consultant for Galderma, which sponsored the study and markets trifarotene cream.
FROM AAD 2020
Intranasal butorphanol effectively rescues from intractable itch in retrospective study
Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Dr. Kwatra, a dermatologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, where he heads a specialized pruritus clinic, presented a retrospective study of 16 such patients treated with inhaled butorphanol. All had been responsive to a minimum of four antipruritic medications.
This is one of the largest-ever reported series of patients treated with intranasal butorphanol as acute rescue therapy for intractable itch, and it provides a strong signal of efficacy, he said in an interview.
Indeed, 11 of the 16 patients reported marked improvement in their itch after introduction of short-term treatment with butorphanol nasal spray, 1 reported no improvement, and 4 were lost to follow-up.
Itch, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Beck Depression Inventory scores were formally measured prior to introduction of short-term inhaled butorphanol and again at follow-up appointments at 4-6 weeks. The mean self-reported itch numeric rating scale score improved from a mean of 9.8 out of a possible 10 at baseline to 4.6 at follow-up. The reduction in itch was accompanied by major improvements in quality of life: the mean DLQI score dropped from 20.2 to 10.8, while the Beck Depression Inventory score went from 22.1 – typically interpreted as an indicator of moderate depression – to 14.2.
Three patients reported insomnia and/or lightheadedness they attributed to inhaled butorphanol.
The patients with chronic refractory itch had a wide range of associated underlying diagnoses. These included primary sclerosing cholangitis, trigeminal trophic syndrome, brachioradial pruritus, neuropathic pruritus, prurigo nodularis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, chronic aquagenic pruritus, atopic dermatitis, and itch induced by programmed death–1 immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. It will take large randomized, controlled trials to determine which of these types of chronic pruritus benefit most from intranasal butorphanol, according to Dr. Kwatra.
Since butorphanol is a narcotic analgesic ill-suited to applications other than as short-term acute rescue therapy, there is a pressing unmet need for new therapies specifically targeting chronic itch as a symptom, he added. Several promising agents are advancing through the drug development pipeline.
Dr. Kwatra reported having no financial conflicts regarding this study, conducted free of commercial support.
Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Dr. Kwatra, a dermatologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, where he heads a specialized pruritus clinic, presented a retrospective study of 16 such patients treated with inhaled butorphanol. All had been responsive to a minimum of four antipruritic medications.
This is one of the largest-ever reported series of patients treated with intranasal butorphanol as acute rescue therapy for intractable itch, and it provides a strong signal of efficacy, he said in an interview.
Indeed, 11 of the 16 patients reported marked improvement in their itch after introduction of short-term treatment with butorphanol nasal spray, 1 reported no improvement, and 4 were lost to follow-up.
Itch, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Beck Depression Inventory scores were formally measured prior to introduction of short-term inhaled butorphanol and again at follow-up appointments at 4-6 weeks. The mean self-reported itch numeric rating scale score improved from a mean of 9.8 out of a possible 10 at baseline to 4.6 at follow-up. The reduction in itch was accompanied by major improvements in quality of life: the mean DLQI score dropped from 20.2 to 10.8, while the Beck Depression Inventory score went from 22.1 – typically interpreted as an indicator of moderate depression – to 14.2.
Three patients reported insomnia and/or lightheadedness they attributed to inhaled butorphanol.
The patients with chronic refractory itch had a wide range of associated underlying diagnoses. These included primary sclerosing cholangitis, trigeminal trophic syndrome, brachioradial pruritus, neuropathic pruritus, prurigo nodularis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, chronic aquagenic pruritus, atopic dermatitis, and itch induced by programmed death–1 immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. It will take large randomized, controlled trials to determine which of these types of chronic pruritus benefit most from intranasal butorphanol, according to Dr. Kwatra.
Since butorphanol is a narcotic analgesic ill-suited to applications other than as short-term acute rescue therapy, there is a pressing unmet need for new therapies specifically targeting chronic itch as a symptom, he added. Several promising agents are advancing through the drug development pipeline.
Dr. Kwatra reported having no financial conflicts regarding this study, conducted free of commercial support.
Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Dr. Kwatra, a dermatologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, where he heads a specialized pruritus clinic, presented a retrospective study of 16 such patients treated with inhaled butorphanol. All had been responsive to a minimum of four antipruritic medications.
This is one of the largest-ever reported series of patients treated with intranasal butorphanol as acute rescue therapy for intractable itch, and it provides a strong signal of efficacy, he said in an interview.
Indeed, 11 of the 16 patients reported marked improvement in their itch after introduction of short-term treatment with butorphanol nasal spray, 1 reported no improvement, and 4 were lost to follow-up.
Itch, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Beck Depression Inventory scores were formally measured prior to introduction of short-term inhaled butorphanol and again at follow-up appointments at 4-6 weeks. The mean self-reported itch numeric rating scale score improved from a mean of 9.8 out of a possible 10 at baseline to 4.6 at follow-up. The reduction in itch was accompanied by major improvements in quality of life: the mean DLQI score dropped from 20.2 to 10.8, while the Beck Depression Inventory score went from 22.1 – typically interpreted as an indicator of moderate depression – to 14.2.
Three patients reported insomnia and/or lightheadedness they attributed to inhaled butorphanol.
The patients with chronic refractory itch had a wide range of associated underlying diagnoses. These included primary sclerosing cholangitis, trigeminal trophic syndrome, brachioradial pruritus, neuropathic pruritus, prurigo nodularis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, chronic aquagenic pruritus, atopic dermatitis, and itch induced by programmed death–1 immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. It will take large randomized, controlled trials to determine which of these types of chronic pruritus benefit most from intranasal butorphanol, according to Dr. Kwatra.
Since butorphanol is a narcotic analgesic ill-suited to applications other than as short-term acute rescue therapy, there is a pressing unmet need for new therapies specifically targeting chronic itch as a symptom, he added. Several promising agents are advancing through the drug development pipeline.
Dr. Kwatra reported having no financial conflicts regarding this study, conducted free of commercial support.
FROM AAD 20
Key clinical point: Intranasal butorphanol as short-term rescue therapy is a game changer for intractable itch.
Major finding: Mean itch numeric rating scale scores improved from 9.8 to 4.6.
Study details: This was a retrospective study of 16 patients who presented to a university pruritus clinic with severe chronic itch unresponsive to at least four antipruritic therapies.
Disclosures: The presenter reported having no financial conflicts regarding this study, conducted free of commercial support.
Source: Kwatra SG. AAD 20, Abstract 17132.
Increased hypothyroidism risk seen in young men with HS
Anna Figueiredo, MD, declared at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The surprise about this finding from a large retrospective case-control study stems from the fact that the elevated risk for hypothyroidism didn’t also extend to younger women with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) nor to patients older than 40 years of either gender, explained Dr. Figueiredo of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
She presented a retrospective case-control study based on information extracted from a medical records database of more than 8 million Midwestern adults. Among nearly 141,000 dermatology patients with follow-up in the database for at least 1 year, there were 405 HS patients aged 18-40 years and 327 aged 41-89.
In an age-matched comparison with the dermatology patients without HS, the younger HS cohort was at a significant 1.52-fold increased risk for comorbid hypothyroidism. Upon further stratification by sex, only the younger men with HS were at increased risk. Those patients were at 3.95-fold greater risk for having a diagnosis of hypothyroidism than were age-matched younger male dermatology patients.
Both younger and older HS patients were at numerically increased risk for being diagnosed with hyperthyroidism; however, this difference didn’t approach statistical significance because there were so few cases: a total of just eight in the HS population across the full age spectrum.
Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory disease with an estimated prevalence of up to 4% in the United States. Growing evidence suggests it is an immune-mediated disorder because the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab (Humira) has been approved for treatment of HS.
Thyroid disease is also often autoimmune-mediated, but its relationship with HS hasn’t been extensively examined. A recent meta-analysis of five case-control studies concluded that HS was associated with a 1.36-fold increased risk of thyroid disease; however, the Nepalese investigators didn’t distinguish between hypo- and hyperthyroidism (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Feb;82[2]:491-3).
Dr. Figueiredo reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, which was without commercial support.
Anna Figueiredo, MD, declared at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The surprise about this finding from a large retrospective case-control study stems from the fact that the elevated risk for hypothyroidism didn’t also extend to younger women with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) nor to patients older than 40 years of either gender, explained Dr. Figueiredo of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
She presented a retrospective case-control study based on information extracted from a medical records database of more than 8 million Midwestern adults. Among nearly 141,000 dermatology patients with follow-up in the database for at least 1 year, there were 405 HS patients aged 18-40 years and 327 aged 41-89.
In an age-matched comparison with the dermatology patients without HS, the younger HS cohort was at a significant 1.52-fold increased risk for comorbid hypothyroidism. Upon further stratification by sex, only the younger men with HS were at increased risk. Those patients were at 3.95-fold greater risk for having a diagnosis of hypothyroidism than were age-matched younger male dermatology patients.
Both younger and older HS patients were at numerically increased risk for being diagnosed with hyperthyroidism; however, this difference didn’t approach statistical significance because there were so few cases: a total of just eight in the HS population across the full age spectrum.
Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory disease with an estimated prevalence of up to 4% in the United States. Growing evidence suggests it is an immune-mediated disorder because the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab (Humira) has been approved for treatment of HS.
Thyroid disease is also often autoimmune-mediated, but its relationship with HS hasn’t been extensively examined. A recent meta-analysis of five case-control studies concluded that HS was associated with a 1.36-fold increased risk of thyroid disease; however, the Nepalese investigators didn’t distinguish between hypo- and hyperthyroidism (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Feb;82[2]:491-3).
Dr. Figueiredo reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, which was without commercial support.
Anna Figueiredo, MD, declared at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The surprise about this finding from a large retrospective case-control study stems from the fact that the elevated risk for hypothyroidism didn’t also extend to younger women with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) nor to patients older than 40 years of either gender, explained Dr. Figueiredo of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
She presented a retrospective case-control study based on information extracted from a medical records database of more than 8 million Midwestern adults. Among nearly 141,000 dermatology patients with follow-up in the database for at least 1 year, there were 405 HS patients aged 18-40 years and 327 aged 41-89.
In an age-matched comparison with the dermatology patients without HS, the younger HS cohort was at a significant 1.52-fold increased risk for comorbid hypothyroidism. Upon further stratification by sex, only the younger men with HS were at increased risk. Those patients were at 3.95-fold greater risk for having a diagnosis of hypothyroidism than were age-matched younger male dermatology patients.
Both younger and older HS patients were at numerically increased risk for being diagnosed with hyperthyroidism; however, this difference didn’t approach statistical significance because there were so few cases: a total of just eight in the HS population across the full age spectrum.
Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory disease with an estimated prevalence of up to 4% in the United States. Growing evidence suggests it is an immune-mediated disorder because the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab (Humira) has been approved for treatment of HS.
Thyroid disease is also often autoimmune-mediated, but its relationship with HS hasn’t been extensively examined. A recent meta-analysis of five case-control studies concluded that HS was associated with a 1.36-fold increased risk of thyroid disease; however, the Nepalese investigators didn’t distinguish between hypo- and hyperthyroidism (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Feb;82[2]:491-3).
Dr. Figueiredo reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, which was without commercial support.
FROM AAD 20
More phase 3 data reported for abrocitinib for atopic dermatitis
Melinda Gooderham, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The positive results of this 391-patient, international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial mirror those previously reported in the identically designed JADE-MONO-1 pivotal phase 3 trial, noted Dr. Gooderham, medical director of the SKiN Centre for Dermatology and a dermatologist at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont.
Participants in JADE-MONO-2 were randomized 2:2:1 to abrocitinib at 200 mg once daily, 100 mg once daily, or placebo for 12 weeks. The coprimary endpoint of skin clearance as reflected in an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with an improvement of at least two grades at week 12 was achieved in 38.1% and 28.4% of patients on 200 and 100 mg of the JAK-1 inhibitor, respectively, compared with 9.1% of placebo-treated controls. The other coprimary endpoint – significant improvement in disease extent as defined by at least a 75% reduction from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75 response) at 12 weeks – was reached in 61% of patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day, 44.5% on 100 mg/day, and 10.4% of controls.
A key secondary endpoint was improvement in itch based on at least a 4-point improvement at week 12 on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from a mean baseline score of 7. This outcome was reached by 55.3% of patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg, 45.2% on 100 mg, and 11.5% on placebo. Of note, the reduction in itch was impressively fast, with significant separation from placebo occurring within the first 24 hours of the study, after just a single dose of abrocitinib. By week 2, roughly one-third of patients on high-dose and one-quarter of those on low-dose abrocitinib had already reached the itch endpoint, the dermatologist continued.
The improvement in pruritus scores in abrocitinib-treated patients was accompanied by significantly greater gains on validated measures of quality of life, another secondary endpoint. The EASI-90 response rate, yet another key secondary outcome, was 37.7% with abrocitinib at 200 mg, 23.9% with 100 mg, and 3.9% with placebo.
The safety profile of abrocitinib was essentially the same as for placebo with the exception of a 3.2% incidence of thrombocytopenia in patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day; no cases occurred in controls or patients on abrocitinib at 100 mg/day. Although venous thromboembolism has arisen as a potential concern in clinical trials of oral JAK inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis, there were no cases in JADE-MONO-2. A long-term safety extension study in JADE-MONO participants is underway.
In an interview, Dr. Gooderham said that, based on the phase 2 study data that’s available for upadacitinib, another JAK-1-selective oral agent, abrocitinib and upadacitinib appear to be in the same ballpark with respect to efficacy as defined by IGA response, EASI improvement, and itch relief.
“The JAK-1 selectivity does seem to offer some advantage in levels of response over more broad JAK inhibition, such as with baritinib,” she added.
Asked how she foresees abrocitinib fitting into clinical practice, should it win regulatory approval for treatment of atopic dermatitis, Dr. Gooderham said it might be considered on a par with the injectable interleukin-4 and -13 inhibitor dupilumab (Dupixent) as next-line therapy after failure on topical therapy or as an option in patients who haven’t responded to or could not tolerate dupilumab. Abrocitinib will be an attractive option for patients who prefer oral therapy and will be an especially appealing medication in patients with a strong itch component to their atopic dermatitis, she added.
The results of JADE COMPARE, a phase 3, head-to-head randomized comparison of abrocitinib and dupilumab, are expected to be presented later this year at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Pfizer has announced the key results, reporting that the JAK inhibitor at 200 mg/day achieved significantly greater improvements than dupilumab in the coprimary IGA and EASI-75 endpoints at 12 weeks.
JADE-MONO-2 was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Gooderham reported receiving research grants from that company and close to two dozen others.
The JADE-MONO-2 results have been published online (JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jun 3;e201406. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1406).
Melinda Gooderham, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The positive results of this 391-patient, international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial mirror those previously reported in the identically designed JADE-MONO-1 pivotal phase 3 trial, noted Dr. Gooderham, medical director of the SKiN Centre for Dermatology and a dermatologist at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont.
Participants in JADE-MONO-2 were randomized 2:2:1 to abrocitinib at 200 mg once daily, 100 mg once daily, or placebo for 12 weeks. The coprimary endpoint of skin clearance as reflected in an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with an improvement of at least two grades at week 12 was achieved in 38.1% and 28.4% of patients on 200 and 100 mg of the JAK-1 inhibitor, respectively, compared with 9.1% of placebo-treated controls. The other coprimary endpoint – significant improvement in disease extent as defined by at least a 75% reduction from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75 response) at 12 weeks – was reached in 61% of patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day, 44.5% on 100 mg/day, and 10.4% of controls.
A key secondary endpoint was improvement in itch based on at least a 4-point improvement at week 12 on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from a mean baseline score of 7. This outcome was reached by 55.3% of patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg, 45.2% on 100 mg, and 11.5% on placebo. Of note, the reduction in itch was impressively fast, with significant separation from placebo occurring within the first 24 hours of the study, after just a single dose of abrocitinib. By week 2, roughly one-third of patients on high-dose and one-quarter of those on low-dose abrocitinib had already reached the itch endpoint, the dermatologist continued.
The improvement in pruritus scores in abrocitinib-treated patients was accompanied by significantly greater gains on validated measures of quality of life, another secondary endpoint. The EASI-90 response rate, yet another key secondary outcome, was 37.7% with abrocitinib at 200 mg, 23.9% with 100 mg, and 3.9% with placebo.
The safety profile of abrocitinib was essentially the same as for placebo with the exception of a 3.2% incidence of thrombocytopenia in patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day; no cases occurred in controls or patients on abrocitinib at 100 mg/day. Although venous thromboembolism has arisen as a potential concern in clinical trials of oral JAK inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis, there were no cases in JADE-MONO-2. A long-term safety extension study in JADE-MONO participants is underway.
In an interview, Dr. Gooderham said that, based on the phase 2 study data that’s available for upadacitinib, another JAK-1-selective oral agent, abrocitinib and upadacitinib appear to be in the same ballpark with respect to efficacy as defined by IGA response, EASI improvement, and itch relief.
“The JAK-1 selectivity does seem to offer some advantage in levels of response over more broad JAK inhibition, such as with baritinib,” she added.
Asked how she foresees abrocitinib fitting into clinical practice, should it win regulatory approval for treatment of atopic dermatitis, Dr. Gooderham said it might be considered on a par with the injectable interleukin-4 and -13 inhibitor dupilumab (Dupixent) as next-line therapy after failure on topical therapy or as an option in patients who haven’t responded to or could not tolerate dupilumab. Abrocitinib will be an attractive option for patients who prefer oral therapy and will be an especially appealing medication in patients with a strong itch component to their atopic dermatitis, she added.
The results of JADE COMPARE, a phase 3, head-to-head randomized comparison of abrocitinib and dupilumab, are expected to be presented later this year at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Pfizer has announced the key results, reporting that the JAK inhibitor at 200 mg/day achieved significantly greater improvements than dupilumab in the coprimary IGA and EASI-75 endpoints at 12 weeks.
JADE-MONO-2 was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Gooderham reported receiving research grants from that company and close to two dozen others.
The JADE-MONO-2 results have been published online (JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jun 3;e201406. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1406).
Melinda Gooderham, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The positive results of this 391-patient, international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial mirror those previously reported in the identically designed JADE-MONO-1 pivotal phase 3 trial, noted Dr. Gooderham, medical director of the SKiN Centre for Dermatology and a dermatologist at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont.
Participants in JADE-MONO-2 were randomized 2:2:1 to abrocitinib at 200 mg once daily, 100 mg once daily, or placebo for 12 weeks. The coprimary endpoint of skin clearance as reflected in an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with an improvement of at least two grades at week 12 was achieved in 38.1% and 28.4% of patients on 200 and 100 mg of the JAK-1 inhibitor, respectively, compared with 9.1% of placebo-treated controls. The other coprimary endpoint – significant improvement in disease extent as defined by at least a 75% reduction from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75 response) at 12 weeks – was reached in 61% of patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day, 44.5% on 100 mg/day, and 10.4% of controls.
A key secondary endpoint was improvement in itch based on at least a 4-point improvement at week 12 on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from a mean baseline score of 7. This outcome was reached by 55.3% of patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg, 45.2% on 100 mg, and 11.5% on placebo. Of note, the reduction in itch was impressively fast, with significant separation from placebo occurring within the first 24 hours of the study, after just a single dose of abrocitinib. By week 2, roughly one-third of patients on high-dose and one-quarter of those on low-dose abrocitinib had already reached the itch endpoint, the dermatologist continued.
The improvement in pruritus scores in abrocitinib-treated patients was accompanied by significantly greater gains on validated measures of quality of life, another secondary endpoint. The EASI-90 response rate, yet another key secondary outcome, was 37.7% with abrocitinib at 200 mg, 23.9% with 100 mg, and 3.9% with placebo.
The safety profile of abrocitinib was essentially the same as for placebo with the exception of a 3.2% incidence of thrombocytopenia in patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day; no cases occurred in controls or patients on abrocitinib at 100 mg/day. Although venous thromboembolism has arisen as a potential concern in clinical trials of oral JAK inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis, there were no cases in JADE-MONO-2. A long-term safety extension study in JADE-MONO participants is underway.
In an interview, Dr. Gooderham said that, based on the phase 2 study data that’s available for upadacitinib, another JAK-1-selective oral agent, abrocitinib and upadacitinib appear to be in the same ballpark with respect to efficacy as defined by IGA response, EASI improvement, and itch relief.
“The JAK-1 selectivity does seem to offer some advantage in levels of response over more broad JAK inhibition, such as with baritinib,” she added.
Asked how she foresees abrocitinib fitting into clinical practice, should it win regulatory approval for treatment of atopic dermatitis, Dr. Gooderham said it might be considered on a par with the injectable interleukin-4 and -13 inhibitor dupilumab (Dupixent) as next-line therapy after failure on topical therapy or as an option in patients who haven’t responded to or could not tolerate dupilumab. Abrocitinib will be an attractive option for patients who prefer oral therapy and will be an especially appealing medication in patients with a strong itch component to their atopic dermatitis, she added.
The results of JADE COMPARE, a phase 3, head-to-head randomized comparison of abrocitinib and dupilumab, are expected to be presented later this year at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Pfizer has announced the key results, reporting that the JAK inhibitor at 200 mg/day achieved significantly greater improvements than dupilumab in the coprimary IGA and EASI-75 endpoints at 12 weeks.
JADE-MONO-2 was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Gooderham reported receiving research grants from that company and close to two dozen others.
The JADE-MONO-2 results have been published online (JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jun 3;e201406. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1406).
FROM AAD 20
Vulvar melanoma is increasing in older women
Maia K. Erickson reported in a poster at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
These are often aggressive malignancies. The 5-year survival following diagnosis of vulvar melanoma in women aged 60 years or older was 39.7%, compared with 61.9% in younger women, according to Ms. Erickson, a visiting research fellow in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
She presented a population-based study of epidemiologic trends in vulvar melanoma based upon analysis of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. Vulvar melanoma was rare during the study years 2000-2016, with an overall incidence rate of 0.1 cases per 100,000 women. That worked out to 746 analyzable cases. Of note, the incidence rate ratio was 680% higher in older women (age 60 and older).
One reason for the markedly worse 5-year survival in older women was that the predominant histologic subtype of vulvar melanoma in that population was nodular melanoma, accounting for 48% of the cases where a histologic subtype was specified. In contrast, the less-aggressive superficial spreading melanoma subtype prevailed in patients aged under 60 years, accounting for 63% of cases.
About 93% of vulvar melanomas occurred in whites; 63% were local and 8.7% were metastatic.
Ms. Erickson noted that the vulva is the most common site for gynecologic tract melanomas, accounting for 70% of them. And while the female genitalia make up only 1%-2% of body surface area, that’s the anatomic site of up to 7% of all melanomas in women.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.
Maia K. Erickson reported in a poster at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
These are often aggressive malignancies. The 5-year survival following diagnosis of vulvar melanoma in women aged 60 years or older was 39.7%, compared with 61.9% in younger women, according to Ms. Erickson, a visiting research fellow in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
She presented a population-based study of epidemiologic trends in vulvar melanoma based upon analysis of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. Vulvar melanoma was rare during the study years 2000-2016, with an overall incidence rate of 0.1 cases per 100,000 women. That worked out to 746 analyzable cases. Of note, the incidence rate ratio was 680% higher in older women (age 60 and older).
One reason for the markedly worse 5-year survival in older women was that the predominant histologic subtype of vulvar melanoma in that population was nodular melanoma, accounting for 48% of the cases where a histologic subtype was specified. In contrast, the less-aggressive superficial spreading melanoma subtype prevailed in patients aged under 60 years, accounting for 63% of cases.
About 93% of vulvar melanomas occurred in whites; 63% were local and 8.7% were metastatic.
Ms. Erickson noted that the vulva is the most common site for gynecologic tract melanomas, accounting for 70% of them. And while the female genitalia make up only 1%-2% of body surface area, that’s the anatomic site of up to 7% of all melanomas in women.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.
Maia K. Erickson reported in a poster at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
These are often aggressive malignancies. The 5-year survival following diagnosis of vulvar melanoma in women aged 60 years or older was 39.7%, compared with 61.9% in younger women, according to Ms. Erickson, a visiting research fellow in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
She presented a population-based study of epidemiologic trends in vulvar melanoma based upon analysis of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. Vulvar melanoma was rare during the study years 2000-2016, with an overall incidence rate of 0.1 cases per 100,000 women. That worked out to 746 analyzable cases. Of note, the incidence rate ratio was 680% higher in older women (age 60 and older).
One reason for the markedly worse 5-year survival in older women was that the predominant histologic subtype of vulvar melanoma in that population was nodular melanoma, accounting for 48% of the cases where a histologic subtype was specified. In contrast, the less-aggressive superficial spreading melanoma subtype prevailed in patients aged under 60 years, accounting for 63% of cases.
About 93% of vulvar melanomas occurred in whites; 63% were local and 8.7% were metastatic.
Ms. Erickson noted that the vulva is the most common site for gynecologic tract melanomas, accounting for 70% of them. And while the female genitalia make up only 1%-2% of body surface area, that’s the anatomic site of up to 7% of all melanomas in women.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.
FROM AAD 2020
Tralokinumab found effective in phase 3 atopic dermatitis studies
presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Tralokinumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody which binds specifically to interleukin-13 and thereby prevents downstream IL-13 signaling. In contrast, dupilumab (Dupixent), at present the only approved biologic agent for AD, blocks both the IL-13 and IL-4 pathways.
Two of the pivotal phase 3 trials presented at AAD 2020 – ECZTRA 1 and ECZTRA 2 – were identically designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 52-week, multinational monotherapy studies including a collective 1,596 adults with moderate to severe AD. In contrast, ECZTRA 3 was a 380-patient, double-blind, randomized, 32-week study of tralokinumab in combination with a topical corticosteroid versus placebo injections plus a topical corticosteroid.
“I would say the take-home point of these trials is they are proof of principle that blocking just IL-13 can be an effective approach. The studies help us understand that IL-13 is an important driver cytokine for the disease,” Eric Simpson, MD, lead clinical investigator for ECZTRA 2, said in an interview.
In all three phase 3 trials, the primary endpoint was achievement of a clinical response as defined by an Investigator Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear skin (IGA 0/1) plus at least a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI-75) at week 16. In ECZTRA 1 and 2, this was accomplished in 16% and 22% of patients on 300 mg of tralokinumab administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, compared with 7% and 11% of placebo-treated controls.
Patients with a clinical response at week 16 were then rerandomized to tralokinumab either every other week or every 4 weeks or to placebo for an additional 36 weeks. At 52 weeks, 51% and 59% of patients in ECZTRA 1 and 2, respectively, who had a clinical response at week 16 maintained an IGA 0/1 response while on tralokinumab every 2 weeks, as did 39% and 45% of those switched to treatment every 4 weeks. Similarly, 60% and 56% of clinical responders at week 16 maintained an EASI-75 response at week 52 with tralokinumab every 2 weeks, as did 49% and 51% of those rerandomized to treatment every 4 weeks.
The safety profile of tralokinumab in the two monotherapy trials was comparable with placebo.
In the ECZTRA studies, tralokinumab achieved significant improvement at week 16 in secondary endpoints including itch, health-related quality of life, and severity and extent of skin lesions.
How does tralokinumab, with its narrower focus targeting a single cytokine, stack up against dupilumab, the dual IL-13/IL-4 inhibitor that’s transformed the treatment of patients with moderate or severe AD?
Dr. Simpson, who was also principal investigator in a pivotal phase 3 trial for dupilumab, emphasized that no firm conclusions can be drawn because there have been no head-to-head comparative trials and the tralokinumab and dupilumab trials had different patient populations, geographic locations, and washout periods. With those caveats, however, he commented that, “just on the surface, numerically, for the monotherapy studies, dupilumab hit some higher targets than tralokinumab in terms of the percentage of patients clear or almost clear.”
In terms of safety, it appears that the risk of conjunctivitis may be lower with tralokinumab than dupilumab, with rates of 7% and 3% through 52 weeks in ECZTRA 1 and 2, respectively, versus 2% with placebo, although again this is “a caveated conclusion,” said Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.
Tralokinumab combination therapy in ECZTRA 3
At 16 weeks, 39% of patients treated with tralokinumab plus topical corticosteroids had an IGA of 0/1 and 56% had an EASI-75 response, compared with 26% and 36% of patients on topical corticosteroids plus biweekly placebo injections. More than 90% of patients with a good clinical response at week 16 maintained that response at week 32 while on tralokinumab biweekly plus topical steroids. Among good responders at week 16 who were rerandomized to 300 mg of tralokinumab every 4 weeks plus topical steroids, 78% still had an IGA of 0/1 at week 32, and 91% had an EASI-75, reported Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington.
A randomized, placebo-controlled combination therapy study such as this provides information that’s especially useful in clinical practice, Dr. Simpson observed.
“When I’m talking to patients about any biologics or oral therapies, I usually quote the figures from the combination therapy studies because the vast majority of our patients are using topical therapy in addition to systemics,” he said in the interview.
Asked how he envisions tralokinumab’s role in clinical practice, should the drug receive regulatory approval, Dr. Simpson said that he welcomes the prospect of having an additional treatment option to discuss with patients. Tralokinumab could be considered either as first-line therapy in patients who are failing on topical therapy or for patients who don’t respond adequately to or experience limiting side effects on dupilumab.
“There isn’t any established, published treatment algorithm in atopic dermatitis, probably for good reason, since we don’t have data to tell us you should start here and then move there. Those are long, difficult studies to perform,” Dr. Simpson said.
LEO Pharma has announced that it has applied for marketing approval for tralokinumab to the European Medicines Agency and plans to do so with the Food and Drug Administration by year’s end.
Dr. Simpson reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to LEO Pharma, sponsor of the ECZTRA trials. He has similar financial relationships with close to a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.
presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Tralokinumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody which binds specifically to interleukin-13 and thereby prevents downstream IL-13 signaling. In contrast, dupilumab (Dupixent), at present the only approved biologic agent for AD, blocks both the IL-13 and IL-4 pathways.
Two of the pivotal phase 3 trials presented at AAD 2020 – ECZTRA 1 and ECZTRA 2 – were identically designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 52-week, multinational monotherapy studies including a collective 1,596 adults with moderate to severe AD. In contrast, ECZTRA 3 was a 380-patient, double-blind, randomized, 32-week study of tralokinumab in combination with a topical corticosteroid versus placebo injections plus a topical corticosteroid.
“I would say the take-home point of these trials is they are proof of principle that blocking just IL-13 can be an effective approach. The studies help us understand that IL-13 is an important driver cytokine for the disease,” Eric Simpson, MD, lead clinical investigator for ECZTRA 2, said in an interview.
In all three phase 3 trials, the primary endpoint was achievement of a clinical response as defined by an Investigator Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear skin (IGA 0/1) plus at least a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI-75) at week 16. In ECZTRA 1 and 2, this was accomplished in 16% and 22% of patients on 300 mg of tralokinumab administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, compared with 7% and 11% of placebo-treated controls.
Patients with a clinical response at week 16 were then rerandomized to tralokinumab either every other week or every 4 weeks or to placebo for an additional 36 weeks. At 52 weeks, 51% and 59% of patients in ECZTRA 1 and 2, respectively, who had a clinical response at week 16 maintained an IGA 0/1 response while on tralokinumab every 2 weeks, as did 39% and 45% of those switched to treatment every 4 weeks. Similarly, 60% and 56% of clinical responders at week 16 maintained an EASI-75 response at week 52 with tralokinumab every 2 weeks, as did 49% and 51% of those rerandomized to treatment every 4 weeks.
The safety profile of tralokinumab in the two monotherapy trials was comparable with placebo.
In the ECZTRA studies, tralokinumab achieved significant improvement at week 16 in secondary endpoints including itch, health-related quality of life, and severity and extent of skin lesions.
How does tralokinumab, with its narrower focus targeting a single cytokine, stack up against dupilumab, the dual IL-13/IL-4 inhibitor that’s transformed the treatment of patients with moderate or severe AD?
Dr. Simpson, who was also principal investigator in a pivotal phase 3 trial for dupilumab, emphasized that no firm conclusions can be drawn because there have been no head-to-head comparative trials and the tralokinumab and dupilumab trials had different patient populations, geographic locations, and washout periods. With those caveats, however, he commented that, “just on the surface, numerically, for the monotherapy studies, dupilumab hit some higher targets than tralokinumab in terms of the percentage of patients clear or almost clear.”
In terms of safety, it appears that the risk of conjunctivitis may be lower with tralokinumab than dupilumab, with rates of 7% and 3% through 52 weeks in ECZTRA 1 and 2, respectively, versus 2% with placebo, although again this is “a caveated conclusion,” said Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.
Tralokinumab combination therapy in ECZTRA 3
At 16 weeks, 39% of patients treated with tralokinumab plus topical corticosteroids had an IGA of 0/1 and 56% had an EASI-75 response, compared with 26% and 36% of patients on topical corticosteroids plus biweekly placebo injections. More than 90% of patients with a good clinical response at week 16 maintained that response at week 32 while on tralokinumab biweekly plus topical steroids. Among good responders at week 16 who were rerandomized to 300 mg of tralokinumab every 4 weeks plus topical steroids, 78% still had an IGA of 0/1 at week 32, and 91% had an EASI-75, reported Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington.
A randomized, placebo-controlled combination therapy study such as this provides information that’s especially useful in clinical practice, Dr. Simpson observed.
“When I’m talking to patients about any biologics or oral therapies, I usually quote the figures from the combination therapy studies because the vast majority of our patients are using topical therapy in addition to systemics,” he said in the interview.
Asked how he envisions tralokinumab’s role in clinical practice, should the drug receive regulatory approval, Dr. Simpson said that he welcomes the prospect of having an additional treatment option to discuss with patients. Tralokinumab could be considered either as first-line therapy in patients who are failing on topical therapy or for patients who don’t respond adequately to or experience limiting side effects on dupilumab.
“There isn’t any established, published treatment algorithm in atopic dermatitis, probably for good reason, since we don’t have data to tell us you should start here and then move there. Those are long, difficult studies to perform,” Dr. Simpson said.
LEO Pharma has announced that it has applied for marketing approval for tralokinumab to the European Medicines Agency and plans to do so with the Food and Drug Administration by year’s end.
Dr. Simpson reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to LEO Pharma, sponsor of the ECZTRA trials. He has similar financial relationships with close to a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.
presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Tralokinumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody which binds specifically to interleukin-13 and thereby prevents downstream IL-13 signaling. In contrast, dupilumab (Dupixent), at present the only approved biologic agent for AD, blocks both the IL-13 and IL-4 pathways.
Two of the pivotal phase 3 trials presented at AAD 2020 – ECZTRA 1 and ECZTRA 2 – were identically designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 52-week, multinational monotherapy studies including a collective 1,596 adults with moderate to severe AD. In contrast, ECZTRA 3 was a 380-patient, double-blind, randomized, 32-week study of tralokinumab in combination with a topical corticosteroid versus placebo injections plus a topical corticosteroid.
“I would say the take-home point of these trials is they are proof of principle that blocking just IL-13 can be an effective approach. The studies help us understand that IL-13 is an important driver cytokine for the disease,” Eric Simpson, MD, lead clinical investigator for ECZTRA 2, said in an interview.
In all three phase 3 trials, the primary endpoint was achievement of a clinical response as defined by an Investigator Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear skin (IGA 0/1) plus at least a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI-75) at week 16. In ECZTRA 1 and 2, this was accomplished in 16% and 22% of patients on 300 mg of tralokinumab administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, compared with 7% and 11% of placebo-treated controls.
Patients with a clinical response at week 16 were then rerandomized to tralokinumab either every other week or every 4 weeks or to placebo for an additional 36 weeks. At 52 weeks, 51% and 59% of patients in ECZTRA 1 and 2, respectively, who had a clinical response at week 16 maintained an IGA 0/1 response while on tralokinumab every 2 weeks, as did 39% and 45% of those switched to treatment every 4 weeks. Similarly, 60% and 56% of clinical responders at week 16 maintained an EASI-75 response at week 52 with tralokinumab every 2 weeks, as did 49% and 51% of those rerandomized to treatment every 4 weeks.
The safety profile of tralokinumab in the two monotherapy trials was comparable with placebo.
In the ECZTRA studies, tralokinumab achieved significant improvement at week 16 in secondary endpoints including itch, health-related quality of life, and severity and extent of skin lesions.
How does tralokinumab, with its narrower focus targeting a single cytokine, stack up against dupilumab, the dual IL-13/IL-4 inhibitor that’s transformed the treatment of patients with moderate or severe AD?
Dr. Simpson, who was also principal investigator in a pivotal phase 3 trial for dupilumab, emphasized that no firm conclusions can be drawn because there have been no head-to-head comparative trials and the tralokinumab and dupilumab trials had different patient populations, geographic locations, and washout periods. With those caveats, however, he commented that, “just on the surface, numerically, for the monotherapy studies, dupilumab hit some higher targets than tralokinumab in terms of the percentage of patients clear or almost clear.”
In terms of safety, it appears that the risk of conjunctivitis may be lower with tralokinumab than dupilumab, with rates of 7% and 3% through 52 weeks in ECZTRA 1 and 2, respectively, versus 2% with placebo, although again this is “a caveated conclusion,” said Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.
Tralokinumab combination therapy in ECZTRA 3
At 16 weeks, 39% of patients treated with tralokinumab plus topical corticosteroids had an IGA of 0/1 and 56% had an EASI-75 response, compared with 26% and 36% of patients on topical corticosteroids plus biweekly placebo injections. More than 90% of patients with a good clinical response at week 16 maintained that response at week 32 while on tralokinumab biweekly plus topical steroids. Among good responders at week 16 who were rerandomized to 300 mg of tralokinumab every 4 weeks plus topical steroids, 78% still had an IGA of 0/1 at week 32, and 91% had an EASI-75, reported Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington.
A randomized, placebo-controlled combination therapy study such as this provides information that’s especially useful in clinical practice, Dr. Simpson observed.
“When I’m talking to patients about any biologics or oral therapies, I usually quote the figures from the combination therapy studies because the vast majority of our patients are using topical therapy in addition to systemics,” he said in the interview.
Asked how he envisions tralokinumab’s role in clinical practice, should the drug receive regulatory approval, Dr. Simpson said that he welcomes the prospect of having an additional treatment option to discuss with patients. Tralokinumab could be considered either as first-line therapy in patients who are failing on topical therapy or for patients who don’t respond adequately to or experience limiting side effects on dupilumab.
“There isn’t any established, published treatment algorithm in atopic dermatitis, probably for good reason, since we don’t have data to tell us you should start here and then move there. Those are long, difficult studies to perform,” Dr. Simpson said.
LEO Pharma has announced that it has applied for marketing approval for tralokinumab to the European Medicines Agency and plans to do so with the Food and Drug Administration by year’s end.
Dr. Simpson reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to LEO Pharma, sponsor of the ECZTRA trials. He has similar financial relationships with close to a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.
FROM AAD 2020
Psoriasis topical combination maintenance strategy hits mark in phase 3
A proactive long-term strategy of maintenance therapy involving twice-weekly application of combined calcipotriene and betamethasone dipropionate spray foam was safe and effective in patients with moderate plaque psoriasis in the international, randomized PSO-LONG clinical trial, Mark Lebwohl, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The median time to first relapse – the primary study endpoint – was 56 days in patients randomized to the twice-weekly fixed-dose combination calcipotriene 0.005% and betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% foam (Enstilar), a significantly better outcome than the median 30 days for controls assigned to foam vehicle. Moreover, it took 169 days for 75% of patients on the combination foam to experience their first relapse: three times longer than in controls, added Dr. Lebwohl, principal investigator for PSO-LONG and professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
The positive results “could have been predicted,” he said in an interview. “But what really distinguishes this study from others is that no one before has ever done a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial with a topical steroid that lasted a year. This is a first, and we’ve shown that if you limit treatment to twice a week you get dramatic improvements in efficacy at no cost in terms of safety.”
The combination spray foam is approved by the Food and Drug Administration as once-daily therapy in psoriasis patients aged 12 years and older, but only for up to 4 weeks because of safety concerns regarding longer use of the potent topical steroid. However, psoriasis is a chronic disease. The PSO-LONG trial was designed to study the impact of a for-now still-investigational long-term maintenance treatment strategy.
The open-label run-in period of the study included 640 adults with plaque psoriasis, 82% of whom had moderate disease at baseline as rated by Physician Global Assessment (PGA). Participants applied the combination foam once daily for 4 weeks. At that point, 80% of them had achieved a PGA rating of clear or almost clear with at least a two-grade improvement from baseline; these 521 responders were then randomized to 52 weeks of double-blind treatment with the combination foam or vehicle foam. Anyone who relapsed went on 4 weeks of once-daily active treatment with the combination foam, then returned to their original treatment arm.
The risk of a first relapse during the course of 1 year was 43% lower with the combination foam than in controls. The relapse rate over the year was 46% lower. Patients in the active treatment arm spent an average of 256.5 days in remission during the year, compared with 222 days in controls.
“That’s more than 1 month more time in remission during the year with active treatment. And remember, if patients flared, they went on daily therapy for a month,” the dermatologist noted.
The rate of treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups at 2.8 events per 100 patient-years in the combination foam arm and 4.5 per 100 patient-years in controls. The twice-weekly active treatment group had no increase in stretch marks, telangiectasias, skin atrophy, serum calcium, or abnormalities of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.
Although the combination foam is approved for daily use for a maximum of 1 month in adolescents and adults, PSO-LONG was restricted to adults.
“I think that what will happen in the marketplace is that the data obtained from this adult study will likely be applied to younger patients,” Dr. Lebwohl predicted.
He reported receiving an institutional research grant to conduct the trial from LEO Pharma, the study sponsor, as well as serving as a consultant to and researcher for the company.
A proactive long-term strategy of maintenance therapy involving twice-weekly application of combined calcipotriene and betamethasone dipropionate spray foam was safe and effective in patients with moderate plaque psoriasis in the international, randomized PSO-LONG clinical trial, Mark Lebwohl, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The median time to first relapse – the primary study endpoint – was 56 days in patients randomized to the twice-weekly fixed-dose combination calcipotriene 0.005% and betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% foam (Enstilar), a significantly better outcome than the median 30 days for controls assigned to foam vehicle. Moreover, it took 169 days for 75% of patients on the combination foam to experience their first relapse: three times longer than in controls, added Dr. Lebwohl, principal investigator for PSO-LONG and professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
The positive results “could have been predicted,” he said in an interview. “But what really distinguishes this study from others is that no one before has ever done a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial with a topical steroid that lasted a year. This is a first, and we’ve shown that if you limit treatment to twice a week you get dramatic improvements in efficacy at no cost in terms of safety.”
The combination spray foam is approved by the Food and Drug Administration as once-daily therapy in psoriasis patients aged 12 years and older, but only for up to 4 weeks because of safety concerns regarding longer use of the potent topical steroid. However, psoriasis is a chronic disease. The PSO-LONG trial was designed to study the impact of a for-now still-investigational long-term maintenance treatment strategy.
The open-label run-in period of the study included 640 adults with plaque psoriasis, 82% of whom had moderate disease at baseline as rated by Physician Global Assessment (PGA). Participants applied the combination foam once daily for 4 weeks. At that point, 80% of them had achieved a PGA rating of clear or almost clear with at least a two-grade improvement from baseline; these 521 responders were then randomized to 52 weeks of double-blind treatment with the combination foam or vehicle foam. Anyone who relapsed went on 4 weeks of once-daily active treatment with the combination foam, then returned to their original treatment arm.
The risk of a first relapse during the course of 1 year was 43% lower with the combination foam than in controls. The relapse rate over the year was 46% lower. Patients in the active treatment arm spent an average of 256.5 days in remission during the year, compared with 222 days in controls.
“That’s more than 1 month more time in remission during the year with active treatment. And remember, if patients flared, they went on daily therapy for a month,” the dermatologist noted.
The rate of treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups at 2.8 events per 100 patient-years in the combination foam arm and 4.5 per 100 patient-years in controls. The twice-weekly active treatment group had no increase in stretch marks, telangiectasias, skin atrophy, serum calcium, or abnormalities of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.
Although the combination foam is approved for daily use for a maximum of 1 month in adolescents and adults, PSO-LONG was restricted to adults.
“I think that what will happen in the marketplace is that the data obtained from this adult study will likely be applied to younger patients,” Dr. Lebwohl predicted.
He reported receiving an institutional research grant to conduct the trial from LEO Pharma, the study sponsor, as well as serving as a consultant to and researcher for the company.
A proactive long-term strategy of maintenance therapy involving twice-weekly application of combined calcipotriene and betamethasone dipropionate spray foam was safe and effective in patients with moderate plaque psoriasis in the international, randomized PSO-LONG clinical trial, Mark Lebwohl, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The median time to first relapse – the primary study endpoint – was 56 days in patients randomized to the twice-weekly fixed-dose combination calcipotriene 0.005% and betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% foam (Enstilar), a significantly better outcome than the median 30 days for controls assigned to foam vehicle. Moreover, it took 169 days for 75% of patients on the combination foam to experience their first relapse: three times longer than in controls, added Dr. Lebwohl, principal investigator for PSO-LONG and professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
The positive results “could have been predicted,” he said in an interview. “But what really distinguishes this study from others is that no one before has ever done a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial with a topical steroid that lasted a year. This is a first, and we’ve shown that if you limit treatment to twice a week you get dramatic improvements in efficacy at no cost in terms of safety.”
The combination spray foam is approved by the Food and Drug Administration as once-daily therapy in psoriasis patients aged 12 years and older, but only for up to 4 weeks because of safety concerns regarding longer use of the potent topical steroid. However, psoriasis is a chronic disease. The PSO-LONG trial was designed to study the impact of a for-now still-investigational long-term maintenance treatment strategy.
The open-label run-in period of the study included 640 adults with plaque psoriasis, 82% of whom had moderate disease at baseline as rated by Physician Global Assessment (PGA). Participants applied the combination foam once daily for 4 weeks. At that point, 80% of them had achieved a PGA rating of clear or almost clear with at least a two-grade improvement from baseline; these 521 responders were then randomized to 52 weeks of double-blind treatment with the combination foam or vehicle foam. Anyone who relapsed went on 4 weeks of once-daily active treatment with the combination foam, then returned to their original treatment arm.
The risk of a first relapse during the course of 1 year was 43% lower with the combination foam than in controls. The relapse rate over the year was 46% lower. Patients in the active treatment arm spent an average of 256.5 days in remission during the year, compared with 222 days in controls.
“That’s more than 1 month more time in remission during the year with active treatment. And remember, if patients flared, they went on daily therapy for a month,” the dermatologist noted.
The rate of treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups at 2.8 events per 100 patient-years in the combination foam arm and 4.5 per 100 patient-years in controls. The twice-weekly active treatment group had no increase in stretch marks, telangiectasias, skin atrophy, serum calcium, or abnormalities of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.
Although the combination foam is approved for daily use for a maximum of 1 month in adolescents and adults, PSO-LONG was restricted to adults.
“I think that what will happen in the marketplace is that the data obtained from this adult study will likely be applied to younger patients,” Dr. Lebwohl predicted.
He reported receiving an institutional research grant to conduct the trial from LEO Pharma, the study sponsor, as well as serving as a consultant to and researcher for the company.
FROM AAD 2020
Be vigilant for scleroderma renal crisis
Scleroderma renal crisis is often the most challenging type of scleroderma emergency to identify promptly, according to Francesco Boin, MD, professor of medicine and director of the scleroderma center at the University of California, San Francisco.
“Fortunately, it’s not a frequent event. But it’s severe enough that all rheumatologists should be aware of it,” he said at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.
Atypical presentations occur in 30%
Scleroderma renal crisis (SRC) occurs in 5%-10% of scleroderma patients. A vexing feature of this emergency is that not uncommonly it actually precedes the diagnosis of scleroderma. Indeed, 20% of patients with SRC present with sine scleroderma – that is, they have no skin disease and their renal crisis is their first symptom of scleroderma. In contrast, critical digital ischemia – the most common scleroderma emergency – is invariably preceded by worsening episodes of Raynaud’s, and impending intestinal pseudo-obstruction – also among the most common scleroderma emergencies – is heralded by an established history of dysmotility, loss of appetite, abdominal bloating, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and bowel distension.
While sine SRC often poses a formidable diagnostic challenge, SRC occurs most often in patients with early, rapidly progressing diffuse scleroderma skin disease. Indeed, the median duration of scleroderma when SRC strikes is just 8 months. The use of glucocorticoids at 15 mg or more per day, or at lower doses for a lengthy period, is an independent risk factor for SRC. Detection of anti–RNA polymerase III antibodies warrants increased vigilance, since 60% of patients with SRC are anti–RNA polymerase III antibody positive. Other autoantibodies are not a risk factor. Neither is preexisting hypertension nor a high baseline serum creatinine.
The classic textbook presentation of SRC is abrupt onset of blood pressures greater than 20 mm Hg above normal for that individual, along with sudden renal failure; a climbing creatinine; proteinuria; and expressions of malignant hypertension such as pulmonary edema, new-onset heart failure, encephalopathy, and/or development of a thrombotic microangiopathy.
Notably, however, 30% of individuals with SRC don’t fit this picture at all. They may present with abrupt-onset severe hypertension but no evidence of renal failure, at least early on. Or they may have sudden renal failure without a hypertensive crisis. Alternatively, they may have no signs of malignant hypertension, just an asymptomatic pericardial effusion or mild arrhythmias.
“Also, the thrombotic microangiopathy can be present without the other features of scleroderma renal crisis, so no renal failure or hypertensive emergency. Be aware of the possibility of atypical presentations, and always suspect this unfolding problem in the right individuals,” the rheumatologist urged.
Anyone with scleroderma who presents with new-onset hypertension needs to begin keeping a careful home blood pressure diary. If the blood pressure shoots up, or symptoms of malignant hypertension develop, or laboratory monitoring reveals evidence of thrombotic microangiopathy, the patient should immediately go to the ED because these events are often followed by accelerated progression to renal crisis.
Inpatient management of SRC is critical. “In the hospital we can monitor renal function in a more refined way, we can manage the malignant hypertension, and early on, hospitalization provides the opportunity to do a renal biopsy. I always consider doing this early. The pathologist often pushes back, but I think it’s relevant. It confirms the diagnosis. We’ve had patients where we were surprised: We thought it was scleroderma renal crisis, but instead they had interstitial nephritis or glomerulonephritis. Most important, biopsy has major prognostic implications: You can measure the extent of damage and therefore have a sense of whether the patient will be able to recover renal function,” Dr. Boin explained.
Prognosis and predictors
Outcome of SRC is often poor: the 1-year mortality is 20%-30%, with a 5-year mortality of 30%-50%. Normotensive SRC with renal crisis, which accounts for about 10% of all cases of SRC, is particularly serious in its implication, with a 1-year mortality of 60%. Half of patients with SRC require hemodialysis, and only one-quarter of them recover spontaneous renal function.
Predictors of worse outcome include older age at onset of SRC, male gender, a serum creatinine level above 3 mg/dL at presentation, incomplete blood pressure control within the first 3 days of the crisis, and normotensive SRC. Use of an ACE inhibitor prior to SRC is also an independent predictor of poor outcome, possibly because by keeping the blood pressure under control the medication blunts recognition of the unfolding renal crisis.
“This is why experts don’t recommend prophylactic ACE inhibitors in patients who are at risk for SRC,” according to Dr. Boin.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
Scleroderma renal crisis is often the most challenging type of scleroderma emergency to identify promptly, according to Francesco Boin, MD, professor of medicine and director of the scleroderma center at the University of California, San Francisco.
“Fortunately, it’s not a frequent event. But it’s severe enough that all rheumatologists should be aware of it,” he said at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.
Atypical presentations occur in 30%
Scleroderma renal crisis (SRC) occurs in 5%-10% of scleroderma patients. A vexing feature of this emergency is that not uncommonly it actually precedes the diagnosis of scleroderma. Indeed, 20% of patients with SRC present with sine scleroderma – that is, they have no skin disease and their renal crisis is their first symptom of scleroderma. In contrast, critical digital ischemia – the most common scleroderma emergency – is invariably preceded by worsening episodes of Raynaud’s, and impending intestinal pseudo-obstruction – also among the most common scleroderma emergencies – is heralded by an established history of dysmotility, loss of appetite, abdominal bloating, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and bowel distension.
While sine SRC often poses a formidable diagnostic challenge, SRC occurs most often in patients with early, rapidly progressing diffuse scleroderma skin disease. Indeed, the median duration of scleroderma when SRC strikes is just 8 months. The use of glucocorticoids at 15 mg or more per day, or at lower doses for a lengthy period, is an independent risk factor for SRC. Detection of anti–RNA polymerase III antibodies warrants increased vigilance, since 60% of patients with SRC are anti–RNA polymerase III antibody positive. Other autoantibodies are not a risk factor. Neither is preexisting hypertension nor a high baseline serum creatinine.
The classic textbook presentation of SRC is abrupt onset of blood pressures greater than 20 mm Hg above normal for that individual, along with sudden renal failure; a climbing creatinine; proteinuria; and expressions of malignant hypertension such as pulmonary edema, new-onset heart failure, encephalopathy, and/or development of a thrombotic microangiopathy.
Notably, however, 30% of individuals with SRC don’t fit this picture at all. They may present with abrupt-onset severe hypertension but no evidence of renal failure, at least early on. Or they may have sudden renal failure without a hypertensive crisis. Alternatively, they may have no signs of malignant hypertension, just an asymptomatic pericardial effusion or mild arrhythmias.
“Also, the thrombotic microangiopathy can be present without the other features of scleroderma renal crisis, so no renal failure or hypertensive emergency. Be aware of the possibility of atypical presentations, and always suspect this unfolding problem in the right individuals,” the rheumatologist urged.
Anyone with scleroderma who presents with new-onset hypertension needs to begin keeping a careful home blood pressure diary. If the blood pressure shoots up, or symptoms of malignant hypertension develop, or laboratory monitoring reveals evidence of thrombotic microangiopathy, the patient should immediately go to the ED because these events are often followed by accelerated progression to renal crisis.
Inpatient management of SRC is critical. “In the hospital we can monitor renal function in a more refined way, we can manage the malignant hypertension, and early on, hospitalization provides the opportunity to do a renal biopsy. I always consider doing this early. The pathologist often pushes back, but I think it’s relevant. It confirms the diagnosis. We’ve had patients where we were surprised: We thought it was scleroderma renal crisis, but instead they had interstitial nephritis or glomerulonephritis. Most important, biopsy has major prognostic implications: You can measure the extent of damage and therefore have a sense of whether the patient will be able to recover renal function,” Dr. Boin explained.
Prognosis and predictors
Outcome of SRC is often poor: the 1-year mortality is 20%-30%, with a 5-year mortality of 30%-50%. Normotensive SRC with renal crisis, which accounts for about 10% of all cases of SRC, is particularly serious in its implication, with a 1-year mortality of 60%. Half of patients with SRC require hemodialysis, and only one-quarter of them recover spontaneous renal function.
Predictors of worse outcome include older age at onset of SRC, male gender, a serum creatinine level above 3 mg/dL at presentation, incomplete blood pressure control within the first 3 days of the crisis, and normotensive SRC. Use of an ACE inhibitor prior to SRC is also an independent predictor of poor outcome, possibly because by keeping the blood pressure under control the medication blunts recognition of the unfolding renal crisis.
“This is why experts don’t recommend prophylactic ACE inhibitors in patients who are at risk for SRC,” according to Dr. Boin.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
Scleroderma renal crisis is often the most challenging type of scleroderma emergency to identify promptly, according to Francesco Boin, MD, professor of medicine and director of the scleroderma center at the University of California, San Francisco.
“Fortunately, it’s not a frequent event. But it’s severe enough that all rheumatologists should be aware of it,” he said at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.
Atypical presentations occur in 30%
Scleroderma renal crisis (SRC) occurs in 5%-10% of scleroderma patients. A vexing feature of this emergency is that not uncommonly it actually precedes the diagnosis of scleroderma. Indeed, 20% of patients with SRC present with sine scleroderma – that is, they have no skin disease and their renal crisis is their first symptom of scleroderma. In contrast, critical digital ischemia – the most common scleroderma emergency – is invariably preceded by worsening episodes of Raynaud’s, and impending intestinal pseudo-obstruction – also among the most common scleroderma emergencies – is heralded by an established history of dysmotility, loss of appetite, abdominal bloating, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and bowel distension.
While sine SRC often poses a formidable diagnostic challenge, SRC occurs most often in patients with early, rapidly progressing diffuse scleroderma skin disease. Indeed, the median duration of scleroderma when SRC strikes is just 8 months. The use of glucocorticoids at 15 mg or more per day, or at lower doses for a lengthy period, is an independent risk factor for SRC. Detection of anti–RNA polymerase III antibodies warrants increased vigilance, since 60% of patients with SRC are anti–RNA polymerase III antibody positive. Other autoantibodies are not a risk factor. Neither is preexisting hypertension nor a high baseline serum creatinine.
The classic textbook presentation of SRC is abrupt onset of blood pressures greater than 20 mm Hg above normal for that individual, along with sudden renal failure; a climbing creatinine; proteinuria; and expressions of malignant hypertension such as pulmonary edema, new-onset heart failure, encephalopathy, and/or development of a thrombotic microangiopathy.
Notably, however, 30% of individuals with SRC don’t fit this picture at all. They may present with abrupt-onset severe hypertension but no evidence of renal failure, at least early on. Or they may have sudden renal failure without a hypertensive crisis. Alternatively, they may have no signs of malignant hypertension, just an asymptomatic pericardial effusion or mild arrhythmias.
“Also, the thrombotic microangiopathy can be present without the other features of scleroderma renal crisis, so no renal failure or hypertensive emergency. Be aware of the possibility of atypical presentations, and always suspect this unfolding problem in the right individuals,” the rheumatologist urged.
Anyone with scleroderma who presents with new-onset hypertension needs to begin keeping a careful home blood pressure diary. If the blood pressure shoots up, or symptoms of malignant hypertension develop, or laboratory monitoring reveals evidence of thrombotic microangiopathy, the patient should immediately go to the ED because these events are often followed by accelerated progression to renal crisis.
Inpatient management of SRC is critical. “In the hospital we can monitor renal function in a more refined way, we can manage the malignant hypertension, and early on, hospitalization provides the opportunity to do a renal biopsy. I always consider doing this early. The pathologist often pushes back, but I think it’s relevant. It confirms the diagnosis. We’ve had patients where we were surprised: We thought it was scleroderma renal crisis, but instead they had interstitial nephritis or glomerulonephritis. Most important, biopsy has major prognostic implications: You can measure the extent of damage and therefore have a sense of whether the patient will be able to recover renal function,” Dr. Boin explained.
Prognosis and predictors
Outcome of SRC is often poor: the 1-year mortality is 20%-30%, with a 5-year mortality of 30%-50%. Normotensive SRC with renal crisis, which accounts for about 10% of all cases of SRC, is particularly serious in its implication, with a 1-year mortality of 60%. Half of patients with SRC require hemodialysis, and only one-quarter of them recover spontaneous renal function.
Predictors of worse outcome include older age at onset of SRC, male gender, a serum creatinine level above 3 mg/dL at presentation, incomplete blood pressure control within the first 3 days of the crisis, and normotensive SRC. Use of an ACE inhibitor prior to SRC is also an independent predictor of poor outcome, possibly because by keeping the blood pressure under control the medication blunts recognition of the unfolding renal crisis.
“This is why experts don’t recommend prophylactic ACE inhibitors in patients who are at risk for SRC,” according to Dr. Boin.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
FROM SOTA 2020
Secondary infections common in COVID-19, implications unclear
but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.
“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.
“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.
One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.
“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”
That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.
Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.
“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.
Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.
“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.
“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.
“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.
One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.
“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”
That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.
Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.
“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.
Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.
“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.
“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.
“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.
One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.
“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”
That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.
Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.
“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.
Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.
“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
Mortality differs by LVEF between women and men
, Simon Stewart, PhD, reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.
This analysis from the ongoing National Echocardiography Database of Australia (NEDA) included 499,153 men and women who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice for a variety of indications, with more than 3 million person-years of follow-up.
This study broke new ground. There is surprisingly little information from routine clinical practice to describe the spectrum and prognostic importance of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Indeed, most data have come from clinical trials in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in which women are traditionally underrepresented. By comparison, the NEDA analysis included 237,046 women in routine care, noted Dr. Stewart, a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Senior Principal Research Fellow at Torrens University in Adelaide.
Among the novel findings in the new NEDA analysis: an LVEF below 50% was more than twice as common in men than women, occurring in 17.6% and 8.3%, respectively. Also, women had a higher average LVEF: 64.2%, compared with 59.5% in men. The overall 1- and 5-year all-cause mortality rates in the half-million participants were 5.8% and 18.4%.
Cardiovascular-related mortality occurred in 7.1% of women in median of 5.6 years of follow-up and in 8.1% of men with 5.5 years of follow-up.
All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates followed a J-shaped curve, with the clear nadir occurring at an LVEF of 65%-69.9% in both women and men. But for LVEF values outside the nadir, a striking sex-based difference was present. Cardiovascular mortality, when adjusted for body mass index, age, heart rate, valvular heart disease, E-wave velocity, and other potential confounders, wasn’t significantly different between men whose LVEF was 65%-69.9% and those with an LVEF of 45%-64.9%. It started climbing in earnest only at an LVEF below 45%. In contrast, women with an LVEF of 45%-54.9% had a statistically significant twofold increased cardiovascular mortality rate compared to those in the nadir. Moreover, women with an LVEF of 55%-59.9% showed a trend in the same unwanted direction.
High LVEF, higher mortality in women
Dr. Stewart drew attention to an inflection point in the mortality curve for women whereby mortality began climbing at LVEF values of 70% or more. Values in that high range were documented in 72,379 women and 51,317 men.
He noted that the NEDA finding of an increasing mortality risk at LVEFs of at least 70%, especially in women, is similar to a recent report from another big data study, this one involving more than 200,000 patients who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice in the Geisinger health system in Pennsylvania. The investigators found in this retrospective study that during a median of 4 years of follow-up after echocardiography, the adjusted risk for all-cause mortality followed a U-shaped curve. The nadir of risk occurred in patients with an LVEF of 60%-65%, with a 1.71-fold increased risk at an LVEF at 70% or more and a near-identical 1.73-fold increased risk at an LVEF of 35%-40%. In this study, however, which was less than half the size of the NEDA analysis, the U-shaped LVEF/mortality curve applied to both men and women. Similar findings were seen in a validation cohort of nearly 36,000 patients from New Zealand (Eur Heart J. 2020 Mar 21;41[12]:1249-57).
The investigators predicted that in addition to the existing categories of HFrEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and the more recently proposed heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF), their results “may herald the recognition of a new phenotype characterized by supranormal LVEF,” with a moniker of HFsnEF.
New treatment opportunity for women?
Discussant Lars Lund, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, said that it’s not possible to make any statements about what constitutes a “normal” LVEF in men or women based on the NEDA study, since all participants underwent medically indicated echocardiography. He added that what he found most interesting about the NEDA analysis was the observation that women with mid-range or mildly reduced LVEF had increased mortality, while men didn’t. That’s a finding that helps explain the suggestion of possible benefit for sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women in the PARAGON-HF trial of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20).
Dr. Lund expressed the hope that the NEDA investigators will do an analysis of the relationship between echocardiographic left atrial size and mortality. Dr. Stewart replied that, as a matter of fact,such a study is planned. The enormous and continuously growing NEDA database has already been used to provide new insights into aortic stenosis and pulmonary hypertension, he noted.
Session moderator Andrew Coats, MD, incoming president of the ESC Heart Failure Association, said that there are many different methods used for echocardiographic measurement of LVEF. He wondered about the validity of pooling them in a single analysis.
Dr. Stewart replied that NEDA software applies a hierarchical weighting of the various methods used to quantify LVEF. And the submitted data come from the top echocardiography laboratories throughout Australia.
“We’ve done some sensitivity analyses around the different methods of quantifying LVEF and we get the same patterns,” he said. “We’re comfortable with the validity of what we’ve done. The big data allows us to do that.”
Dr. Stewart reported receiving speakers fees and travel support from Novartis, a partial funder of NEDA.
SOURCE: Stewart S. ESC Heart Failure 2020.
, Simon Stewart, PhD, reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.
This analysis from the ongoing National Echocardiography Database of Australia (NEDA) included 499,153 men and women who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice for a variety of indications, with more than 3 million person-years of follow-up.
This study broke new ground. There is surprisingly little information from routine clinical practice to describe the spectrum and prognostic importance of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Indeed, most data have come from clinical trials in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in which women are traditionally underrepresented. By comparison, the NEDA analysis included 237,046 women in routine care, noted Dr. Stewart, a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Senior Principal Research Fellow at Torrens University in Adelaide.
Among the novel findings in the new NEDA analysis: an LVEF below 50% was more than twice as common in men than women, occurring in 17.6% and 8.3%, respectively. Also, women had a higher average LVEF: 64.2%, compared with 59.5% in men. The overall 1- and 5-year all-cause mortality rates in the half-million participants were 5.8% and 18.4%.
Cardiovascular-related mortality occurred in 7.1% of women in median of 5.6 years of follow-up and in 8.1% of men with 5.5 years of follow-up.
All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates followed a J-shaped curve, with the clear nadir occurring at an LVEF of 65%-69.9% in both women and men. But for LVEF values outside the nadir, a striking sex-based difference was present. Cardiovascular mortality, when adjusted for body mass index, age, heart rate, valvular heart disease, E-wave velocity, and other potential confounders, wasn’t significantly different between men whose LVEF was 65%-69.9% and those with an LVEF of 45%-64.9%. It started climbing in earnest only at an LVEF below 45%. In contrast, women with an LVEF of 45%-54.9% had a statistically significant twofold increased cardiovascular mortality rate compared to those in the nadir. Moreover, women with an LVEF of 55%-59.9% showed a trend in the same unwanted direction.
High LVEF, higher mortality in women
Dr. Stewart drew attention to an inflection point in the mortality curve for women whereby mortality began climbing at LVEF values of 70% or more. Values in that high range were documented in 72,379 women and 51,317 men.
He noted that the NEDA finding of an increasing mortality risk at LVEFs of at least 70%, especially in women, is similar to a recent report from another big data study, this one involving more than 200,000 patients who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice in the Geisinger health system in Pennsylvania. The investigators found in this retrospective study that during a median of 4 years of follow-up after echocardiography, the adjusted risk for all-cause mortality followed a U-shaped curve. The nadir of risk occurred in patients with an LVEF of 60%-65%, with a 1.71-fold increased risk at an LVEF at 70% or more and a near-identical 1.73-fold increased risk at an LVEF of 35%-40%. In this study, however, which was less than half the size of the NEDA analysis, the U-shaped LVEF/mortality curve applied to both men and women. Similar findings were seen in a validation cohort of nearly 36,000 patients from New Zealand (Eur Heart J. 2020 Mar 21;41[12]:1249-57).
The investigators predicted that in addition to the existing categories of HFrEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and the more recently proposed heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF), their results “may herald the recognition of a new phenotype characterized by supranormal LVEF,” with a moniker of HFsnEF.
New treatment opportunity for women?
Discussant Lars Lund, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, said that it’s not possible to make any statements about what constitutes a “normal” LVEF in men or women based on the NEDA study, since all participants underwent medically indicated echocardiography. He added that what he found most interesting about the NEDA analysis was the observation that women with mid-range or mildly reduced LVEF had increased mortality, while men didn’t. That’s a finding that helps explain the suggestion of possible benefit for sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women in the PARAGON-HF trial of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20).
Dr. Lund expressed the hope that the NEDA investigators will do an analysis of the relationship between echocardiographic left atrial size and mortality. Dr. Stewart replied that, as a matter of fact,such a study is planned. The enormous and continuously growing NEDA database has already been used to provide new insights into aortic stenosis and pulmonary hypertension, he noted.
Session moderator Andrew Coats, MD, incoming president of the ESC Heart Failure Association, said that there are many different methods used for echocardiographic measurement of LVEF. He wondered about the validity of pooling them in a single analysis.
Dr. Stewart replied that NEDA software applies a hierarchical weighting of the various methods used to quantify LVEF. And the submitted data come from the top echocardiography laboratories throughout Australia.
“We’ve done some sensitivity analyses around the different methods of quantifying LVEF and we get the same patterns,” he said. “We’re comfortable with the validity of what we’ve done. The big data allows us to do that.”
Dr. Stewart reported receiving speakers fees and travel support from Novartis, a partial funder of NEDA.
SOURCE: Stewart S. ESC Heart Failure 2020.
, Simon Stewart, PhD, reported at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.
This analysis from the ongoing National Echocardiography Database of Australia (NEDA) included 499,153 men and women who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice for a variety of indications, with more than 3 million person-years of follow-up.
This study broke new ground. There is surprisingly little information from routine clinical practice to describe the spectrum and prognostic importance of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Indeed, most data have come from clinical trials in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in which women are traditionally underrepresented. By comparison, the NEDA analysis included 237,046 women in routine care, noted Dr. Stewart, a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Senior Principal Research Fellow at Torrens University in Adelaide.
Among the novel findings in the new NEDA analysis: an LVEF below 50% was more than twice as common in men than women, occurring in 17.6% and 8.3%, respectively. Also, women had a higher average LVEF: 64.2%, compared with 59.5% in men. The overall 1- and 5-year all-cause mortality rates in the half-million participants were 5.8% and 18.4%.
Cardiovascular-related mortality occurred in 7.1% of women in median of 5.6 years of follow-up and in 8.1% of men with 5.5 years of follow-up.
All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates followed a J-shaped curve, with the clear nadir occurring at an LVEF of 65%-69.9% in both women and men. But for LVEF values outside the nadir, a striking sex-based difference was present. Cardiovascular mortality, when adjusted for body mass index, age, heart rate, valvular heart disease, E-wave velocity, and other potential confounders, wasn’t significantly different between men whose LVEF was 65%-69.9% and those with an LVEF of 45%-64.9%. It started climbing in earnest only at an LVEF below 45%. In contrast, women with an LVEF of 45%-54.9% had a statistically significant twofold increased cardiovascular mortality rate compared to those in the nadir. Moreover, women with an LVEF of 55%-59.9% showed a trend in the same unwanted direction.
High LVEF, higher mortality in women
Dr. Stewart drew attention to an inflection point in the mortality curve for women whereby mortality began climbing at LVEF values of 70% or more. Values in that high range were documented in 72,379 women and 51,317 men.
He noted that the NEDA finding of an increasing mortality risk at LVEFs of at least 70%, especially in women, is similar to a recent report from another big data study, this one involving more than 200,000 patients who underwent echocardiography in routine clinical practice in the Geisinger health system in Pennsylvania. The investigators found in this retrospective study that during a median of 4 years of follow-up after echocardiography, the adjusted risk for all-cause mortality followed a U-shaped curve. The nadir of risk occurred in patients with an LVEF of 60%-65%, with a 1.71-fold increased risk at an LVEF at 70% or more and a near-identical 1.73-fold increased risk at an LVEF of 35%-40%. In this study, however, which was less than half the size of the NEDA analysis, the U-shaped LVEF/mortality curve applied to both men and women. Similar findings were seen in a validation cohort of nearly 36,000 patients from New Zealand (Eur Heart J. 2020 Mar 21;41[12]:1249-57).
The investigators predicted that in addition to the existing categories of HFrEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and the more recently proposed heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF), their results “may herald the recognition of a new phenotype characterized by supranormal LVEF,” with a moniker of HFsnEF.
New treatment opportunity for women?
Discussant Lars Lund, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, said that it’s not possible to make any statements about what constitutes a “normal” LVEF in men or women based on the NEDA study, since all participants underwent medically indicated echocardiography. He added that what he found most interesting about the NEDA analysis was the observation that women with mid-range or mildly reduced LVEF had increased mortality, while men didn’t. That’s a finding that helps explain the suggestion of possible benefit for sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women in the PARAGON-HF trial of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20).
Dr. Lund expressed the hope that the NEDA investigators will do an analysis of the relationship between echocardiographic left atrial size and mortality. Dr. Stewart replied that, as a matter of fact,such a study is planned. The enormous and continuously growing NEDA database has already been used to provide new insights into aortic stenosis and pulmonary hypertension, he noted.
Session moderator Andrew Coats, MD, incoming president of the ESC Heart Failure Association, said that there are many different methods used for echocardiographic measurement of LVEF. He wondered about the validity of pooling them in a single analysis.
Dr. Stewart replied that NEDA software applies a hierarchical weighting of the various methods used to quantify LVEF. And the submitted data come from the top echocardiography laboratories throughout Australia.
“We’ve done some sensitivity analyses around the different methods of quantifying LVEF and we get the same patterns,” he said. “We’re comfortable with the validity of what we’ve done. The big data allows us to do that.”
Dr. Stewart reported receiving speakers fees and travel support from Novartis, a partial funder of NEDA.
SOURCE: Stewart S. ESC Heart Failure 2020.
FROM ESC HEART FAILURE 2020