Lorraine L. Janeczko, MPH

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has used its expedited withdrawal process to rescind its approval of melphalan flufenamide (also called melflufen; Pepaxto, Oncopeptides AB), which it had approved for combined use with dexamethasone to treat some patients with multiple myeloma.

But the European Medicines Agency (EMA) still authorizes the drug’s manufacturer Oncopeptides AB to market the drug, also called Pepaxti, in Europe, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

Amol Akhade, MBBS, who describes himself as a senior consultant medical and hemato oncologist–bone marrow transplant physician on LinkedIn, raised questions about the inconsistencies between the FDA and EMA’s opinions about these drugs. Dr. Akhad, of Suyog Cancer Clinics in India, posted via the following handle @SuyogCancer on X (Twitter):

“How can one drug and one trial data [have] two diagonally different outcomes from two different drug approval agencies?

Melphalan Flufenamide is finally completely withdrawn by @US_FDA

But approval by @EMA_News stays.

How can be one drug be harmful across one side of Atlantic Ocean and becomes safe and useful on the other side of Atlantic Ocean?

Modern day miracle?”
 

EMA: Pepaxti’s Benefits Exceed Its Risks

The EMA, which could not be reached for comment regarding why the agency was still allowing patients to use the drug, said the following about Pepaxti on its website:

“The European Medicines Agency decided that Pepaxti’s benefits are greater than its risks and it can be authorised for use in the EU. The Agency noted the unmet medical need for patients with multiple myeloma who no longer improve with the available therapies. Despite some limitations in the studies, the results were considered clinically relevant, with the exception of the subgroup of patients who had an autologous stem cell transplant and whose disease progressed within three years of transplantation.

Regarding safety, although side effects, including severe effects, were seen with treatment involving Pepaxti, these were considered acceptable and manageable,” the agency wrote.

“Recommendations and precautions to be followed by healthcare professionals and patients for the safe and effective use of Pepaxti have been included in the summary of product characteristics and the package leaflet.

As for all medicines, data on the use of Pepaxti are continuously monitored. Suspected side effects reported with Pepaxti are carefully evaluated and any necessary action taken to protect patients,” according to the EMA.

The FDA’s final decision, issued on February 23, 2024, follows its warning in 2021 that meflufen plus dexamethasone exposed patients with multiple myeloma to increased risk for death, and its call for withdrawal of the drug in 2022.

“The grounds for withdrawing approval have been met because: (1) the confirmatory study conducted as a condition of accelerated approval did not confirm Pepaxto’s clinical benefit and (2) the available evidence demonstrates that Pepaxto is not shown to be safe or effective under its conditions of use,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, Director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, wrote in the final decision document.
 

Oncopeptides AB: Drug ‘Caters to a Large Unmet Need’

David Augustsson, Director of Corporate Affairs, Oncopeptides AB, explained in an interview why he thinks the EMA and FDA’s actions regarding the drug differ from each other.

Augustsson_David_SWEDEN_web.jpg

“The European Medicines Agency had the opinion that the OCEAN study met its primary endpoint by demonstrating superior progression-free survival and it agreed that the potential detriment of overall survival was limited to patients progressing less than 36 months after an autologous stem cell transplant,” he said.“The FDA was not willing to acknowledge the observed clinically relevant differences across patient subgroups in the OCEAN study as confirmed.”

Mr. Augustsson added that this decision will deprive US patients of access to “a drug we believe caters to a large unmet need among elderly multiple myeloma patients with few treatment options left.”

“While we remain confident that we have science on our side we are of course disappointed in the decision [to remove Pepaxto from the US market],” Oncopeptides AB CEO Sofia Heigis said in a statement. “At the same time this is no change to our plans and we will continue to focus all our attention on the commercialization in Europe, progression of our pipeline and rest of world opportunities.”
 

FDA 'Took Swift Action' to Ensure Users of Pepaxto Were Informed of Risks

In February 2021, the FDA used the Accelerated Approval Program to enable certain patients with multiple myeloma to be treated with the peptide conjugated alkylating drug melflufen plus dexamethasone. Under the program, Oncopeptides was required to conduct the phase III randomized, controlled OCEAN clinical trial.

OCEAN enrolled 495 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had 2 to 4 lines of prior therapy and who were refractory to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy. Participants in the multinational study received either melflufen plus dexamethasone or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of benefit.

In July 2021, the FDA issued an alert that the study results showed increased risk for death in participants treated with melflufen. In October that year, at FDA request, Oncopeptides removed the drug from the US market but continued to provide it to patients already receiving it. In December 2022, the FDA requested that the company withdraw melflufen’s US marketing authorization.

Responding to questions about the timing of the FDA’s most recent decision about Pepaxto and how the decision will affect patient care in the US, the FDA emailed the following statement to this news organization:

“Since the OCEAN trial results for Pepaxto in 2021, the FDA has responded to safety concerns about Pepaxto by issuing a CDER Alert, communicating concerns to Oncopeptides, holding an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting in September 2022, and issuing a letter of notice to Oncopeptides in July 2023, proposing to withdraw Pepaxto (NDA 214383). After receiving the notice, Oncopeptides appealed the withdrawal in August 2023. A meeting was held with the Commissioner’s designee, Dr. Peter Marks, Oncopeptides, and others from FDA in October 2023. Dr. Marks reviewed the record and considered the arguments made on appeal and issued a final decision on February 23, 2024. Prior to reaching a decision, the FDA took swift action to ensure those receiving Pepaxto in the post-confirmatory clinical trial were informed of the risks and that no new patients were enrolled in the trial. We also note that it is our understanding that Pepaxto has not been marketed in the U.S. since October 22, 2021.”

“This is the first time FDA has used the amended procedures for withdrawal of accelerated approval that were enacted in 2023, as part of the Food and Drug Omnibus Report Act of 2022 (FDORA),” the agency wrote in a Feb 23 statement. The agency will also remove melflufen from the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also called the Orange Book.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has used its expedited withdrawal process to rescind its approval of melphalan flufenamide (also called melflufen; Pepaxto, Oncopeptides AB), which it had approved for combined use with dexamethasone to treat some patients with multiple myeloma.

But the European Medicines Agency (EMA) still authorizes the drug’s manufacturer Oncopeptides AB to market the drug, also called Pepaxti, in Europe, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

Amol Akhade, MBBS, who describes himself as a senior consultant medical and hemato oncologist–bone marrow transplant physician on LinkedIn, raised questions about the inconsistencies between the FDA and EMA’s opinions about these drugs. Dr. Akhad, of Suyog Cancer Clinics in India, posted via the following handle @SuyogCancer on X (Twitter):

“How can one drug and one trial data [have] two diagonally different outcomes from two different drug approval agencies?

Melphalan Flufenamide is finally completely withdrawn by @US_FDA

But approval by @EMA_News stays.

How can be one drug be harmful across one side of Atlantic Ocean and becomes safe and useful on the other side of Atlantic Ocean?

Modern day miracle?”
 

EMA: Pepaxti’s Benefits Exceed Its Risks

The EMA, which could not be reached for comment regarding why the agency was still allowing patients to use the drug, said the following about Pepaxti on its website:

“The European Medicines Agency decided that Pepaxti’s benefits are greater than its risks and it can be authorised for use in the EU. The Agency noted the unmet medical need for patients with multiple myeloma who no longer improve with the available therapies. Despite some limitations in the studies, the results were considered clinically relevant, with the exception of the subgroup of patients who had an autologous stem cell transplant and whose disease progressed within three years of transplantation.

Regarding safety, although side effects, including severe effects, were seen with treatment involving Pepaxti, these were considered acceptable and manageable,” the agency wrote.

“Recommendations and precautions to be followed by healthcare professionals and patients for the safe and effective use of Pepaxti have been included in the summary of product characteristics and the package leaflet.

As for all medicines, data on the use of Pepaxti are continuously monitored. Suspected side effects reported with Pepaxti are carefully evaluated and any necessary action taken to protect patients,” according to the EMA.

The FDA’s final decision, issued on February 23, 2024, follows its warning in 2021 that meflufen plus dexamethasone exposed patients with multiple myeloma to increased risk for death, and its call for withdrawal of the drug in 2022.

“The grounds for withdrawing approval have been met because: (1) the confirmatory study conducted as a condition of accelerated approval did not confirm Pepaxto’s clinical benefit and (2) the available evidence demonstrates that Pepaxto is not shown to be safe or effective under its conditions of use,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, Director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, wrote in the final decision document.
 

Oncopeptides AB: Drug ‘Caters to a Large Unmet Need’

David Augustsson, Director of Corporate Affairs, Oncopeptides AB, explained in an interview why he thinks the EMA and FDA’s actions regarding the drug differ from each other.

Augustsson_David_SWEDEN_web.jpg

“The European Medicines Agency had the opinion that the OCEAN study met its primary endpoint by demonstrating superior progression-free survival and it agreed that the potential detriment of overall survival was limited to patients progressing less than 36 months after an autologous stem cell transplant,” he said.“The FDA was not willing to acknowledge the observed clinically relevant differences across patient subgroups in the OCEAN study as confirmed.”

Mr. Augustsson added that this decision will deprive US patients of access to “a drug we believe caters to a large unmet need among elderly multiple myeloma patients with few treatment options left.”

“While we remain confident that we have science on our side we are of course disappointed in the decision [to remove Pepaxto from the US market],” Oncopeptides AB CEO Sofia Heigis said in a statement. “At the same time this is no change to our plans and we will continue to focus all our attention on the commercialization in Europe, progression of our pipeline and rest of world opportunities.”
 

FDA 'Took Swift Action' to Ensure Users of Pepaxto Were Informed of Risks

In February 2021, the FDA used the Accelerated Approval Program to enable certain patients with multiple myeloma to be treated with the peptide conjugated alkylating drug melflufen plus dexamethasone. Under the program, Oncopeptides was required to conduct the phase III randomized, controlled OCEAN clinical trial.

OCEAN enrolled 495 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had 2 to 4 lines of prior therapy and who were refractory to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy. Participants in the multinational study received either melflufen plus dexamethasone or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of benefit.

In July 2021, the FDA issued an alert that the study results showed increased risk for death in participants treated with melflufen. In October that year, at FDA request, Oncopeptides removed the drug from the US market but continued to provide it to patients already receiving it. In December 2022, the FDA requested that the company withdraw melflufen’s US marketing authorization.

Responding to questions about the timing of the FDA’s most recent decision about Pepaxto and how the decision will affect patient care in the US, the FDA emailed the following statement to this news organization:

“Since the OCEAN trial results for Pepaxto in 2021, the FDA has responded to safety concerns about Pepaxto by issuing a CDER Alert, communicating concerns to Oncopeptides, holding an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting in September 2022, and issuing a letter of notice to Oncopeptides in July 2023, proposing to withdraw Pepaxto (NDA 214383). After receiving the notice, Oncopeptides appealed the withdrawal in August 2023. A meeting was held with the Commissioner’s designee, Dr. Peter Marks, Oncopeptides, and others from FDA in October 2023. Dr. Marks reviewed the record and considered the arguments made on appeal and issued a final decision on February 23, 2024. Prior to reaching a decision, the FDA took swift action to ensure those receiving Pepaxto in the post-confirmatory clinical trial were informed of the risks and that no new patients were enrolled in the trial. We also note that it is our understanding that Pepaxto has not been marketed in the U.S. since October 22, 2021.”

“This is the first time FDA has used the amended procedures for withdrawal of accelerated approval that were enacted in 2023, as part of the Food and Drug Omnibus Report Act of 2022 (FDORA),” the agency wrote in a Feb 23 statement. The agency will also remove melflufen from the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also called the Orange Book.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has used its expedited withdrawal process to rescind its approval of melphalan flufenamide (also called melflufen; Pepaxto, Oncopeptides AB), which it had approved for combined use with dexamethasone to treat some patients with multiple myeloma.

But the European Medicines Agency (EMA) still authorizes the drug’s manufacturer Oncopeptides AB to market the drug, also called Pepaxti, in Europe, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

Amol Akhade, MBBS, who describes himself as a senior consultant medical and hemato oncologist–bone marrow transplant physician on LinkedIn, raised questions about the inconsistencies between the FDA and EMA’s opinions about these drugs. Dr. Akhad, of Suyog Cancer Clinics in India, posted via the following handle @SuyogCancer on X (Twitter):

“How can one drug and one trial data [have] two diagonally different outcomes from two different drug approval agencies?

Melphalan Flufenamide is finally completely withdrawn by @US_FDA

But approval by @EMA_News stays.

How can be one drug be harmful across one side of Atlantic Ocean and becomes safe and useful on the other side of Atlantic Ocean?

Modern day miracle?”
 

EMA: Pepaxti’s Benefits Exceed Its Risks

The EMA, which could not be reached for comment regarding why the agency was still allowing patients to use the drug, said the following about Pepaxti on its website:

“The European Medicines Agency decided that Pepaxti’s benefits are greater than its risks and it can be authorised for use in the EU. The Agency noted the unmet medical need for patients with multiple myeloma who no longer improve with the available therapies. Despite some limitations in the studies, the results were considered clinically relevant, with the exception of the subgroup of patients who had an autologous stem cell transplant and whose disease progressed within three years of transplantation.

Regarding safety, although side effects, including severe effects, were seen with treatment involving Pepaxti, these were considered acceptable and manageable,” the agency wrote.

“Recommendations and precautions to be followed by healthcare professionals and patients for the safe and effective use of Pepaxti have been included in the summary of product characteristics and the package leaflet.

As for all medicines, data on the use of Pepaxti are continuously monitored. Suspected side effects reported with Pepaxti are carefully evaluated and any necessary action taken to protect patients,” according to the EMA.

The FDA’s final decision, issued on February 23, 2024, follows its warning in 2021 that meflufen plus dexamethasone exposed patients with multiple myeloma to increased risk for death, and its call for withdrawal of the drug in 2022.

“The grounds for withdrawing approval have been met because: (1) the confirmatory study conducted as a condition of accelerated approval did not confirm Pepaxto’s clinical benefit and (2) the available evidence demonstrates that Pepaxto is not shown to be safe or effective under its conditions of use,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, Director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, wrote in the final decision document.
 

Oncopeptides AB: Drug ‘Caters to a Large Unmet Need’

David Augustsson, Director of Corporate Affairs, Oncopeptides AB, explained in an interview why he thinks the EMA and FDA’s actions regarding the drug differ from each other.

Augustsson_David_SWEDEN_web.jpg

“The European Medicines Agency had the opinion that the OCEAN study met its primary endpoint by demonstrating superior progression-free survival and it agreed that the potential detriment of overall survival was limited to patients progressing less than 36 months after an autologous stem cell transplant,” he said.“The FDA was not willing to acknowledge the observed clinically relevant differences across patient subgroups in the OCEAN study as confirmed.”

Mr. Augustsson added that this decision will deprive US patients of access to “a drug we believe caters to a large unmet need among elderly multiple myeloma patients with few treatment options left.”

“While we remain confident that we have science on our side we are of course disappointed in the decision [to remove Pepaxto from the US market],” Oncopeptides AB CEO Sofia Heigis said in a statement. “At the same time this is no change to our plans and we will continue to focus all our attention on the commercialization in Europe, progression of our pipeline and rest of world opportunities.”
 

FDA 'Took Swift Action' to Ensure Users of Pepaxto Were Informed of Risks

In February 2021, the FDA used the Accelerated Approval Program to enable certain patients with multiple myeloma to be treated with the peptide conjugated alkylating drug melflufen plus dexamethasone. Under the program, Oncopeptides was required to conduct the phase III randomized, controlled OCEAN clinical trial.

OCEAN enrolled 495 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had 2 to 4 lines of prior therapy and who were refractory to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy. Participants in the multinational study received either melflufen plus dexamethasone or pomalidomide plus dexamethasone until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of benefit.

In July 2021, the FDA issued an alert that the study results showed increased risk for death in participants treated with melflufen. In October that year, at FDA request, Oncopeptides removed the drug from the US market but continued to provide it to patients already receiving it. In December 2022, the FDA requested that the company withdraw melflufen’s US marketing authorization.

Responding to questions about the timing of the FDA’s most recent decision about Pepaxto and how the decision will affect patient care in the US, the FDA emailed the following statement to this news organization:

“Since the OCEAN trial results for Pepaxto in 2021, the FDA has responded to safety concerns about Pepaxto by issuing a CDER Alert, communicating concerns to Oncopeptides, holding an Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting in September 2022, and issuing a letter of notice to Oncopeptides in July 2023, proposing to withdraw Pepaxto (NDA 214383). After receiving the notice, Oncopeptides appealed the withdrawal in August 2023. A meeting was held with the Commissioner’s designee, Dr. Peter Marks, Oncopeptides, and others from FDA in October 2023. Dr. Marks reviewed the record and considered the arguments made on appeal and issued a final decision on February 23, 2024. Prior to reaching a decision, the FDA took swift action to ensure those receiving Pepaxto in the post-confirmatory clinical trial were informed of the risks and that no new patients were enrolled in the trial. We also note that it is our understanding that Pepaxto has not been marketed in the U.S. since October 22, 2021.”

“This is the first time FDA has used the amended procedures for withdrawal of accelerated approval that were enacted in 2023, as part of the Food and Drug Omnibus Report Act of 2022 (FDORA),” the agency wrote in a Feb 23 statement. The agency will also remove melflufen from the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, also called the Orange Book.

TOPLINE:

Dupilumab improved the signs and symptoms and quality of life in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic hand and foot dermatitis compared with placebo.

METHODOLOGY:

• The multinational phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial of adults and adolescents with moderate to severe chronic atopic dermatitis (AD) of the hands, feet, or both included 67 participants at 48 sites randomized to dupilumab monotherapy and 66 to placebo.
• The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients scoring 0 or 1 on Hand and Foot Investigator’s Global Assessment (HF-IGA) at week 16.
• Secondary endpoints were severity and extent of signs, symptom intensity (itch and pain), sleep, and quality of life.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 16, 27 patients receiving dupilumab vs 11 receiving placebo achieved an HF-IGA score of 0 or 1 (40.3% vs 16.7%; P = .003).
• At week 16, 35 participants receiving dupilumab vs nine receiving placebo improved at least four points in the weekly average of daily HF-Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (52.2% vs 13.6%; P < .0001).
• At week 16, Quality of Life Hand Eczema Questionnaire results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .0001), and weekly average of daily Sleep Numeric Rating Scale results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .05).
• The safety profile was similar to the known profile in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD.

IN PRACTICE:

The results of the study “support dupilumab” as an “efficacious systemic therapy for moderate to severe H/F AD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Eric L. Simpson, MD, MCR, professor of dermatology at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was published on January 29, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The short duration of the study and the large proportion of patients with positive patch tests (31 of 133) suggested that some participants may have had concurrent AD and allergic contact dermatitis, so the effect of dupilumab on those patients needs further evaluation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron. All but one author had financial relationships with Sanofi, Regeneron, or both. Several authors were employees of, and may hold stocks or stock options in, Sanofi or Regeneron.

TOPLINE:

Dupilumab improved the signs and symptoms and quality of life in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic hand and foot dermatitis compared with placebo.

METHODOLOGY:

• The multinational phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial of adults and adolescents with moderate to severe chronic atopic dermatitis (AD) of the hands, feet, or both included 67 participants at 48 sites randomized to dupilumab monotherapy and 66 to placebo.
• The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients scoring 0 or 1 on Hand and Foot Investigator’s Global Assessment (HF-IGA) at week 16.
• Secondary endpoints were severity and extent of signs, symptom intensity (itch and pain), sleep, and quality of life.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 16, 27 patients receiving dupilumab vs 11 receiving placebo achieved an HF-IGA score of 0 or 1 (40.3% vs 16.7%; P = .003).
• At week 16, 35 participants receiving dupilumab vs nine receiving placebo improved at least four points in the weekly average of daily HF-Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (52.2% vs 13.6%; P < .0001).
• At week 16, Quality of Life Hand Eczema Questionnaire results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .0001), and weekly average of daily Sleep Numeric Rating Scale results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .05).
• The safety profile was similar to the known profile in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD.

IN PRACTICE:

The results of the study “support dupilumab” as an “efficacious systemic therapy for moderate to severe H/F AD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Eric L. Simpson, MD, MCR, professor of dermatology at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was published on January 29, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The short duration of the study and the large proportion of patients with positive patch tests (31 of 133) suggested that some participants may have had concurrent AD and allergic contact dermatitis, so the effect of dupilumab on those patients needs further evaluation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron. All but one author had financial relationships with Sanofi, Regeneron, or both. Several authors were employees of, and may hold stocks or stock options in, Sanofi or Regeneron.

TOPLINE:

Dupilumab improved the signs and symptoms and quality of life in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic hand and foot dermatitis compared with placebo.

METHODOLOGY:

• The multinational phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial of adults and adolescents with moderate to severe chronic atopic dermatitis (AD) of the hands, feet, or both included 67 participants at 48 sites randomized to dupilumab monotherapy and 66 to placebo.
• The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients scoring 0 or 1 on Hand and Foot Investigator’s Global Assessment (HF-IGA) at week 16.
• Secondary endpoints were severity and extent of signs, symptom intensity (itch and pain), sleep, and quality of life.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 16, 27 patients receiving dupilumab vs 11 receiving placebo achieved an HF-IGA score of 0 or 1 (40.3% vs 16.7%; P = .003).
• At week 16, 35 participants receiving dupilumab vs nine receiving placebo improved at least four points in the weekly average of daily HF-Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (52.2% vs 13.6%; P < .0001).
• At week 16, Quality of Life Hand Eczema Questionnaire results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .0001), and weekly average of daily Sleep Numeric Rating Scale results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .05).
• The safety profile was similar to the known profile in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD.

IN PRACTICE:

The results of the study “support dupilumab” as an “efficacious systemic therapy for moderate to severe H/F AD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Eric L. Simpson, MD, MCR, professor of dermatology at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was published on January 29, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The short duration of the study and the large proportion of patients with positive patch tests (31 of 133) suggested that some participants may have had concurrent AD and allergic contact dermatitis, so the effect of dupilumab on those patients needs further evaluation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron. All but one author had financial relationships with Sanofi, Regeneron, or both. Several authors were employees of, and may hold stocks or stock options in, Sanofi or Regeneron.

Combined therapy with rituximab and omalizumab appears to be well tolerated, and improves outcomes and accelerates time to remission in patients with refractory bullous pemphigoid who do not respond to rituximab alone, results of a case series suggest.

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a rare, chronic, inflammatory, blistering disease that mainly occurs in people in their 50s through their 70s. BP has high morbidity and mortality, especially in people with comorbidities common to the elderly, yet no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies for BP exist, Stephanie T. Le, MD, a dermatologist in the department of dermatology of the University of California, Davis, told this publication.

Le_Stephanie_T_ CALIF_web.jpg

[embed:render:related:node:240500]

All participants received 1000 mg intravenous rituximab on days 0 and 15. In addition to rituximab, seven patients received subcutaneous high-dose omalizumab (300 mg every 2 weeks); and three patients received low-dose omalizumab (300 mg every 4 weeks or 150 mg every 2 weeks).

After a mean of 2.1 months, all patients in the high-dose omalizumab-plus-rituximab group had achieved complete remission. By contrast, all patients in the low-dose omalizumab-plus-rituximab group improved after a mean of 13 months, and none achieved complete remission.

At 3 months, all study participants were rated as being very much improved. All four patients in the high-dose omalizumab group who tapered omalizumab dosage or frequency had flare-ups within 1-3 months that resolved when they restarted the medication. Among patients who achieved complete remission, 4 of 7 required rituximab redosing between 6 and 16 months later. Rituximab alone did not achieve remission: Three patients needed to add high-dose omalizumab. All reported adverse effects were mild.

Alternatives to Corticosteroids Are Needed

For BP, “with no FDA-approved therapies available, corticosteroids remain first line for acute flares. However, prolonged corticosteroid use is associated with multiple adverse effects, including increased susceptibility to infection, osteoporosis, and diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Le pointed out. “Patients with BP who are treated with high-dose corticosteroids have significantly increased mortality and have very poor 1-year survival.

“Rituximab and omalizumab dual therapy offers another potential treatment option for severe or treatment-refractory BP,” she added. “We are hopeful that other physicians will adopt this therapy.”

The authors acknowledged limitations of the study, including its retrospective design, small sample size, lack of standardized intervals between rituximab and omalizumab, and variation in concurrent therapies, and they recommended further related research.

No conflicts of interest were reported. No funding details were provided.

Combined therapy with rituximab and omalizumab appears to be well tolerated, and improves outcomes and accelerates time to remission in patients with refractory bullous pemphigoid who do not respond to rituximab alone, results of a case series suggest.

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a rare, chronic, inflammatory, blistering disease that mainly occurs in people in their 50s through their 70s. BP has high morbidity and mortality, especially in people with comorbidities common to the elderly, yet no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies for BP exist, Stephanie T. Le, MD, a dermatologist in the department of dermatology of the University of California, Davis, told this publication.

Le_Stephanie_T_ CALIF_web.jpg

[embed:render:related:node:240500]

All participants received 1000 mg intravenous rituximab on days 0 and 15. In addition to rituximab, seven patients received subcutaneous high-dose omalizumab (300 mg every 2 weeks); and three patients received low-dose omalizumab (300 mg every 4 weeks or 150 mg every 2 weeks).

After a mean of 2.1 months, all patients in the high-dose omalizumab-plus-rituximab group had achieved complete remission. By contrast, all patients in the low-dose omalizumab-plus-rituximab group improved after a mean of 13 months, and none achieved complete remission.

At 3 months, all study participants were rated as being very much improved. All four patients in the high-dose omalizumab group who tapered omalizumab dosage or frequency had flare-ups within 1-3 months that resolved when they restarted the medication. Among patients who achieved complete remission, 4 of 7 required rituximab redosing between 6 and 16 months later. Rituximab alone did not achieve remission: Three patients needed to add high-dose omalizumab. All reported adverse effects were mild.

Alternatives to Corticosteroids Are Needed

For BP, “with no FDA-approved therapies available, corticosteroids remain first line for acute flares. However, prolonged corticosteroid use is associated with multiple adverse effects, including increased susceptibility to infection, osteoporosis, and diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Le pointed out. “Patients with BP who are treated with high-dose corticosteroids have significantly increased mortality and have very poor 1-year survival.

“Rituximab and omalizumab dual therapy offers another potential treatment option for severe or treatment-refractory BP,” she added. “We are hopeful that other physicians will adopt this therapy.”

The authors acknowledged limitations of the study, including its retrospective design, small sample size, lack of standardized intervals between rituximab and omalizumab, and variation in concurrent therapies, and they recommended further related research.

No conflicts of interest were reported. No funding details were provided.

Combined therapy with rituximab and omalizumab appears to be well tolerated, and improves outcomes and accelerates time to remission in patients with refractory bullous pemphigoid who do not respond to rituximab alone, results of a case series suggest.

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a rare, chronic, inflammatory, blistering disease that mainly occurs in people in their 50s through their 70s. BP has high morbidity and mortality, especially in people with comorbidities common to the elderly, yet no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies for BP exist, Stephanie T. Le, MD, a dermatologist in the department of dermatology of the University of California, Davis, told this publication.

Le_Stephanie_T_ CALIF_web.jpg

[embed:render:related:node:240500]

All participants received 1000 mg intravenous rituximab on days 0 and 15. In addition to rituximab, seven patients received subcutaneous high-dose omalizumab (300 mg every 2 weeks); and three patients received low-dose omalizumab (300 mg every 4 weeks or 150 mg every 2 weeks).

After a mean of 2.1 months, all patients in the high-dose omalizumab-plus-rituximab group had achieved complete remission. By contrast, all patients in the low-dose omalizumab-plus-rituximab group improved after a mean of 13 months, and none achieved complete remission.

At 3 months, all study participants were rated as being very much improved. All four patients in the high-dose omalizumab group who tapered omalizumab dosage or frequency had flare-ups within 1-3 months that resolved when they restarted the medication. Among patients who achieved complete remission, 4 of 7 required rituximab redosing between 6 and 16 months later. Rituximab alone did not achieve remission: Three patients needed to add high-dose omalizumab. All reported adverse effects were mild.

Alternatives to Corticosteroids Are Needed

For BP, “with no FDA-approved therapies available, corticosteroids remain first line for acute flares. However, prolonged corticosteroid use is associated with multiple adverse effects, including increased susceptibility to infection, osteoporosis, and diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Le pointed out. “Patients with BP who are treated with high-dose corticosteroids have significantly increased mortality and have very poor 1-year survival.

“Rituximab and omalizumab dual therapy offers another potential treatment option for severe or treatment-refractory BP,” she added. “We are hopeful that other physicians will adopt this therapy.”

The authors acknowledged limitations of the study, including its retrospective design, small sample size, lack of standardized intervals between rituximab and omalizumab, and variation in concurrent therapies, and they recommended further related research.

No conflicts of interest were reported. No funding details were provided.

Primary care clinicians play a central role in maintaining the cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) health of patients, according to a new advisory from the American Heart Association.

The advisory, published recently in Circulation introduces the concept of CKM health and reevaluates the relationships between obesity, diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

“This approach not only raises awareness, it also empowers PCPs to diagnose and treat these conditions more holistically,” Salim Hayek, MD, associate professor of cardiovascular disease and internal medicine, and medical director of the Frankel Cardiovascular Center Clinics at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

 

New CKM Staging, Testing, and Care Strategies

The advisory introduces a new scoring system that ranges from stage 0 (patients with no risk factors for CKM) through stage 4 (patients with clinical CVD in CKM syndrome). Each stage requires specific management strategies and may include screening starting at age 30 years for diabetes, hypertension, and heart failure.

“Stage 0 CKM is usually found in young people, and CKM risk factors and scores typically increase as people age,” said Sean M. Drake, MD, a primary care physician at Henry Ford Health in Sterling Heights, Michigan. 

Dr. Drake advised PCPs to encourage patients who are at stage 0 to maintain ideal cardiovascular health and to monitor those at risk of progressing through the stages.

While PCPs already perform many of the tests the advisory recommends, the conditions overlap and an abnormality in one system should prompt more testing for other conditions. Additional tests, such as urine albumin-creatinine ratio, and more frequent glomerular filtration rate and lipid profile are advised, according to Dr. Drake.

“There also appears to be a role for additional cardiac testing, including echocardiograms and coronary CT scans, and for liver fibrosis screening,” Dr. Drake said. “Medications such as SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and ACE inhibitors, beyond current routine use, are emphasized.” 

To better characterize body composition and help diagnose metabolic syndrome, the advisory also recommends measuring waist circumference, which is not routine practice, noted Joshua J. Joseph, MD, MPH, an associate professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, and a co-author of the advisory. 

Recognizing the interconnected nature of cardiac, kidney, and metabolic diseases encourages a shift in mindset for clinicians, according to Neha Pagidipati, MD, MPH, a cardiologist at Duke Health in Durham, North Carolina.

“We have often been trained to focus on the specific problem in front of us,” Dr. Pagidipati said. “We need to be hyper-aware that many patients we see are at risk for multiple CKM entities. We need to be proactive about screening for and treating these when appropriate.”

The advisory emphasizes the need for CKM coordinators to support teams of clinicians from primary care, cardiology, endocrinology, nephrology, nursing, and pharmacy, as well as social workers, care navigators, or community health workers, Dr. Joseph said. 

“The advisory repositions the PCP at the forefront of CKM care coordination, marking a departure from the traditional model where subspecialists primarily manage complications,” Dr. Hayek added.
 

Changes to Payment

The new recommendations are consistent with current management guidelines for obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. 

“The advisory provides integrated algorithms for cardiovascular prevention and management, with specific therapeutic guidance tied to CKM stages, bringing together the current evidence for best practices from the various guidelines and filling gaps in a unified approach,” Dr. Joseph said. 

In addition, the advisory draws attention to the care of younger patients, who may be at increased risk for cardiovascular disease due to lifestyle factors, according to Nishant Shah, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Duke. 

“It considers barriers to care that prevent people from optimizing their cardiovascular health,” Dr. Shah said. 

Although the advisory does not specify proposed payment changes to support the new care model, the move towards value-based care may require billing practices that accommodate integrated care as well as more frequent and more specialized testing, Dr. Hayek said. 

“The advisory is an empowering tool for PCPs, underscoring their critical role in healthcare,” Dr. Hayek said. “It encourages PCPs to advocate for integrated care within their practices and to consider workflow adjustments that enhance the identification and initiation of preventive care for at-risk patients.”

Funding information was not provided. 

Dr. Joseph reports no relevant financial involvements; several advisory co-authors report financial involvements with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Pagidipati reports relevant financial involvement with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hayek, Dr. Drake, and Dr. Shah report no relevant financial involvements. Dr. Joseph is an author of the advisory. Dr. Pagidipati, Dr. Hayek, Dr. Drake, and Dr. Shah were not involved in the writing of the advisory.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care clinicians play a central role in maintaining the cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) health of patients, according to a new advisory from the American Heart Association.

The advisory, published recently in Circulation introduces the concept of CKM health and reevaluates the relationships between obesity, diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

“This approach not only raises awareness, it also empowers PCPs to diagnose and treat these conditions more holistically,” Salim Hayek, MD, associate professor of cardiovascular disease and internal medicine, and medical director of the Frankel Cardiovascular Center Clinics at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

 

New CKM Staging, Testing, and Care Strategies

The advisory introduces a new scoring system that ranges from stage 0 (patients with no risk factors for CKM) through stage 4 (patients with clinical CVD in CKM syndrome). Each stage requires specific management strategies and may include screening starting at age 30 years for diabetes, hypertension, and heart failure.

“Stage 0 CKM is usually found in young people, and CKM risk factors and scores typically increase as people age,” said Sean M. Drake, MD, a primary care physician at Henry Ford Health in Sterling Heights, Michigan. 

Dr. Drake advised PCPs to encourage patients who are at stage 0 to maintain ideal cardiovascular health and to monitor those at risk of progressing through the stages.

While PCPs already perform many of the tests the advisory recommends, the conditions overlap and an abnormality in one system should prompt more testing for other conditions. Additional tests, such as urine albumin-creatinine ratio, and more frequent glomerular filtration rate and lipid profile are advised, according to Dr. Drake.

“There also appears to be a role for additional cardiac testing, including echocardiograms and coronary CT scans, and for liver fibrosis screening,” Dr. Drake said. “Medications such as SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and ACE inhibitors, beyond current routine use, are emphasized.” 

To better characterize body composition and help diagnose metabolic syndrome, the advisory also recommends measuring waist circumference, which is not routine practice, noted Joshua J. Joseph, MD, MPH, an associate professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, and a co-author of the advisory. 

Recognizing the interconnected nature of cardiac, kidney, and metabolic diseases encourages a shift in mindset for clinicians, according to Neha Pagidipati, MD, MPH, a cardiologist at Duke Health in Durham, North Carolina.

“We have often been trained to focus on the specific problem in front of us,” Dr. Pagidipati said. “We need to be hyper-aware that many patients we see are at risk for multiple CKM entities. We need to be proactive about screening for and treating these when appropriate.”

The advisory emphasizes the need for CKM coordinators to support teams of clinicians from primary care, cardiology, endocrinology, nephrology, nursing, and pharmacy, as well as social workers, care navigators, or community health workers, Dr. Joseph said. 

“The advisory repositions the PCP at the forefront of CKM care coordination, marking a departure from the traditional model where subspecialists primarily manage complications,” Dr. Hayek added.
 

Changes to Payment

The new recommendations are consistent with current management guidelines for obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. 

“The advisory provides integrated algorithms for cardiovascular prevention and management, with specific therapeutic guidance tied to CKM stages, bringing together the current evidence for best practices from the various guidelines and filling gaps in a unified approach,” Dr. Joseph said. 

In addition, the advisory draws attention to the care of younger patients, who may be at increased risk for cardiovascular disease due to lifestyle factors, according to Nishant Shah, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Duke. 

“It considers barriers to care that prevent people from optimizing their cardiovascular health,” Dr. Shah said. 

Although the advisory does not specify proposed payment changes to support the new care model, the move towards value-based care may require billing practices that accommodate integrated care as well as more frequent and more specialized testing, Dr. Hayek said. 

“The advisory is an empowering tool for PCPs, underscoring their critical role in healthcare,” Dr. Hayek said. “It encourages PCPs to advocate for integrated care within their practices and to consider workflow adjustments that enhance the identification and initiation of preventive care for at-risk patients.”

Funding information was not provided. 

Dr. Joseph reports no relevant financial involvements; several advisory co-authors report financial involvements with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Pagidipati reports relevant financial involvement with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hayek, Dr. Drake, and Dr. Shah report no relevant financial involvements. Dr. Joseph is an author of the advisory. Dr. Pagidipati, Dr. Hayek, Dr. Drake, and Dr. Shah were not involved in the writing of the advisory.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Primary care clinicians play a central role in maintaining the cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) health of patients, according to a new advisory from the American Heart Association.

The advisory, published recently in Circulation introduces the concept of CKM health and reevaluates the relationships between obesity, diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

“This approach not only raises awareness, it also empowers PCPs to diagnose and treat these conditions more holistically,” Salim Hayek, MD, associate professor of cardiovascular disease and internal medicine, and medical director of the Frankel Cardiovascular Center Clinics at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

 

New CKM Staging, Testing, and Care Strategies

The advisory introduces a new scoring system that ranges from stage 0 (patients with no risk factors for CKM) through stage 4 (patients with clinical CVD in CKM syndrome). Each stage requires specific management strategies and may include screening starting at age 30 years for diabetes, hypertension, and heart failure.

“Stage 0 CKM is usually found in young people, and CKM risk factors and scores typically increase as people age,” said Sean M. Drake, MD, a primary care physician at Henry Ford Health in Sterling Heights, Michigan. 

Dr. Drake advised PCPs to encourage patients who are at stage 0 to maintain ideal cardiovascular health and to monitor those at risk of progressing through the stages.

While PCPs already perform many of the tests the advisory recommends, the conditions overlap and an abnormality in one system should prompt more testing for other conditions. Additional tests, such as urine albumin-creatinine ratio, and more frequent glomerular filtration rate and lipid profile are advised, according to Dr. Drake.

“There also appears to be a role for additional cardiac testing, including echocardiograms and coronary CT scans, and for liver fibrosis screening,” Dr. Drake said. “Medications such as SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and ACE inhibitors, beyond current routine use, are emphasized.” 

To better characterize body composition and help diagnose metabolic syndrome, the advisory also recommends measuring waist circumference, which is not routine practice, noted Joshua J. Joseph, MD, MPH, an associate professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, and a co-author of the advisory. 

Recognizing the interconnected nature of cardiac, kidney, and metabolic diseases encourages a shift in mindset for clinicians, according to Neha Pagidipati, MD, MPH, a cardiologist at Duke Health in Durham, North Carolina.

“We have often been trained to focus on the specific problem in front of us,” Dr. Pagidipati said. “We need to be hyper-aware that many patients we see are at risk for multiple CKM entities. We need to be proactive about screening for and treating these when appropriate.”

The advisory emphasizes the need for CKM coordinators to support teams of clinicians from primary care, cardiology, endocrinology, nephrology, nursing, and pharmacy, as well as social workers, care navigators, or community health workers, Dr. Joseph said. 

“The advisory repositions the PCP at the forefront of CKM care coordination, marking a departure from the traditional model where subspecialists primarily manage complications,” Dr. Hayek added.
 

Changes to Payment

The new recommendations are consistent with current management guidelines for obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. 

“The advisory provides integrated algorithms for cardiovascular prevention and management, with specific therapeutic guidance tied to CKM stages, bringing together the current evidence for best practices from the various guidelines and filling gaps in a unified approach,” Dr. Joseph said. 

In addition, the advisory draws attention to the care of younger patients, who may be at increased risk for cardiovascular disease due to lifestyle factors, according to Nishant Shah, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Duke. 

“It considers barriers to care that prevent people from optimizing their cardiovascular health,” Dr. Shah said. 

Although the advisory does not specify proposed payment changes to support the new care model, the move towards value-based care may require billing practices that accommodate integrated care as well as more frequent and more specialized testing, Dr. Hayek said. 

“The advisory is an empowering tool for PCPs, underscoring their critical role in healthcare,” Dr. Hayek said. “It encourages PCPs to advocate for integrated care within their practices and to consider workflow adjustments that enhance the identification and initiation of preventive care for at-risk patients.”

Funding information was not provided. 

Dr. Joseph reports no relevant financial involvements; several advisory co-authors report financial involvements with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Pagidipati reports relevant financial involvement with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hayek, Dr. Drake, and Dr. Shah report no relevant financial involvements. Dr. Joseph is an author of the advisory. Dr. Pagidipati, Dr. Hayek, Dr. Drake, and Dr. Shah were not involved in the writing of the advisory.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Your patients may see ads claiming that testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) offers postmenopausal women health benefits beyond restored sex drive: that TRT can improve their mood, energy, and thinking and give them stronger bones and bigger muscles.

How accurate are these claims? According to six experts who talked with this news organization, not very.

“Right now in this country and around the world, testosterone’s only use in postmenopausal women is for libido,” said Adrian Sandra Dobs, MD, MHS, professor of medicine and director of the Johns Hopkins Clinical Research Network at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“Treating postmenopausal women with testosterone is a rarity. Some physicians and some wellness centers make their money out of prescribing estrogen and testosterone to women in patches, gels, creams, capsules, pellets, and other forms. But when you look at the scientific data, outside of libido, it’s difficult to recommend testosterone therapy,” she added by phone.

“One has to be very careful about using testosterone in women,” Dr. Dobs cautioned. “There’s a lot of hype out there.”

Low testosterone in women has not been well studied, and no testosterone treatments for this condition have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Providers need to adjust male treatment data to their female patients, who require significantly lower doses than males. Contraindications and long-term side effects are poorly understood, said Mary Rosser, MD, PhD, assistant professor of women’s health and director of integrated women’s health at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

“Despite this preponderance of scientific evidence and recommendations, the myths about testosterone die hard, including that it improves women’s muscle function, endurance, and well-being,” Dr. Rosser said.

“Websites that use compounded products or pellets are not FDA-regulated; therefore, they have no responsibility to prove their claims. They can entice women into using this stuff with all kinds of promises about ‘hormone balancing’ and other meaningless terms. The Endocrine Society statement reviewed the clinical studies on testosterone for various indications surrounding physical endurance, well-being, and mental health – and the studies do not support its use,” Dr. Rosser added.

According to the Australasian Menopause Society, women’s blood testosterone levels tend to peak in their 20s, slowly decline to around 25% of peak levels at menopause, then rise again in later years.

Susan Davis, PhD, and her colleagues at Monash University, Melbourne, found in a study that TRT in postmenopausal women may improve sexual well-being and that side effects include acne and increased hair growth. But they found no benefits for cognition, bone mineral density, body composition, muscle strength, or psychological well-being, and they note that more data are needed on long-term safety.
 

Postmenopausal testosterone recommended for libido only

“Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) is really the only indication for postmenopausal testosterone use,” Nanette F. Santoro, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, noted by email. “In clinical studies using androgen gel containing testosterone, testosterone treatment has resulted in a mean of one more satisfying sexual encounter per month. Consensus statements issued by the Endocrine Society, The International Menopause Society, and the North American Menopause Society have come to similar conclusions: The only indication for androgen therapy for women is HSDD,” added Santoro, an author of the Endocrine Society statement.

“Sexual health and the sense of well-being are very much related,” Sandra Ann Carson, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Yale Medicine, New Haven, Conn., said by phone. “So we give testosterone to increase sexual desire. Testosterone is not a treatment for decreased sense of well-being alone. Women who lose their sense of well-being due to depression or other factors need to have a mental health evaluation, not testosterone.”

“Because no female product is presently approved by a national regulatory body, male formulations can be judiciously used in female doses and blood testosterone concentrations must be monitored regularly,” Dr. Rosser said. “The recommendation is for considering use of compounded testosterone for hypoactive sexual desire only; it is against use for overall health and wellness.”

“The real mischief occurs when women are exposed to doses that are supraphysiologic,” Dr. Rosser cautioned. “At high doses that approach and sometimes exceed men’s levels of testosterone, women can have deepening of the voice, adverse changes in cholesterol, and even breast atrophy. This can occur with bioidentical compounded testosterone and with testosterone pellets. The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine recommend unequivocally that such preparations not be used.”

Not all postmenopausal women should take TRT, said Meredith McClure, MD, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, because it has only been shown in trials to help with HSDD.

She advised clinicians to avoid prescribing testosterone to patients who “can’t take estrogen, including if [they] have hormone-sensitive cancer, blood clot risk, liver disease, heart attack, stroke, or undiagnosed genital bleeding.”
 

TRT for non-libido issues may sometimes be appropriate

“Perhaps women with hip fracture or cancer cachexia could benefit from testosterone to build muscle mass,” said Dr. Dobbs, who is involved in an ongoing study of testosterone treatment in women with hip fracture. “But as yet, we have no proof that testosterone helps.”

In rare cases, Stanley G. Korenman, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and associate dean for ethics at UCLA Health, treats postmenopausal patients with TRT for reasons other than low libido. “I have a very specialized practice in reproductive endocrinology and internal medicine and am one of very few people in the country who do this kind of management,” he said in an interview. “If my postmenopausal patients have low testosterone and lack energy, I’m willing to give them low doses. If they feel more energetic, we continue, but if they don’t, we stop. I don’t think there’s any risk whatsoever at the low level I prescribe.

“I prescribe standard gel that comes in a squirt bottle, and I suggest they take half a squirt every other day – about one-eighth of a male dose – on the sole of the foot, where hair does not grow.

“I would not prescribe testosterone for bone health. We have bisphosphonates and other much better treatments for that. And I would not prescribe it to someone who is seriously emotionally disturbed or seriously depressed. This is not a treatment for depression.”

“Postmenopausal testosterone is not ‘the latest greatest thing,’ but being very low risk, it’s worth trying once in a while, in the appropriate patient, at the right dose,” Dr. Korenman advised. He cautioned people to “avoid the longevity salespeople who sell all sorts of things in all sorts of doses to try to keep us alive forever.”

All contributors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Your patients may see ads claiming that testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) offers postmenopausal women health benefits beyond restored sex drive: that TRT can improve their mood, energy, and thinking and give them stronger bones and bigger muscles.

How accurate are these claims? According to six experts who talked with this news organization, not very.

“Right now in this country and around the world, testosterone’s only use in postmenopausal women is for libido,” said Adrian Sandra Dobs, MD, MHS, professor of medicine and director of the Johns Hopkins Clinical Research Network at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“Treating postmenopausal women with testosterone is a rarity. Some physicians and some wellness centers make their money out of prescribing estrogen and testosterone to women in patches, gels, creams, capsules, pellets, and other forms. But when you look at the scientific data, outside of libido, it’s difficult to recommend testosterone therapy,” she added by phone.

“One has to be very careful about using testosterone in women,” Dr. Dobs cautioned. “There’s a lot of hype out there.”

Low testosterone in women has not been well studied, and no testosterone treatments for this condition have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Providers need to adjust male treatment data to their female patients, who require significantly lower doses than males. Contraindications and long-term side effects are poorly understood, said Mary Rosser, MD, PhD, assistant professor of women’s health and director of integrated women’s health at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

“Despite this preponderance of scientific evidence and recommendations, the myths about testosterone die hard, including that it improves women’s muscle function, endurance, and well-being,” Dr. Rosser said.

“Websites that use compounded products or pellets are not FDA-regulated; therefore, they have no responsibility to prove their claims. They can entice women into using this stuff with all kinds of promises about ‘hormone balancing’ and other meaningless terms. The Endocrine Society statement reviewed the clinical studies on testosterone for various indications surrounding physical endurance, well-being, and mental health – and the studies do not support its use,” Dr. Rosser added.

According to the Australasian Menopause Society, women’s blood testosterone levels tend to peak in their 20s, slowly decline to around 25% of peak levels at menopause, then rise again in later years.

Susan Davis, PhD, and her colleagues at Monash University, Melbourne, found in a study that TRT in postmenopausal women may improve sexual well-being and that side effects include acne and increased hair growth. But they found no benefits for cognition, bone mineral density, body composition, muscle strength, or psychological well-being, and they note that more data are needed on long-term safety.
 

Postmenopausal testosterone recommended for libido only

“Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) is really the only indication for postmenopausal testosterone use,” Nanette F. Santoro, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, noted by email. “In clinical studies using androgen gel containing testosterone, testosterone treatment has resulted in a mean of one more satisfying sexual encounter per month. Consensus statements issued by the Endocrine Society, The International Menopause Society, and the North American Menopause Society have come to similar conclusions: The only indication for androgen therapy for women is HSDD,” added Santoro, an author of the Endocrine Society statement.

“Sexual health and the sense of well-being are very much related,” Sandra Ann Carson, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Yale Medicine, New Haven, Conn., said by phone. “So we give testosterone to increase sexual desire. Testosterone is not a treatment for decreased sense of well-being alone. Women who lose their sense of well-being due to depression or other factors need to have a mental health evaluation, not testosterone.”

“Because no female product is presently approved by a national regulatory body, male formulations can be judiciously used in female doses and blood testosterone concentrations must be monitored regularly,” Dr. Rosser said. “The recommendation is for considering use of compounded testosterone for hypoactive sexual desire only; it is against use for overall health and wellness.”

“The real mischief occurs when women are exposed to doses that are supraphysiologic,” Dr. Rosser cautioned. “At high doses that approach and sometimes exceed men’s levels of testosterone, women can have deepening of the voice, adverse changes in cholesterol, and even breast atrophy. This can occur with bioidentical compounded testosterone and with testosterone pellets. The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine recommend unequivocally that such preparations not be used.”

Not all postmenopausal women should take TRT, said Meredith McClure, MD, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, because it has only been shown in trials to help with HSDD.

She advised clinicians to avoid prescribing testosterone to patients who “can’t take estrogen, including if [they] have hormone-sensitive cancer, blood clot risk, liver disease, heart attack, stroke, or undiagnosed genital bleeding.”
 

TRT for non-libido issues may sometimes be appropriate

“Perhaps women with hip fracture or cancer cachexia could benefit from testosterone to build muscle mass,” said Dr. Dobbs, who is involved in an ongoing study of testosterone treatment in women with hip fracture. “But as yet, we have no proof that testosterone helps.”

In rare cases, Stanley G. Korenman, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and associate dean for ethics at UCLA Health, treats postmenopausal patients with TRT for reasons other than low libido. “I have a very specialized practice in reproductive endocrinology and internal medicine and am one of very few people in the country who do this kind of management,” he said in an interview. “If my postmenopausal patients have low testosterone and lack energy, I’m willing to give them low doses. If they feel more energetic, we continue, but if they don’t, we stop. I don’t think there’s any risk whatsoever at the low level I prescribe.

“I prescribe standard gel that comes in a squirt bottle, and I suggest they take half a squirt every other day – about one-eighth of a male dose – on the sole of the foot, where hair does not grow.

“I would not prescribe testosterone for bone health. We have bisphosphonates and other much better treatments for that. And I would not prescribe it to someone who is seriously emotionally disturbed or seriously depressed. This is not a treatment for depression.”

“Postmenopausal testosterone is not ‘the latest greatest thing,’ but being very low risk, it’s worth trying once in a while, in the appropriate patient, at the right dose,” Dr. Korenman advised. He cautioned people to “avoid the longevity salespeople who sell all sorts of things in all sorts of doses to try to keep us alive forever.”

All contributors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Your patients may see ads claiming that testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) offers postmenopausal women health benefits beyond restored sex drive: that TRT can improve their mood, energy, and thinking and give them stronger bones and bigger muscles.

How accurate are these claims? According to six experts who talked with this news organization, not very.

“Right now in this country and around the world, testosterone’s only use in postmenopausal women is for libido,” said Adrian Sandra Dobs, MD, MHS, professor of medicine and director of the Johns Hopkins Clinical Research Network at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“Treating postmenopausal women with testosterone is a rarity. Some physicians and some wellness centers make their money out of prescribing estrogen and testosterone to women in patches, gels, creams, capsules, pellets, and other forms. But when you look at the scientific data, outside of libido, it’s difficult to recommend testosterone therapy,” she added by phone.

“One has to be very careful about using testosterone in women,” Dr. Dobs cautioned. “There’s a lot of hype out there.”

Low testosterone in women has not been well studied, and no testosterone treatments for this condition have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Providers need to adjust male treatment data to their female patients, who require significantly lower doses than males. Contraindications and long-term side effects are poorly understood, said Mary Rosser, MD, PhD, assistant professor of women’s health and director of integrated women’s health at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

“Despite this preponderance of scientific evidence and recommendations, the myths about testosterone die hard, including that it improves women’s muscle function, endurance, and well-being,” Dr. Rosser said.

“Websites that use compounded products or pellets are not FDA-regulated; therefore, they have no responsibility to prove their claims. They can entice women into using this stuff with all kinds of promises about ‘hormone balancing’ and other meaningless terms. The Endocrine Society statement reviewed the clinical studies on testosterone for various indications surrounding physical endurance, well-being, and mental health – and the studies do not support its use,” Dr. Rosser added.

According to the Australasian Menopause Society, women’s blood testosterone levels tend to peak in their 20s, slowly decline to around 25% of peak levels at menopause, then rise again in later years.

Susan Davis, PhD, and her colleagues at Monash University, Melbourne, found in a study that TRT in postmenopausal women may improve sexual well-being and that side effects include acne and increased hair growth. But they found no benefits for cognition, bone mineral density, body composition, muscle strength, or psychological well-being, and they note that more data are needed on long-term safety.
 

Postmenopausal testosterone recommended for libido only

“Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) is really the only indication for postmenopausal testosterone use,” Nanette F. Santoro, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, noted by email. “In clinical studies using androgen gel containing testosterone, testosterone treatment has resulted in a mean of one more satisfying sexual encounter per month. Consensus statements issued by the Endocrine Society, The International Menopause Society, and the North American Menopause Society have come to similar conclusions: The only indication for androgen therapy for women is HSDD,” added Santoro, an author of the Endocrine Society statement.

“Sexual health and the sense of well-being are very much related,” Sandra Ann Carson, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Yale Medicine, New Haven, Conn., said by phone. “So we give testosterone to increase sexual desire. Testosterone is not a treatment for decreased sense of well-being alone. Women who lose their sense of well-being due to depression or other factors need to have a mental health evaluation, not testosterone.”

“Because no female product is presently approved by a national regulatory body, male formulations can be judiciously used in female doses and blood testosterone concentrations must be monitored regularly,” Dr. Rosser said. “The recommendation is for considering use of compounded testosterone for hypoactive sexual desire only; it is against use for overall health and wellness.”

“The real mischief occurs when women are exposed to doses that are supraphysiologic,” Dr. Rosser cautioned. “At high doses that approach and sometimes exceed men’s levels of testosterone, women can have deepening of the voice, adverse changes in cholesterol, and even breast atrophy. This can occur with bioidentical compounded testosterone and with testosterone pellets. The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine recommend unequivocally that such preparations not be used.”

Not all postmenopausal women should take TRT, said Meredith McClure, MD, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology of UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, because it has only been shown in trials to help with HSDD.

She advised clinicians to avoid prescribing testosterone to patients who “can’t take estrogen, including if [they] have hormone-sensitive cancer, blood clot risk, liver disease, heart attack, stroke, or undiagnosed genital bleeding.”
 

TRT for non-libido issues may sometimes be appropriate

“Perhaps women with hip fracture or cancer cachexia could benefit from testosterone to build muscle mass,” said Dr. Dobbs, who is involved in an ongoing study of testosterone treatment in women with hip fracture. “But as yet, we have no proof that testosterone helps.”

In rare cases, Stanley G. Korenman, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist and associate dean for ethics at UCLA Health, treats postmenopausal patients with TRT for reasons other than low libido. “I have a very specialized practice in reproductive endocrinology and internal medicine and am one of very few people in the country who do this kind of management,” he said in an interview. “If my postmenopausal patients have low testosterone and lack energy, I’m willing to give them low doses. If they feel more energetic, we continue, but if they don’t, we stop. I don’t think there’s any risk whatsoever at the low level I prescribe.

“I prescribe standard gel that comes in a squirt bottle, and I suggest they take half a squirt every other day – about one-eighth of a male dose – on the sole of the foot, where hair does not grow.

“I would not prescribe testosterone for bone health. We have bisphosphonates and other much better treatments for that. And I would not prescribe it to someone who is seriously emotionally disturbed or seriously depressed. This is not a treatment for depression.”

“Postmenopausal testosterone is not ‘the latest greatest thing,’ but being very low risk, it’s worth trying once in a while, in the appropriate patient, at the right dose,” Dr. Korenman advised. He cautioned people to “avoid the longevity salespeople who sell all sorts of things in all sorts of doses to try to keep us alive forever.”

All contributors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Earlier diagnostic screening, routine and emerging therapies, and increased awareness are helping people with the lysosomal storage disorder Fabry disease lead longer, healthier lives. Because Fabry disease is rare, however, it can be misdiagnosed and treated incorrectly – for years and by various providers – while the patient’s health declines.

What do neurologists need to know to ensure that their Fabry disease patients receive a timely diagnosis and then optimal treatment? Four Fabry disease experts shared their perspectives, and recommendations, with Neurology Reviews 2023 Rare Neurological Disease Special Report.
 

What is Fabry disease?

Fabry disease is an X-linked lysosomal storage disorder caused by mutations in the galactosidase alpha (GLA) gene that causes reduced or absent alpha-galactosidase A (alpha-Gal A) enzyme activity. As a result, globotriaosylceramide (Gb3) accumulates, leading to cell, tissue, and organ damage in a range of systems. People with Fabry disease can develop progressive renal and cardiovascular dysfunction, neuropathy, and psychiatric disorders. They can experience cerebrovascular events; have eye, skin, gastrointestinal, and neuro-otologic involvement; and die prematurely.

Estimates of Fabry disease prevalence in the general population range from approximately 1 in 40,000 to 1 in 117,000 people. As an X-linked disorder, Fabry disease has been considered a disease mainly of males; however, affected females who are heterozygous for GLA mutations can remain asymptomatic through a normal lifespan or be as severely affected as a male would be.

Generally speaking, for every Fabry patient whose disease is diagnosed, there are five undiagnosed family members. Fabry disease affects future generations: Many patients are in their reproductive years; they want to have children and are therefore concerned about passing down the disease.

Symptoms of classic Fabry disease tend to appear during childhood or adolescence, often, and as early as 2 years of age, as acroparesthesias that intensify over time. In late-onset Fabry disease, symptoms might begin with renal failure or heart disease in the patient’s 30s, or later.

“Patients with classic Fabry disease commonly complain of acroparesthesias or whole-body pain,” said Anjay Rastogi, MD, PhD, professor of clinical medicine, clinical chief of nephrology, and director of the Fabry Disease Program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles. “With neuropathic pain, drugs like nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs will probably not lessen the pain and might cause further cardiovascular, kidney, and other problems. So much of this pain is controlled by medications that are specific for nerves, including phenytoin, carbamazepine, and gabapentin.”

Rastogi_Anjay_CALIF_web.jpg

How do patients with Fabry disease typically present?

“Typically, with classic Fabry, young men visit the neurologist in their teenage years or later due to acroparesthesias – burning and tingling of the hands and feet,” further explained Gerald Vincent Raymond, MD, professor of genetic medicine and neurology and director of the Lysosomal Storage Disease Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. “Sometimes they come to the attention of neurologists as 20- to 30-year-old men with strokes.

“These patients often undergo a long diagnostic odyssey of being misdiagnosed and treated incorrectly,” Dr. Raymond said. “Only years later, when they develop renal disease, cardiomyopathy, throw emboli, or have large- and small-vessel strokes, does a provider connect the dots.

Raymond_Gerald_V_BALT_web.jpg

Who oversees the care of patients with Fabry disease?

“As a multisystem disease, Fabry disease must be managed by a multidisciplinary team, including genetics, neurology, nephrology, cardiology, psychiatry, ophthalmology, and otolaryngology,” explained Lizbeth Mellin, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics and clinical geneticist at University of Florida Health Jacksonville.

At what point does a neurologist encounter patients with Fabry disease? “Patients with Fabry disease are usually treated by rheumatologists and other specialists before they find a neurologist,” Dr. Mellin said. “Or they may see the neurologist for transient ischemic attacks or stroke, or for treatment of headaches, vascular dementia, dizziness or vertigo, hearing loss, seizures, hemiplegia, or aphasia.

“Almost 80% of adults with Fabry disease have distal neuropathic pain characterized by acroparesthesias and sensory loss starting in the palms of the hands or the soles of the feet, spreading to the entire body, and lasting for hours or days.

Mellin_Lizbeth_FLA_web.jpg

Lauderdale_Chelsea_H_web.jpg

What recent research and advances should neurologists be aware of?

Diagnostics. Tests for Fabry disease now include an enzyme assay to measure alpha-galactosidase activity in the blood of males and genetic testing in males and females to identify GLA mutations. Several states now test newborns for Fabry disease, enabling earlier diagnosis and treatment, Dr. Raymond said. Identifying Fabry disease in a boy by enzyme assay sometimes leads to identifying an uncle, a grandfather, or others in the family who have Fabry. Fabry is sometimes discovered from genetic panels to help diagnose peripheral neuropathy and from prenatal genetic testing.

“Genetic screening of at-risk family members, of any degree, in various generations, is important,” Dr. Rastogi emphasized, “so we construct a family tree to find everyone at risk. Genetic testing is much easier and more widespread than it was even 5 years ago. It’s more accessible and you don’t need to go through a geneticist to diagnose Fabry disease.

“Some patients first come to us for dialysis in their 40s or 50s, but people are being tested and treated at younger ages now, and we also have newborn screening. Genetic testing for Fabry is not common, but in several states, every newborn is tested for Fabry. And, if parents have Fabry, we test their children.”

Therapeutics. “Available and emerging therapies make the field exciting,” Dr. Raymond said. “Some current gene therapy trials look promising, and preliminary evidence suggests that gene therapy may stabilize kidney and heart function.”

“Although Fabry disease does not have a cure,” Dr. Rastogi pointed out, “two treatments for Fabry disease appear to help prevent life-threatening complications: enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) and chaperone therapy.”

Replacing enzymes. “In Fabry disease, the enzyme alpha-galactosidase A is deficient,” Dr. Rastogi explained, “causing build-up of sphingolipids in blood vessels and tissues. ERT, a great advance that we’ve had for over 20 years, replenishes that deficiency. ERT has some challenges: It’s an infusion every 2 weeks for life, and it can have infusion reactions and other complications.

“Newer, second-generation, versions of ERT are being developed, including pegunigalsidase alfa (Elfabrio, Chiesi Global Rare Diseases, Protalix Biotherapeutics), recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat adults with Fabry disease.”

Chaperone therapy. “The oral drug migalastat (Galafold, Fabrazyme) is a small-molecule chaperone therapy that stabilizes the faulty alpha-galactosidase A enzyme,” Dr. Rastogi explained. “It is easier to take, every other day for life, than [undergoing] infusion. Limitations include that it is available only to patients who have the amenable mutations, and whose estimated glomerular filtration rate is greater than 30 [mL/min/1.73 m2], and they may have some adverse events including nausea or vomiting.”

On the horizon: substrate reduction, gene therapy. “[These] are also exciting avenues of research,” said Dr. Rastogi. “Substrate reduction therapy aims to reduce glycosphingolipid accumulation, and lucerastat [Idorsia Pharmaceutical]1,2 and venglustat [Sanofi Genzyme]3,4 are in active clinical trials or trials that have been completed.

Gene therapy “delivers a healthy gene that helps the body produce a previously deficient enzyme,” Dr. Rastogi explained. “This is an early, very promising field in need of more research, with many challenges involving the vector and complications.

“While it is still too early to predict how effective gene therapy will be, research is encouraging. Another promising therapy is modulation of gene expression, which changes the activity of a gene.”

“Gene therapy may potentially offer an alternative to typical ERT, which some patients find burdensome,” Ms. Lauderdale added. “If a neurologist has a patient who may be a good candidate for a gene therapy clinical trial that is recruiting participants, I encourage them to learn more about the study and its requirements.”

Dr. Mellin concurred: “Several gene therapy clinical trials show promise, but further information and evidence are required.”
 

How might these advances affect the trajectory of Fabry disease?

“Untreated Fabry compromises quality of life and may shorten the lifespan,” Dr. Raymond said. “I’m aware of individuals and their family members who died in their 60s. In the past, individuals would develop renal failure, stroke, or cardiomyopathy before being diagnosed and treated, but now we can begin treating them earlier and head off those outcomes.

“We have many options, and their number is increasing. We now diagnose patients when they are younger and maybe presymptomatic, when therapies have much greater potential to ameliorate their lives.”

Dr. Raymond spoke hopefully: “With gene therapy, people with Fabry disease will no longer need enzyme replacement or chaperone therapy. Ultimately, if gene therapy proves to be as efficacious as we hope, without big downsides, we will, essentially, be curing Fabry.”
 

Concluding remarks

In summing up, the four experts quoted in this article offered the following observations and advice for neurologists:

Dr. Mellin. “Pain has a significant impact on quality of life for patients with Fabry disease. Identifying and adequately treating neuropathic pain can be life-changing.”

Ms. Lauderdale. “Reach out to geneticists and other appropriate specialists. We all need to communicate the needs of our patients to ensure they receive the best possible patient-centered care.”

Dr. Rastogi. “Fabry disease is an area of active research that can be a prototype for, and affect the outcomes of, other genetic disorders. I expect to see more centers of excellence for the study and treatment of Fabry disease.”

Dr. Raymond. “With therapies rapidly evolving, neurologists need to consider rare diseases and think about how to build them into their diagnostic schemes.”

Dr. Raymond, Dr. Mellin, and Ms. Lauderdale, have nothing to disclose. Dr. Rastogi discloses a financial relationship with several pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies involved in Fabry disease therapeutics research and development, including Amicus Therapeutics, Chiesi Global Rare Diseases, Genzyme Sanofi, Sanofi S.A., Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Protalix Biotherapeutics.
 

Additional recommended reading

Beck M et al. Twenty years of the Fabry Outcome Survey (FOS): Insights, achievements, and lessons learned from a global patient registry. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022;17(1):238. doi: 10.1186/s13023-022-02392-9.

Beraza-Millor M et al. Novel golden lipid nanoparticles with small interference ribonucleic acid for substrate reduction therapy in Fabry disease. Pharmaceutics. 2023;15(7):1936. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15071936.

Ezgu F et al. Expert opinion on the recognition, diagnosis and management of children and adults with Fabry disease: A multidisciplinary Turkey perspective. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022;17(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s13023-022-02215-x.

Fabry disease registry & pregnancy sub-registry. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00196742. Updated July 13, 2023. Accessed Sept. 13, 2023. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00196742?term=Fabry%20Disease%20Registry%20%26%20Pregnancy%20Sub-registry&rank=1.

Umer M and Kalra DK. Treatment of Fabry disease: established and emerging therapies. Pharmaceuticals. 2023;16(2):320. doi: 10.3390/ph16020320.

Weidemann F et al. Chaperone therapy in Fabry disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(3):1887. doi: 10.3390/ijms23031887.
 

References

1. Efficacy and safety of lucerastat oral monotherapy in adult subjects with Fabry disease (MODIFY). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03425539. Updated Aug. 9, 2022. Accessed Sept. 18, 2023. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03425539?term=NCT03425539&rank=1.

2. A study to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of lucerastat in adult subjects with Fabry disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03737214. Updated Aug. 16, 2023. Accessed Sept. 18, 2023. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03737214?term=NCT03737214&rank=1.

3. Evaluate the safety, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and exploratory efficacy of GZ/SAR402671 in treatment-naive adult male patients with Fabry disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02228460. Updated Dec. 17, 2019. Accessed Sept. 18, 2023. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02228460?term=NCT02228460&rank=1.

4. Evaluation of the long-term safety, pharmacodynamics, and exploratory efficacy of GZ/SAR402671 in treatment-naive adult male patients with Fabry disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02489344. Updated March 23, 2023. Accessed Sept. 18, 2023. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02489344?term=NC

Earlier diagnostic screening, routine and emerging therapies, and increased awareness are helping people with the lysosomal storage disorder Fabry disease lead longer, healthier lives. Because Fabry disease is rare, however, it can be misdiagnosed and treated incorrectly – for years and by various providers – while the patient’s health declines.

What do neurologists need to know to ensure that their Fabry disease patients receive a timely diagnosis and then optimal treatment? Four Fabry disease experts shared their perspectives, and recommendations, with Neurology Reviews 2023 Rare Neurological Disease Special Report.
 

What is Fabry disease?

Fabry disease is an X-linked lysosomal storage disorder caused by mutations in the galactosidase alpha (GLA) gene that causes reduced or absent alpha-galactosidase A (alpha-Gal A) enzyme activity. As a result, globotriaosylceramide (Gb3) accumulates, leading to cell, tissue, and organ damage in a range of systems. People with Fabry disease can develop progressive renal and cardiovascular dysfunction, neuropathy, and psychiatric disorders. They can experience cerebrovascular events; have eye, skin, gastrointestinal, and neuro-otologic involvement; and die prematurely.

Estimates of Fabry disease prevalence in the general population range from approximately 1 in 40,000 to 1 in 117,000 people. As an X-linked disorder, Fabry disease has been considered a disease mainly of males; however, affected females who are heterozygous for GLA mutations can remain asymptomatic through a normal lifespan or be as severely affected as a male would be.

Generally speaking, for every Fabry patient whose disease is diagnosed, there are five undiagnosed family members. Fabry disease affects future generations: Many patients are in their reproductive years; they want to have children and are therefore concerned about passing down the disease.

Symptoms of classic Fabry disease tend to appear during childhood or adolescence, often, and as early as 2 years of age, as acroparesthesias that intensify over time. In late-onset Fabry disease, symptoms might begin with renal failure or heart disease in the patient’s 30s, or later.

“Patients with classic Fabry disease commonly complain of acroparesthesias or whole-body pain,” said Anjay Rastogi, MD, PhD, professor of clinical medicine, clinical chief of nephrology, and director of the Fabry Disease Program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles. “With neuropathic pain, drugs like nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs will probably not lessen the pain and might cause further cardiovascular, kidney, and other problems. So much of this pain is controlled by medications that are specific for nerves, including phenytoin, carbamazepine, and gabapentin.”

Rastogi_Anjay_CALIF_web.jpg

How do patients with Fabry disease typically present?

“Typically, with classic Fabry, young men visit the neurologist in their teenage years or later due to acroparesthesias – burning and tingling of the hands and feet,” further explained Gerald Vincent Raymond, MD, professor of genetic medicine and neurology and director of the Lysosomal Storage Disease Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. “Sometimes they come to the attention of neurologists as 20- to 30-year-old men with strokes.

“These patients often undergo a long diagnostic odyssey of being misdiagnosed and treated incorrectly,” Dr. Raymond said. “Only years later, when they develop renal disease, cardiomyopathy, throw emboli, or have large- and small-vessel strokes, does a provider connect the dots.

Raymond_Gerald_V_BALT_web.jpg

Who oversees the care of patients with Fabry disease?

“As a multisystem disease, Fabry disease must be managed by a multidisciplinary team, including genetics, neurology, nephrology, cardiology, psychiatry, ophthalmology, and otolaryngology,” explained Lizbeth Mellin, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics and clinical geneticist at University of Florida Health Jacksonville.

At what point does a neurologist encounter patients with Fabry disease? “Patients with Fabry disease are usually treated by rheumatologists and other specialists before they find a neurologist,” Dr. Mellin said. “Or they may see the neurologist for transient ischemic attacks or stroke, or for treatment of headaches, vascular dementia, dizziness or vertigo, hearing loss, seizures, hemiplegia, or aphasia.

“Almost 80% of adults with Fabry disease have distal neuropathic pain characterized by acroparesthesias and sensory loss starting in the palms of the hands or the soles of the feet, spreading to the entire body, and lasting for hours or days.

Mellin_Lizbeth_FLA_web.jpg

Lauderdale_Chelsea_H_web.jpg

What recent research and advances should neurologists be aware of?

Diagnostics. Tests for Fabry disease now include an enzyme assay to measure alpha-galactosidase activity in the blood of males and genetic testing in males and females to identify GLA mutations. Several states now test newborns for Fabry disease, enabling earlier diagnosis and treatment, Dr. Raymond said. Identifying Fabry disease in a boy by enzyme assay sometimes leads to identifying an uncle, a grandfather, or others in the family who have Fabry. Fabry is sometimes discovered from genetic panels to help diagnose peripheral neuropathy and from prenatal genetic testing.

“Genetic screening of at-risk family members, of any degree, in various generations, is important,” Dr. Rastogi emphasized, “so we construct a family tree to find everyone at risk. Genetic testing is much easier and more widespread than it was even 5 years ago. It’s more accessible and you don’t need to go through a geneticist to diagnose Fabry disease.

“Some patients first come to us for dialysis in their 40s or 50s, but people are being tested and treated at younger ages now, and we also have newborn screening. Genetic testing for Fabry is not common, but in several states, every newborn is tested for Fabry. And, if parents have Fabry, we test their children.”

Therapeutics. “Available and emerging therapies make the field exciting,” Dr. Raymond said. “Some current gene therapy trials look promising, and preliminary evidence suggests that gene therapy may stabilize kidney and heart function.”

“Although Fabry disease does not have a cure,” Dr. Rastogi pointed out, “two treatments for Fabry disease appear to help prevent life-threatening complications: enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) and chaperone therapy.”

Replacing enzymes. “In Fabry disease, the enzyme alpha-galactosidase A is deficient,” Dr. Rastogi explained, “causing build-up of sphingolipids in blood vessels and tissues. ERT, a great advance that we’ve had for over 20 years, replenishes that deficiency. ERT has some challenges: It’s an infusion every 2 weeks for life, and it can have infusion reactions and other complications.

“Newer, second-generation, versions of ERT are being developed, including pegunigalsidase alfa (Elfabrio, Chiesi Global Rare Diseases, Protalix Biotherapeutics), recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat adults with Fabry disease.”

Chaperone therapy. “The oral drug migalastat (Galafold, Fabrazyme) is a small-molecule chaperone therapy that stabilizes the faulty alpha-galactosidase A enzyme,” Dr. Rastogi explained. “It is easier to take, every other day for life, than [undergoing] infusion. Limitations include that it is available only to patients who have the amenable mutations, and whose estimated glomerular filtration rate is greater than 30 [mL/min/1.73 m2], and they may have some adverse events including nausea or vomiting.”

On the horizon: substrate reduction, gene therapy. “[These] are also exciting avenues of research,” said Dr. Rastogi. “Substrate reduction therapy aims to reduce glycosphingolipid accumulation, and lucerastat [Idorsia Pharmaceutical]1,2 and venglustat [Sanofi Genzyme]3,4 are in active clinical trials or trials that have been completed.

Gene therapy “delivers a healthy gene that helps the body produce a previously deficient enzyme,” Dr. Rastogi explained. “This is an early, very promising field in need of more research, with many challenges involving the vector and complications.

“While it is still too early to predict how effective gene therapy will be, research is encouraging. Another promising therapy is modulation of gene expression, which changes the activity of a gene.”

“Gene therapy may potentially offer an alternative to typical ERT, which some patients find burdensome,” Ms. Lauderdale added. “If a neurologist has a patient who may be a good candidate for a gene therapy clinical trial that is recruiting participants, I encourage them to learn more about the study and its requirements.”

Dr. Mellin concurred: “Several gene therapy clinical trials show promise, but further information and evidence are required.”
 

How might these advances affect the trajectory of Fabry disease?

“Untreated Fabry compromises quality of life and may shorten the lifespan,” Dr. Raymond said. “I’m aware of individuals and their family members who died in their 60s. In the past, individuals would develop renal failure, stroke, or cardiomyopathy before being diagnosed and treated, but now we can begin treating them earlier and head off those outcomes.

“We have many options, and their number is increasing. We now diagnose patients when they are younger and maybe presymptomatic, when therapies have much greater potential to ameliorate their lives.”

Dr. Raymond spoke hopefully: “With gene therapy, people with Fabry disease will no longer need enzyme replacement or chaperone therapy. Ultimately, if gene therapy proves to be as efficacious as we hope, without big downsides, we will, essentially, be curing Fabry.”
 

Concluding remarks

In summing up, the four experts quoted in this article offered the following observations and advice for neurologists:

Dr. Mellin. “Pain has a significant impact on quality of life for patients with Fabry disease. Identifying and adequately treating neuropathic pain can be life-changing.”

Ms. Lauderdale. “Reach out to geneticists and other appropriate specialists. We all need to communicate the needs of our patients to ensure they receive the best possible patient-centered care.”

Dr. Rastogi. “Fabry disease is an area of active research that can be a prototype for, and affect the outcomes of, other genetic disorders. I expect to see more centers of excellence for the study and treatment of Fabry disease.”

Dr. Raymond. “With therapies rapidly evolving, neurologists need to consider rare diseases and think about how to build them into their diagnostic schemes.”

Dr. Raymond, Dr. Mellin, and Ms. Lauderdale, have nothing to disclose. Dr. Rastogi discloses a financial relationship with several pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies involved in Fabry disease therapeutics research and development, including Amicus Therapeutics, Chiesi Global Rare Diseases, Genzyme Sanofi, Sanofi S.A., Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Protalix Biotherapeutics.
 

Additional recommended reading

Beck M et al. Twenty years of the Fabry Outcome Survey (FOS): Insights, achievements, and lessons learned from a global patient registry. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022;17(1):238. doi: 10.1186/s13023-022-02392-9.

Beraza-Millor M et al. Novel golden lipid nanoparticles with small interference ribonucleic acid for substrate reduction therapy in Fabry disease. Pharmaceutics. 2023;15(7):1936. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15071936.

Ezgu F et al. Expert opinion on the recognition, diagnosis and management of children and adults with Fabry disease: A multidisciplinary Turkey perspective. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022;17(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s13023-022-02215-x.

Fabry disease registry & pregnancy sub-registry. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00196742. Updated July 13, 2023. Accessed Sept. 13, 2023. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00196742?term=Fabry%20Disease%20Registry%20%26%20Pregnancy%20Sub-registry&rank=1.

Umer M and Kalra DK. Treatment of Fabry disease: established and emerging therapies. Pharmaceuticals. 2023;16(2):320. doi: 10.3390/ph16020320.

Weidemann F et al. Chaperone therapy in Fabry disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(3):1887. doi: 10.3390/ijms23031887.
 

References

1. Efficacy and safety of lucerastat oral monotherapy in adult subjects with Fabry disease (MODIFY). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03425539. Updated Aug. 9, 2022. Accessed Sept. 18, 2023. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03425539?term=NCT03425539&rank=1.

2. A study to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of lucerastat in adult subjects with Fabry disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03737214. Updated Aug. 16, 2023. Accessed Sept. 18, 2023. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03737214?term=NCT03737214&rank=1.

3. Evaluate the safety, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and exploratory efficacy of GZ/SAR402671 in treatment-naive adult male patients with Fabry disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02228460. Updated Dec. 17, 2019. Accessed Sept. 18, 2023. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02228460?term=NCT02228460&rank=1.

4. Evaluation of the long-term safety, pharmacodynamics, and exploratory efficacy of GZ/SAR402671 in treatment-naive adult male patients with Fabry disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02489344. Updated March 23, 2023. Accessed Sept. 18, 2023. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02489344?term=NC

Earlier diagnostic screening, routine and emerging therapies, and increased awareness are helping people with the lysosomal storage disorder Fabry disease lead longer, healthier lives. Because Fabry disease is rare, however, it can be misdiagnosed and treated incorrectly – for years and by various providers – while the patient’s health declines.

What do neurologists need to know to ensure that their Fabry disease patients receive a timely diagnosis and then optimal treatment? Four Fabry disease experts shared their perspectives, and recommendations, with Neurology Reviews 2023 Rare Neurological Disease Special Report.
 

What is Fabry disease?

Fabry disease is an X-linked lysosomal storage disorder caused by mutations in the galactosidase alpha (GLA) gene that causes reduced or absent alpha-galactosidase A (alpha-Gal A) enzyme activity. As a result, globotriaosylceramide (Gb3) accumulates, leading to cell, tissue, and organ damage in a range of systems. People with Fabry disease can develop progressive renal and cardiovascular dysfunction, neuropathy, and psychiatric disorders. They can experience cerebrovascular events; have eye, skin, gastrointestinal, and neuro-otologic involvement; and die prematurely.

Estimates of Fabry disease prevalence in the general population range from approximately 1 in 40,000 to 1 in 117,000 people. As an X-linked disorder, Fabry disease has been considered a disease mainly of males; however, affected females who are heterozygous for GLA mutations can remain asymptomatic through a normal lifespan or be as severely affected as a male would be.

Generally speaking, for every Fabry patient whose disease is diagnosed, there are five undiagnosed family members. Fabry disease affects future generations: Many patients are in their reproductive years; they want to have children and are therefore concerned about passing down the disease.

Symptoms of classic Fabry disease tend to appear during childhood or adolescence, often, and as early as 2 years of age, as acroparesthesias that intensify over time. In late-onset Fabry disease, symptoms might begin with renal failure or heart disease in the patient’s 30s, or later.

“Patients with classic Fabry disease commonly complain of acroparesthesias or whole-body pain,” said Anjay Rastogi, MD, PhD, professor of clinical medicine, clinical chief of nephrology, and director of the Fabry Disease Program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles. “With neuropathic pain, drugs like nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs will probably not lessen the pain and might cause further cardiovascular, kidney, and other problems. So much of this pain is controlled by medications that are specific for nerves, including phenytoin, carbamazepine, and gabapentin.”

Rastogi_Anjay_CALIF_web.jpg

How do patients with Fabry disease typically present?

“Typically, with classic Fabry, young men visit the neurologist in their teenage years or later due to acroparesthesias – burning and tingling of the hands and feet,” further explained Gerald Vincent Raymond, MD, professor of genetic medicine and neurology and director of the Lysosomal Storage Disease Center at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. “Sometimes they come to the attention of neurologists as 20- to 30-year-old men with strokes.

“These patients often undergo a long diagnostic odyssey of being misdiagnosed and treated incorrectly,” Dr. Raymond said. “Only years later, when they develop renal disease, cardiomyopathy, throw emboli, or have large- and small-vessel strokes, does a provider connect the dots.

Raymond_Gerald_V_BALT_web.jpg

Who oversees the care of patients with Fabry disease?

“As a multisystem disease, Fabry disease must be managed by a multidisciplinary team, including genetics, neurology, nephrology, cardiology, psychiatry, ophthalmology, and otolaryngology,” explained Lizbeth Mellin, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics and clinical geneticist at University of Florida Health Jacksonville.

At what point does a neurologist encounter patients with Fabry disease? “Patients with Fabry disease are usually treated by rheumatologists and other specialists before they find a neurologist,” Dr. Mellin said. “Or they may see the neurologist for transient ischemic attacks or stroke, or for treatment of headaches, vascular dementia, dizziness or vertigo, hearing loss, seizures, hemiplegia, or aphasia.

“Almost 80% of adults with Fabry disease have distal neuropathic pain characterized by acroparesthesias and sensory loss starting in the palms of the hands or the soles of the feet, spreading to the entire body, and lasting for hours or days.

Mellin_Lizbeth_FLA_web.jpg

Lauderdale_Chelsea_H_web.jpg

What recent research and advances should neurologists be aware of?

Diagnostics. Tests for Fabry disease now include an enzyme assay to measure alpha-galactosidase activity in the blood of males and genetic testing in males and females to identify GLA mutations. Several states now test newborns for Fabry disease, enabling earlier diagnosis and treatment, Dr. Raymond said. Identifying Fabry disease in a boy by enzyme assay sometimes leads to identifying an uncle, a grandfather, or others in the family who have Fabry. Fabry is sometimes discovered from genetic panels to help diagnose peripheral neuropathy and from prenatal genetic testing.

“Genetic screening of at-risk family members, of any degree, in various generations, is important,” Dr. Rastogi emphasized, “so we construct a family tree to find everyone at risk. Genetic testing is much easier and more widespread than it was even 5 years ago. It’s more accessible and you don’t need to go through a geneticist to diagnose Fabry disease.

“Some patients first come to us for dialysis in their 40s or 50s, but people are being tested and treated at younger ages now, and we also have newborn screening. Genetic testing for Fabry is not common, but in several states, every newborn is tested for Fabry. And, if parents have Fabry, we test their children.”

Therapeutics. “Available and emerging therapies make the field exciting,” Dr. Raymond said. “Some current gene therapy trials look promising, and preliminary evidence suggests that gene therapy may stabilize kidney and heart function.”

“Although Fabry disease does not have a cure,” Dr. Rastogi pointed out, “two treatments for Fabry disease appear to help prevent life-threatening complications: enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) and chaperone therapy.”

Replacing enzymes. “In Fabry disease, the enzyme alpha-galactosidase A is deficient,” Dr. Rastogi explained, “causing build-up of sphingolipids in blood vessels and tissues. ERT, a great advance that we’ve had for over 20 years, replenishes that deficiency. ERT has some challenges: It’s an infusion every 2 weeks for life, and it can have infusion reactions and other complications.

“Newer, second-generation, versions of ERT are being developed, including pegunigalsidase alfa (Elfabrio, Chiesi Global Rare Diseases, Protalix Biotherapeutics), recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat adults with Fabry disease.”

Chaperone therapy. “The oral drug migalastat (Galafold, Fabrazyme) is a small-molecule chaperone therapy that stabilizes the faulty alpha-galactosidase A enzyme,” Dr. Rastogi explained. “It is easier to take, every other day for life, than [undergoing] infusion. Limitations include that it is available only to patients who have the amenable mutations, and whose estimated glomerular filtration rate is greater than 30 [mL/min/1.73 m2], and they may have some adverse events including nausea or vomiting.”

On the horizon: substrate reduction, gene therapy. “[These] are also exciting avenues of research,” said Dr. Rastogi. “Substrate reduction therapy aims to reduce glycosphingolipid accumulation, and lucerastat [Idorsia Pharmaceutical]1,2 and venglustat [Sanofi Genzyme]3,4 are in active clinical trials or trials that have been completed.

Gene therapy “delivers a healthy gene that helps the body produce a previously deficient enzyme,” Dr. Rastogi explained. “This is an early, very promising field in need of more research, with many challenges involving the vector and complications.

“While it is still too early to predict how effective gene therapy will be, research is encouraging. Another promising therapy is modulation of gene expression, which changes the activity of a gene.”

“Gene therapy may potentially offer an alternative to typical ERT, which some patients find burdensome,” Ms. Lauderdale added. “If a neurologist has a patient who may be a good candidate for a gene therapy clinical trial that is recruiting participants, I encourage them to learn more about the study and its requirements.”

Dr. Mellin concurred: “Several gene therapy clinical trials show promise, but further information and evidence are required.”
 

How might these advances affect the trajectory of Fabry disease?

“Untreated Fabry compromises quality of life and may shorten the lifespan,” Dr. Raymond said. “I’m aware of individuals and their family members who died in their 60s. In the past, individuals would develop renal failure, stroke, or cardiomyopathy before being diagnosed and treated, but now we can begin treating them earlier and head off those outcomes.

“We have many options, and their number is increasing. We now diagnose patients when they are younger and maybe presymptomatic, when therapies have much greater potential to ameliorate their lives.”

Dr. Raymond spoke hopefully: “With gene therapy, people with Fabry disease will no longer need enzyme replacement or chaperone therapy. Ultimately, if gene therapy proves to be as efficacious as we hope, without big downsides, we will, essentially, be curing Fabry.”
 

Concluding remarks

In summing up, the four experts quoted in this article offered the following observations and advice for neurologists:

Dr. Mellin. “Pain has a significant impact on quality of life for patients with Fabry disease. Identifying and adequately treating neuropathic pain can be life-changing.”

Ms. Lauderdale. “Reach out to geneticists and other appropriate specialists. We all need to communicate the needs of our patients to ensure they receive the best possible patient-centered care.”

Dr. Rastogi. “Fabry disease is an area of active research that can be a prototype for, and affect the outcomes of, other genetic disorders. I expect to see more centers of excellence for the study and treatment of Fabry disease.”

Dr. Raymond. “With therapies rapidly evolving, neurologists need to consider rare diseases and think about how to build them into their diagnostic schemes.”

Dr. Raymond, Dr. Mellin, and Ms. Lauderdale, have nothing to disclose. Dr. Rastogi discloses a financial relationship with several pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies involved in Fabry disease therapeutics research and development, including Amicus Therapeutics, Chiesi Global Rare Diseases, Genzyme Sanofi, Sanofi S.A., Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Protalix Biotherapeutics.
 

Additional recommended reading

Beck M et al. Twenty years of the Fabry Outcome Survey (FOS): Insights, achievements, and lessons learned from a global patient registry. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022;17(1):238. doi: 10.1186/s13023-022-02392-9.

Beraza-Millor M et al. Novel golden lipid nanoparticles with small interference ribonucleic acid for substrate reduction therapy in Fabry disease. Pharmaceutics. 2023;15(7):1936. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15071936.

Ezgu F et al. Expert opinion on the recognition, diagnosis and management of children and adults with Fabry disease: A multidisciplinary Turkey perspective. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022;17(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s13023-022-02215-x.

Fabry disease registry & pregnancy sub-registry. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00196742. Updated July 13, 2023. Accessed Sept. 13, 2023. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00196742?term=Fabry%20Disease%20Registry%20%26%20Pregnancy%20Sub-registry&rank=1.

Umer M and Kalra DK. Treatment of Fabry disease: established and emerging therapies. Pharmaceuticals. 2023;16(2):320. doi: 10.3390/ph16020320.

Weidemann F et al. Chaperone therapy in Fabry disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(3):1887. doi: 10.3390/ijms23031887.
 

References

1. Efficacy and safety of lucerastat oral monotherapy in adult subjects with Fabry disease (MODIFY). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03425539. Updated Aug. 9, 2022. Accessed Sept. 18, 2023. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03425539?term=NCT03425539&rank=1.

2. A study to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of lucerastat in adult subjects with Fabry disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03737214. Updated Aug. 16, 2023. Accessed Sept. 18, 2023. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03737214?term=NCT03737214&rank=1.

3. Evaluate the safety, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and exploratory efficacy of GZ/SAR402671 in treatment-naive adult male patients with Fabry disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02228460. Updated Dec. 17, 2019. Accessed Sept. 18, 2023. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02228460?term=NCT02228460&rank=1.

4. Evaluation of the long-term safety, pharmacodynamics, and exploratory efficacy of GZ/SAR402671 in treatment-naive adult male patients with Fabry disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02489344. Updated March 23, 2023. Accessed Sept. 18, 2023. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02489344?term=NC

The risk for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was increased among children and adults with atopic dermatitis (AD), with the risk increasing with AD severity, according to data from a large cohort study published recently in JAMA Dermatology.

The study also found an increased risk for Crohn’s disease (CD) in adults and children with AD, as well as an increased risk for ulcerative colitis (UC) in adults with AD and in children with severe AD, researchers reported.

“It is imperative for clinicians to understand atopic dermatitis and the trajectory of our patients with it in order to provide the best standard of care,” senior author Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor in clinical investigation with the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a news release.

144542_Gelfand_Joel_web.JPG

“There are new and better treatments for AD today, and there will likely continue to be more,” continued Dr. Gelfand. “But providers have to understand how those treatments could impact other autoimmune diseases. For patients with AD and another autoimmune disease, some currently available medications can exacerbate symptoms of their other disease or can help treat two immune diseases at the same time.”

The study results support the idea that AD and IBD may have some common underlying causes, said Sheilagh Maguiness, MD, pediatric dermatologist and associate professor in the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who was asked to comment on the findings.

“As the pathogenesis of AD is becoming better understood, we are recognizing that, rather than simply a cutaneous disease, the underlying inflammation and immune dysregulation that leads to AD best categorizes it as a systemic inflammatory disease with significant comorbidities,” she told this news organization. “I will be more likely to ask patients and families about GI symptoms, and if positive, may plan to refer to GI more readily than in the past,” added Dr. Maguiness, who was not involved in the study.

Maguiness_Sheilagh_MINN_web.jpg

UK general practice cohort

AD has been associated with an increasing number of comorbidities, including IBD, but studies linking AD with IBD, including UC, have had mixed results, the authors wrote. And few studies have separately examined how AD or AD severity may be linked with UC or CD risk.

To examine the risk for new-onset IBD, UC, and CD in children and adults with atopic dermatitis, the researchers conducted a population-based cohort study using the THIN (The Health Improvement Network) electronic medical record database of patients registered with United Kingdom general practices. They used 21 years of data collected from January 1994 to February 2015.

The researchers matched each patient who had AD with up to five controls based on age, practice, and index date. Because THIN does not capture AD severity, they used treatment exposure assessed by dermatologic referrals and treatments patients received as proxy for severity. The authors used logistic regression to examine the risks for IBD, UC, and CD in children (aged 1-10) with AD, and in adults (aged 30-68) with AD, and they compared their outcomes with the outcomes for controls.

In the pediatric cohort, the team compared 409,431 children who had AD with 1.8 million children without AD. Slightly more than half were boys. In the adult cohort, they compared 625,083 people who had AD with 2.68 million controls, and slightly more than half were women. Data on race or ethnicity were not available, the authors wrote, but the THIN database is considered to be representative of the UK population.
 

AD severity linked with IBD risk

The risk for new-onset inflammatory bowel disease appears to be higher in children and adults with AD, and the risk varies based on age, AD severity, and subtype of inflammatory bowel disease, the authors reported.

Overall, AD in children was associated with a 44% increased risk for IBD (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-1.58) compared with controls, the authors reported. They found a 74% increased risk for CD in children with AD compared with controls (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.97). More severe AD was linked with increased risk for both IBD and CD.

[embed:render:related:node:261058]

AD did not appear to increase risk for UC in children, except those with severe AD (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.02-2.67).

Overall, adults with AD had a 34% (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.27-1.40) increased risk for IBD, a 36% (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.26-1.47) increased risk for CD, and a 32% (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24-1.41) increased risk for UC, with risk increasing with increased AD severity.

Robust data with cautionary note

“This study provides the most robust data to date on the association between IBD and AD. It provides clear evidence for an association that most dermatologists or primary care providers are not typically taught in training,” Kelly Scarberry, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, told this news organization. “I will be much more likely to pursue diagnostic workup in my AD patients who have GI complaints.”

Scarberry_Kelly_OHIO_web.jpg

However, AD severity was measured by proxy, added Dr. Scarberry, who was not involved in the study, and the study lacked important racial and ethnic data.

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., also not involved in the study, said in an interview that she found the size of the cohort and the longitudinal data to be strengths of the study.

Strowd_Lindsay_C_NC_web.jpg

But, she added, the “lack of family IBD history, race and ethnicity, and comorbidities, are limitations, as is treatment exposure used as a proxy for disease severity, given that physician treatment practices differ.”

For Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest, “the most important conclusion, and it is a definitive finding, [is] that IBD is uncommon, even in patients with AD.

“The findings could be misinterpreted,” cautioned Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study. “While there is an increased relative risk, the absolute risk is small.” The study found that “the highest relative risk group is children with severe AD, who have a roughly fivefold increased risk for CD.” However, he added, the incidence rates of CD were 0.68 per 1,000 person-years in children with severe AD and 0.08 per 1,000 person-years in controls.

Feldman_Steven_NC_web.jpg

“Basically, because Crohn’s disease and IBD don’t happen very often, the modest increase in relative risk the investigators found doesn’t amount to much we’d have to worry about,” he said. “The findings do not show any need to screen patients with atopic dermatitis for IBD any more than we’d need to screen patients without atopic dermatitis.”

The increased relative risk “could be a clue to possible genetic connections between diseases,” he added. “But when we’re making clinical decisions, those decisions should be based on the absolute risk that some event may occur.”

Susan Massick, MD, dermatologist and associate professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview, “We are still scratching the surface of the complexity of the immune and inflammatory pathways in AD and IBD.

Massick_Susan_OHIO_web.jpg

“It is important to remember that correlation does not mean causation,” Dr. Massick said. “It would be premature to draw direct conclusions based on this study alone.”

The authors recommend future related studies in more diverse populations.

Dr. Gelfand and two coauthors reported ties with Pfizer, which supported the study. Dr. Gelfand and three coauthors reported ties with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Maguiness, Dr. Scarberry, Dr. Strowd, and Dr. Massick reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Feldman reported ties with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was increased among children and adults with atopic dermatitis (AD), with the risk increasing with AD severity, according to data from a large cohort study published recently in JAMA Dermatology.

The study also found an increased risk for Crohn’s disease (CD) in adults and children with AD, as well as an increased risk for ulcerative colitis (UC) in adults with AD and in children with severe AD, researchers reported.

“It is imperative for clinicians to understand atopic dermatitis and the trajectory of our patients with it in order to provide the best standard of care,” senior author Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor in clinical investigation with the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a news release.

144542_Gelfand_Joel_web.JPG

“There are new and better treatments for AD today, and there will likely continue to be more,” continued Dr. Gelfand. “But providers have to understand how those treatments could impact other autoimmune diseases. For patients with AD and another autoimmune disease, some currently available medications can exacerbate symptoms of their other disease or can help treat two immune diseases at the same time.”

The study results support the idea that AD and IBD may have some common underlying causes, said Sheilagh Maguiness, MD, pediatric dermatologist and associate professor in the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who was asked to comment on the findings.

“As the pathogenesis of AD is becoming better understood, we are recognizing that, rather than simply a cutaneous disease, the underlying inflammation and immune dysregulation that leads to AD best categorizes it as a systemic inflammatory disease with significant comorbidities,” she told this news organization. “I will be more likely to ask patients and families about GI symptoms, and if positive, may plan to refer to GI more readily than in the past,” added Dr. Maguiness, who was not involved in the study.

Maguiness_Sheilagh_MINN_web.jpg

UK general practice cohort

AD has been associated with an increasing number of comorbidities, including IBD, but studies linking AD with IBD, including UC, have had mixed results, the authors wrote. And few studies have separately examined how AD or AD severity may be linked with UC or CD risk.

To examine the risk for new-onset IBD, UC, and CD in children and adults with atopic dermatitis, the researchers conducted a population-based cohort study using the THIN (The Health Improvement Network) electronic medical record database of patients registered with United Kingdom general practices. They used 21 years of data collected from January 1994 to February 2015.

The researchers matched each patient who had AD with up to five controls based on age, practice, and index date. Because THIN does not capture AD severity, they used treatment exposure assessed by dermatologic referrals and treatments patients received as proxy for severity. The authors used logistic regression to examine the risks for IBD, UC, and CD in children (aged 1-10) with AD, and in adults (aged 30-68) with AD, and they compared their outcomes with the outcomes for controls.

In the pediatric cohort, the team compared 409,431 children who had AD with 1.8 million children without AD. Slightly more than half were boys. In the adult cohort, they compared 625,083 people who had AD with 2.68 million controls, and slightly more than half were women. Data on race or ethnicity were not available, the authors wrote, but the THIN database is considered to be representative of the UK population.
 

AD severity linked with IBD risk

The risk for new-onset inflammatory bowel disease appears to be higher in children and adults with AD, and the risk varies based on age, AD severity, and subtype of inflammatory bowel disease, the authors reported.

Overall, AD in children was associated with a 44% increased risk for IBD (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-1.58) compared with controls, the authors reported. They found a 74% increased risk for CD in children with AD compared with controls (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.97). More severe AD was linked with increased risk for both IBD and CD.

[embed:render:related:node:261058]

AD did not appear to increase risk for UC in children, except those with severe AD (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.02-2.67).

Overall, adults with AD had a 34% (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.27-1.40) increased risk for IBD, a 36% (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.26-1.47) increased risk for CD, and a 32% (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24-1.41) increased risk for UC, with risk increasing with increased AD severity.

Robust data with cautionary note

“This study provides the most robust data to date on the association between IBD and AD. It provides clear evidence for an association that most dermatologists or primary care providers are not typically taught in training,” Kelly Scarberry, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, told this news organization. “I will be much more likely to pursue diagnostic workup in my AD patients who have GI complaints.”

Scarberry_Kelly_OHIO_web.jpg

However, AD severity was measured by proxy, added Dr. Scarberry, who was not involved in the study, and the study lacked important racial and ethnic data.

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., also not involved in the study, said in an interview that she found the size of the cohort and the longitudinal data to be strengths of the study.

Strowd_Lindsay_C_NC_web.jpg

But, she added, the “lack of family IBD history, race and ethnicity, and comorbidities, are limitations, as is treatment exposure used as a proxy for disease severity, given that physician treatment practices differ.”

For Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest, “the most important conclusion, and it is a definitive finding, [is] that IBD is uncommon, even in patients with AD.

“The findings could be misinterpreted,” cautioned Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study. “While there is an increased relative risk, the absolute risk is small.” The study found that “the highest relative risk group is children with severe AD, who have a roughly fivefold increased risk for CD.” However, he added, the incidence rates of CD were 0.68 per 1,000 person-years in children with severe AD and 0.08 per 1,000 person-years in controls.

Feldman_Steven_NC_web.jpg

“Basically, because Crohn’s disease and IBD don’t happen very often, the modest increase in relative risk the investigators found doesn’t amount to much we’d have to worry about,” he said. “The findings do not show any need to screen patients with atopic dermatitis for IBD any more than we’d need to screen patients without atopic dermatitis.”

The increased relative risk “could be a clue to possible genetic connections between diseases,” he added. “But when we’re making clinical decisions, those decisions should be based on the absolute risk that some event may occur.”

Susan Massick, MD, dermatologist and associate professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview, “We are still scratching the surface of the complexity of the immune and inflammatory pathways in AD and IBD.

Massick_Susan_OHIO_web.jpg

“It is important to remember that correlation does not mean causation,” Dr. Massick said. “It would be premature to draw direct conclusions based on this study alone.”

The authors recommend future related studies in more diverse populations.

Dr. Gelfand and two coauthors reported ties with Pfizer, which supported the study. Dr. Gelfand and three coauthors reported ties with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Maguiness, Dr. Scarberry, Dr. Strowd, and Dr. Massick reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Feldman reported ties with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was increased among children and adults with atopic dermatitis (AD), with the risk increasing with AD severity, according to data from a large cohort study published recently in JAMA Dermatology.

The study also found an increased risk for Crohn’s disease (CD) in adults and children with AD, as well as an increased risk for ulcerative colitis (UC) in adults with AD and in children with severe AD, researchers reported.

“It is imperative for clinicians to understand atopic dermatitis and the trajectory of our patients with it in order to provide the best standard of care,” senior author Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor in clinical investigation with the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a news release.

144542_Gelfand_Joel_web.JPG

“There are new and better treatments for AD today, and there will likely continue to be more,” continued Dr. Gelfand. “But providers have to understand how those treatments could impact other autoimmune diseases. For patients with AD and another autoimmune disease, some currently available medications can exacerbate symptoms of their other disease or can help treat two immune diseases at the same time.”

The study results support the idea that AD and IBD may have some common underlying causes, said Sheilagh Maguiness, MD, pediatric dermatologist and associate professor in the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who was asked to comment on the findings.

“As the pathogenesis of AD is becoming better understood, we are recognizing that, rather than simply a cutaneous disease, the underlying inflammation and immune dysregulation that leads to AD best categorizes it as a systemic inflammatory disease with significant comorbidities,” she told this news organization. “I will be more likely to ask patients and families about GI symptoms, and if positive, may plan to refer to GI more readily than in the past,” added Dr. Maguiness, who was not involved in the study.

Maguiness_Sheilagh_MINN_web.jpg

UK general practice cohort

AD has been associated with an increasing number of comorbidities, including IBD, but studies linking AD with IBD, including UC, have had mixed results, the authors wrote. And few studies have separately examined how AD or AD severity may be linked with UC or CD risk.

To examine the risk for new-onset IBD, UC, and CD in children and adults with atopic dermatitis, the researchers conducted a population-based cohort study using the THIN (The Health Improvement Network) electronic medical record database of patients registered with United Kingdom general practices. They used 21 years of data collected from January 1994 to February 2015.

The researchers matched each patient who had AD with up to five controls based on age, practice, and index date. Because THIN does not capture AD severity, they used treatment exposure assessed by dermatologic referrals and treatments patients received as proxy for severity. The authors used logistic regression to examine the risks for IBD, UC, and CD in children (aged 1-10) with AD, and in adults (aged 30-68) with AD, and they compared their outcomes with the outcomes for controls.

In the pediatric cohort, the team compared 409,431 children who had AD with 1.8 million children without AD. Slightly more than half were boys. In the adult cohort, they compared 625,083 people who had AD with 2.68 million controls, and slightly more than half were women. Data on race or ethnicity were not available, the authors wrote, but the THIN database is considered to be representative of the UK population.
 

AD severity linked with IBD risk

The risk for new-onset inflammatory bowel disease appears to be higher in children and adults with AD, and the risk varies based on age, AD severity, and subtype of inflammatory bowel disease, the authors reported.

Overall, AD in children was associated with a 44% increased risk for IBD (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-1.58) compared with controls, the authors reported. They found a 74% increased risk for CD in children with AD compared with controls (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.97). More severe AD was linked with increased risk for both IBD and CD.

[embed:render:related:node:261058]

AD did not appear to increase risk for UC in children, except those with severe AD (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.02-2.67).

Overall, adults with AD had a 34% (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.27-1.40) increased risk for IBD, a 36% (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.26-1.47) increased risk for CD, and a 32% (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24-1.41) increased risk for UC, with risk increasing with increased AD severity.

Robust data with cautionary note

“This study provides the most robust data to date on the association between IBD and AD. It provides clear evidence for an association that most dermatologists or primary care providers are not typically taught in training,” Kelly Scarberry, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, told this news organization. “I will be much more likely to pursue diagnostic workup in my AD patients who have GI complaints.”

Scarberry_Kelly_OHIO_web.jpg

However, AD severity was measured by proxy, added Dr. Scarberry, who was not involved in the study, and the study lacked important racial and ethnic data.

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., also not involved in the study, said in an interview that she found the size of the cohort and the longitudinal data to be strengths of the study.

Strowd_Lindsay_C_NC_web.jpg

But, she added, the “lack of family IBD history, race and ethnicity, and comorbidities, are limitations, as is treatment exposure used as a proxy for disease severity, given that physician treatment practices differ.”

For Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest, “the most important conclusion, and it is a definitive finding, [is] that IBD is uncommon, even in patients with AD.

“The findings could be misinterpreted,” cautioned Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study. “While there is an increased relative risk, the absolute risk is small.” The study found that “the highest relative risk group is children with severe AD, who have a roughly fivefold increased risk for CD.” However, he added, the incidence rates of CD were 0.68 per 1,000 person-years in children with severe AD and 0.08 per 1,000 person-years in controls.

Feldman_Steven_NC_web.jpg

“Basically, because Crohn’s disease and IBD don’t happen very often, the modest increase in relative risk the investigators found doesn’t amount to much we’d have to worry about,” he said. “The findings do not show any need to screen patients with atopic dermatitis for IBD any more than we’d need to screen patients without atopic dermatitis.”

The increased relative risk “could be a clue to possible genetic connections between diseases,” he added. “But when we’re making clinical decisions, those decisions should be based on the absolute risk that some event may occur.”

Susan Massick, MD, dermatologist and associate professor at The Ohio State University in Columbus, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview, “We are still scratching the surface of the complexity of the immune and inflammatory pathways in AD and IBD.

Massick_Susan_OHIO_web.jpg

“It is important to remember that correlation does not mean causation,” Dr. Massick said. “It would be premature to draw direct conclusions based on this study alone.”

The authors recommend future related studies in more diverse populations.

Dr. Gelfand and two coauthors reported ties with Pfizer, which supported the study. Dr. Gelfand and three coauthors reported ties with other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Maguiness, Dr. Scarberry, Dr. Strowd, and Dr. Massick reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Feldman reported ties with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HIV continues to be a significant public health concern in the United States, with an estimated 1.2 million people currently living with the virus and more than 30,000 new diagnoses in 2020 alone.

Primary care clinicians can help decrease rates of HIV infection by prescribing pre-exposure prophylaxis to people who are sexually active.

But many do not.

“In medical school, we don’t spend much time discussing sexuality, sexual behavior, sexually transmitted infections, and such, so providers may feel uncomfortable asking what kind of sex their patient is having and with whom, whether they use a condom, and other basics,” said Matthew M. Hamill, MBChB, PhD, MPH, a specialist in sexually transmitted diseases at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) is an antiviral medication that cuts the risk of contracting HIV through sex by around 99% when taken as prescribed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Many people who would benefit from PrEP are not receiving this highly effective medication,” said John B. Wong, MD, a primary care internist and professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston. The gap is particularly acute among Black, Hispanic, and Latino people, who are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with HIV but are much less likely than Whites to receive PrEP, he said.

Dr. Wong, a member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, helped write the group’s new PrEP recommendations. Published in August, the guidelines call for clinicians to prescribe the drugs to adolescents and adults who do not have HIV but are at an increased risk for infection.

“Primary care physicians are ideally positioned to prescribe PrEP for their patients because they have longitudinal relationships: They get to know their patients, and hopefully their patients feel comfortable talking with them about their sexual health,” said Brandon Pollak, MD, a primary care physician and HIV specialist at the Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.

Dr. Pollak, who was not involved with the USPSTF recommendations, cares for patients who are heterosexual and living with HIV.

Clinicians should consider PrEP for all patients who have sex with someone who has HIV, do not use condoms, or have had a sexually transmitted infection within the previous 6 months. Men who have sex with men, transgender women who have sex with men, people who inject illicit drugs or engage in transactional sex, and Black, Hispanic, and Latino individuals also are at increased risk for the infection.

“The vast majority of patients on PrEP in any form sail through with no problems; they have regular lab work and can follow up in person or by telemedicine,” Dr. Hamill said. “They tend to be young, fit people without complicated medical histories, and the medications are very well-tolerated, particularly if people expect some short-term side effects.”
 

What you need to know when prescribing PrEP

Prescribing PrEP is similar in complexity to prescribing hypertension or diabetes medications, Dr. Hamill said.

Because taking the medications while already infected with the virus can lead to the emergence of drug-resistant HIV, patients must have a negative HIV test before starting PrEP. In addition, the USPSTF recommends testing for other sexually transmitted infections and for pregnancy, if appropriate. The task force also recommends conducting kidney function and hepatitis B tests, and a lipid profile before starting specific types of PrEP.

HIV screening is also recommended at 3-month intervals.

“Providers may order labs done at 3- to 4-month intervals but only see patients in clinic once or twice per year, depending on patient needs and risk behaviors,” said Jill S. Blumenthal, MD, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health.

Clinicians should consider medication adherence and whether a patient is likely to take a pill once a day or could benefit from receiving an injection every 2 months. Patients may experience side effects such as diarrhea or headache with oral PrEP or soreness at the injection site. In rare cases, some of the drugs may cause kidney toxicity or bone mineral loss, according to Dr. Hamill.

Three similarly effective forms of PrEP approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration enable clinicians to tailor the medications to the specific needs and preferences of each patient. Truvada (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) and Descovy (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide) are both daily tablets, although the latter is not advised for people assigned female sex at birth who have receptive vaginal sex. Apretude (cabotegravir), an injectable agent, is not recommended for people who inject illegal drugs.

Patients with renal or bone disease are not good candidates for Truvada.

“Truvada can decrease bone density, so for someone with osteoporosis, you might choose Descovy or Apretude,” Dr. Pollak said. “For someone with chronic kidney disease, consider Descovy or Apretude. “If a patient has hepatitis B, Truvada or Descovy are appropriate, because hepatitis B is treatable.”

Patients taking an injectable PrEP may need more attention, because the concentration of the medication in the body decreases slowly and may linger for many months at low levels that don’t prevent HIV, according to Dr. Hamill. Someone who acquires HIV during that “tail” period might develop resistance to PrEP.

New research also showed that Descovy users were at elevated risk of developing hypertension and statin initiation, especially among those over age 40 years.

Primary care physicians may want to consult with renal specialists about medication safety in patients with severe kidney disease or with rheumatologists or endocrinologists about metabolic bone disease concerns, Dr. Hamill said.

Meanwhile, if a person begins a monogamous relationship and their risk for HIV drops, “it’s fine to stop taking PrEP tablets,” Dr. Pollak said. “I would still recommend routine HIV screening every 6 or 12 months or however often, depending on other risk factors.”

Caring for these patients entails ensuring labs are completed, monitoring adherence, ordering refills, and scheduling regular follow-up visits.

“For the vast majority of patients, the primary care physician is perfectly equipped for their care through the entire PrEP journey, from discussion and initiation to provision of PrEP,” and most cases do not require specialist care, Dr. Hamill said.

However, “if PrEP fails, which is exceedingly rare, primary care physicians should refer patients immediately, preferably with a warm handoff, for linkage to HIV care,” Dr. Blumenthal said.

Talking about PrEP opens the door to conversations with patients about sexual health and broader health issues, Dr. Hamill said. Although these may not come naturally to primary care clinicians, training is available. The National Network of STD Clinical Prevention Training Centers, funded by the CDC, trains providers on how to overcome their anxiety and have open, inclusive conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviors with transgender and gender-diverse, nonbinary people.

“People worry about saying the wrong thing, about causing offense,” Dr. Hamill said. “But once you get comfortable discussing sexuality, you may open conversations around other health issues.”
 

Barriers for patients

The task force identified several barriers to PrEP access for patients because of lack of trusting relationships with health care, the effects of structural racism on health disparities, and persistent biases within the health care system.

Racial and ethnic disparities in HIV incidence persist, with 42% of new diagnoses occurring among Black people, 27% among Hispanic or Latino people, and 26% among White people in 2020.

Rates of PrEP usage for a year or longer are also low. Sometimes the patient no longer needs PrEP, but barriers often involve the costs of taking time off from work and arranging transportation to clinic visits.

Although nearly all insurance plans and state Medicaid programs cover PrEP, if a patient does not have coverage, the drugs and required tests and office visits can be expensive.

“One of the biggest barriers for all providers is navigating our complicated health system and drug assistance programs,” said Mehri S. McKellar, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.

But lower-cost FDA-approved generic emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is now available, and clinicians can direct patients to programs that help provide the medications at low or no cost.

“Providing PrEP care is straightforward, beneficial, and satisfying,” Dr. Hamill said. “You help people protect themselves from a life-changing diagnosis, and the health system doesn’t need to pay the cost of treating HIV. Everyone wins.”

Dr. Hamill, Dr. McKellar, Dr. Pollak, and Dr. Wong have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blumenthal has reported a financial relationship with Gilead Sciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HIV continues to be a significant public health concern in the United States, with an estimated 1.2 million people currently living with the virus and more than 30,000 new diagnoses in 2020 alone.

Primary care clinicians can help decrease rates of HIV infection by prescribing pre-exposure prophylaxis to people who are sexually active.

But many do not.

“In medical school, we don’t spend much time discussing sexuality, sexual behavior, sexually transmitted infections, and such, so providers may feel uncomfortable asking what kind of sex their patient is having and with whom, whether they use a condom, and other basics,” said Matthew M. Hamill, MBChB, PhD, MPH, a specialist in sexually transmitted diseases at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) is an antiviral medication that cuts the risk of contracting HIV through sex by around 99% when taken as prescribed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Many people who would benefit from PrEP are not receiving this highly effective medication,” said John B. Wong, MD, a primary care internist and professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston. The gap is particularly acute among Black, Hispanic, and Latino people, who are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with HIV but are much less likely than Whites to receive PrEP, he said.

Dr. Wong, a member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, helped write the group’s new PrEP recommendations. Published in August, the guidelines call for clinicians to prescribe the drugs to adolescents and adults who do not have HIV but are at an increased risk for infection.

“Primary care physicians are ideally positioned to prescribe PrEP for their patients because they have longitudinal relationships: They get to know their patients, and hopefully their patients feel comfortable talking with them about their sexual health,” said Brandon Pollak, MD, a primary care physician and HIV specialist at the Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.

Dr. Pollak, who was not involved with the USPSTF recommendations, cares for patients who are heterosexual and living with HIV.

Clinicians should consider PrEP for all patients who have sex with someone who has HIV, do not use condoms, or have had a sexually transmitted infection within the previous 6 months. Men who have sex with men, transgender women who have sex with men, people who inject illicit drugs or engage in transactional sex, and Black, Hispanic, and Latino individuals also are at increased risk for the infection.

“The vast majority of patients on PrEP in any form sail through with no problems; they have regular lab work and can follow up in person or by telemedicine,” Dr. Hamill said. “They tend to be young, fit people without complicated medical histories, and the medications are very well-tolerated, particularly if people expect some short-term side effects.”
 

What you need to know when prescribing PrEP

Prescribing PrEP is similar in complexity to prescribing hypertension or diabetes medications, Dr. Hamill said.

Because taking the medications while already infected with the virus can lead to the emergence of drug-resistant HIV, patients must have a negative HIV test before starting PrEP. In addition, the USPSTF recommends testing for other sexually transmitted infections and for pregnancy, if appropriate. The task force also recommends conducting kidney function and hepatitis B tests, and a lipid profile before starting specific types of PrEP.

HIV screening is also recommended at 3-month intervals.

“Providers may order labs done at 3- to 4-month intervals but only see patients in clinic once or twice per year, depending on patient needs and risk behaviors,” said Jill S. Blumenthal, MD, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health.

Clinicians should consider medication adherence and whether a patient is likely to take a pill once a day or could benefit from receiving an injection every 2 months. Patients may experience side effects such as diarrhea or headache with oral PrEP or soreness at the injection site. In rare cases, some of the drugs may cause kidney toxicity or bone mineral loss, according to Dr. Hamill.

Three similarly effective forms of PrEP approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration enable clinicians to tailor the medications to the specific needs and preferences of each patient. Truvada (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) and Descovy (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide) are both daily tablets, although the latter is not advised for people assigned female sex at birth who have receptive vaginal sex. Apretude (cabotegravir), an injectable agent, is not recommended for people who inject illegal drugs.

Patients with renal or bone disease are not good candidates for Truvada.

“Truvada can decrease bone density, so for someone with osteoporosis, you might choose Descovy or Apretude,” Dr. Pollak said. “For someone with chronic kidney disease, consider Descovy or Apretude. “If a patient has hepatitis B, Truvada or Descovy are appropriate, because hepatitis B is treatable.”

Patients taking an injectable PrEP may need more attention, because the concentration of the medication in the body decreases slowly and may linger for many months at low levels that don’t prevent HIV, according to Dr. Hamill. Someone who acquires HIV during that “tail” period might develop resistance to PrEP.

New research also showed that Descovy users were at elevated risk of developing hypertension and statin initiation, especially among those over age 40 years.

Primary care physicians may want to consult with renal specialists about medication safety in patients with severe kidney disease or with rheumatologists or endocrinologists about metabolic bone disease concerns, Dr. Hamill said.

Meanwhile, if a person begins a monogamous relationship and their risk for HIV drops, “it’s fine to stop taking PrEP tablets,” Dr. Pollak said. “I would still recommend routine HIV screening every 6 or 12 months or however often, depending on other risk factors.”

Caring for these patients entails ensuring labs are completed, monitoring adherence, ordering refills, and scheduling regular follow-up visits.

“For the vast majority of patients, the primary care physician is perfectly equipped for their care through the entire PrEP journey, from discussion and initiation to provision of PrEP,” and most cases do not require specialist care, Dr. Hamill said.

However, “if PrEP fails, which is exceedingly rare, primary care physicians should refer patients immediately, preferably with a warm handoff, for linkage to HIV care,” Dr. Blumenthal said.

Talking about PrEP opens the door to conversations with patients about sexual health and broader health issues, Dr. Hamill said. Although these may not come naturally to primary care clinicians, training is available. The National Network of STD Clinical Prevention Training Centers, funded by the CDC, trains providers on how to overcome their anxiety and have open, inclusive conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviors with transgender and gender-diverse, nonbinary people.

“People worry about saying the wrong thing, about causing offense,” Dr. Hamill said. “But once you get comfortable discussing sexuality, you may open conversations around other health issues.”
 

Barriers for patients

The task force identified several barriers to PrEP access for patients because of lack of trusting relationships with health care, the effects of structural racism on health disparities, and persistent biases within the health care system.

Racial and ethnic disparities in HIV incidence persist, with 42% of new diagnoses occurring among Black people, 27% among Hispanic or Latino people, and 26% among White people in 2020.

Rates of PrEP usage for a year or longer are also low. Sometimes the patient no longer needs PrEP, but barriers often involve the costs of taking time off from work and arranging transportation to clinic visits.

Although nearly all insurance plans and state Medicaid programs cover PrEP, if a patient does not have coverage, the drugs and required tests and office visits can be expensive.

“One of the biggest barriers for all providers is navigating our complicated health system and drug assistance programs,” said Mehri S. McKellar, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.

But lower-cost FDA-approved generic emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is now available, and clinicians can direct patients to programs that help provide the medications at low or no cost.

“Providing PrEP care is straightforward, beneficial, and satisfying,” Dr. Hamill said. “You help people protect themselves from a life-changing diagnosis, and the health system doesn’t need to pay the cost of treating HIV. Everyone wins.”

Dr. Hamill, Dr. McKellar, Dr. Pollak, and Dr. Wong have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blumenthal has reported a financial relationship with Gilead Sciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HIV continues to be a significant public health concern in the United States, with an estimated 1.2 million people currently living with the virus and more than 30,000 new diagnoses in 2020 alone.

Primary care clinicians can help decrease rates of HIV infection by prescribing pre-exposure prophylaxis to people who are sexually active.

But many do not.

“In medical school, we don’t spend much time discussing sexuality, sexual behavior, sexually transmitted infections, and such, so providers may feel uncomfortable asking what kind of sex their patient is having and with whom, whether they use a condom, and other basics,” said Matthew M. Hamill, MBChB, PhD, MPH, a specialist in sexually transmitted diseases at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) is an antiviral medication that cuts the risk of contracting HIV through sex by around 99% when taken as prescribed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Many people who would benefit from PrEP are not receiving this highly effective medication,” said John B. Wong, MD, a primary care internist and professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston. The gap is particularly acute among Black, Hispanic, and Latino people, who are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with HIV but are much less likely than Whites to receive PrEP, he said.

Dr. Wong, a member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, helped write the group’s new PrEP recommendations. Published in August, the guidelines call for clinicians to prescribe the drugs to adolescents and adults who do not have HIV but are at an increased risk for infection.

“Primary care physicians are ideally positioned to prescribe PrEP for their patients because they have longitudinal relationships: They get to know their patients, and hopefully their patients feel comfortable talking with them about their sexual health,” said Brandon Pollak, MD, a primary care physician and HIV specialist at the Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.

Dr. Pollak, who was not involved with the USPSTF recommendations, cares for patients who are heterosexual and living with HIV.

Clinicians should consider PrEP for all patients who have sex with someone who has HIV, do not use condoms, or have had a sexually transmitted infection within the previous 6 months. Men who have sex with men, transgender women who have sex with men, people who inject illicit drugs or engage in transactional sex, and Black, Hispanic, and Latino individuals also are at increased risk for the infection.

“The vast majority of patients on PrEP in any form sail through with no problems; they have regular lab work and can follow up in person or by telemedicine,” Dr. Hamill said. “They tend to be young, fit people without complicated medical histories, and the medications are very well-tolerated, particularly if people expect some short-term side effects.”
 

What you need to know when prescribing PrEP

Prescribing PrEP is similar in complexity to prescribing hypertension or diabetes medications, Dr. Hamill said.

Because taking the medications while already infected with the virus can lead to the emergence of drug-resistant HIV, patients must have a negative HIV test before starting PrEP. In addition, the USPSTF recommends testing for other sexually transmitted infections and for pregnancy, if appropriate. The task force also recommends conducting kidney function and hepatitis B tests, and a lipid profile before starting specific types of PrEP.

HIV screening is also recommended at 3-month intervals.

“Providers may order labs done at 3- to 4-month intervals but only see patients in clinic once or twice per year, depending on patient needs and risk behaviors,” said Jill S. Blumenthal, MD, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health.

Clinicians should consider medication adherence and whether a patient is likely to take a pill once a day or could benefit from receiving an injection every 2 months. Patients may experience side effects such as diarrhea or headache with oral PrEP or soreness at the injection site. In rare cases, some of the drugs may cause kidney toxicity or bone mineral loss, according to Dr. Hamill.

Three similarly effective forms of PrEP approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration enable clinicians to tailor the medications to the specific needs and preferences of each patient. Truvada (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) and Descovy (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide) are both daily tablets, although the latter is not advised for people assigned female sex at birth who have receptive vaginal sex. Apretude (cabotegravir), an injectable agent, is not recommended for people who inject illegal drugs.

Patients with renal or bone disease are not good candidates for Truvada.

“Truvada can decrease bone density, so for someone with osteoporosis, you might choose Descovy or Apretude,” Dr. Pollak said. “For someone with chronic kidney disease, consider Descovy or Apretude. “If a patient has hepatitis B, Truvada or Descovy are appropriate, because hepatitis B is treatable.”

Patients taking an injectable PrEP may need more attention, because the concentration of the medication in the body decreases slowly and may linger for many months at low levels that don’t prevent HIV, according to Dr. Hamill. Someone who acquires HIV during that “tail” period might develop resistance to PrEP.

New research also showed that Descovy users were at elevated risk of developing hypertension and statin initiation, especially among those over age 40 years.

Primary care physicians may want to consult with renal specialists about medication safety in patients with severe kidney disease or with rheumatologists or endocrinologists about metabolic bone disease concerns, Dr. Hamill said.

Meanwhile, if a person begins a monogamous relationship and their risk for HIV drops, “it’s fine to stop taking PrEP tablets,” Dr. Pollak said. “I would still recommend routine HIV screening every 6 or 12 months or however often, depending on other risk factors.”

Caring for these patients entails ensuring labs are completed, monitoring adherence, ordering refills, and scheduling regular follow-up visits.

“For the vast majority of patients, the primary care physician is perfectly equipped for their care through the entire PrEP journey, from discussion and initiation to provision of PrEP,” and most cases do not require specialist care, Dr. Hamill said.

However, “if PrEP fails, which is exceedingly rare, primary care physicians should refer patients immediately, preferably with a warm handoff, for linkage to HIV care,” Dr. Blumenthal said.

Talking about PrEP opens the door to conversations with patients about sexual health and broader health issues, Dr. Hamill said. Although these may not come naturally to primary care clinicians, training is available. The National Network of STD Clinical Prevention Training Centers, funded by the CDC, trains providers on how to overcome their anxiety and have open, inclusive conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviors with transgender and gender-diverse, nonbinary people.

“People worry about saying the wrong thing, about causing offense,” Dr. Hamill said. “But once you get comfortable discussing sexuality, you may open conversations around other health issues.”
 

Barriers for patients

The task force identified several barriers to PrEP access for patients because of lack of trusting relationships with health care, the effects of structural racism on health disparities, and persistent biases within the health care system.

Racial and ethnic disparities in HIV incidence persist, with 42% of new diagnoses occurring among Black people, 27% among Hispanic or Latino people, and 26% among White people in 2020.

Rates of PrEP usage for a year or longer are also low. Sometimes the patient no longer needs PrEP, but barriers often involve the costs of taking time off from work and arranging transportation to clinic visits.

Although nearly all insurance plans and state Medicaid programs cover PrEP, if a patient does not have coverage, the drugs and required tests and office visits can be expensive.

“One of the biggest barriers for all providers is navigating our complicated health system and drug assistance programs,” said Mehri S. McKellar, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.

But lower-cost FDA-approved generic emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is now available, and clinicians can direct patients to programs that help provide the medications at low or no cost.

“Providing PrEP care is straightforward, beneficial, and satisfying,” Dr. Hamill said. “You help people protect themselves from a life-changing diagnosis, and the health system doesn’t need to pay the cost of treating HIV. Everyone wins.”

Dr. Hamill, Dr. McKellar, Dr. Pollak, and Dr. Wong have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blumenthal has reported a financial relationship with Gilead Sciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients taking long-term, low-dose glucocorticoids for rheumatoid arthritis over 2 years had a very modest relative weight gain but no relative increase in blood pressure when compared with patients who did not take the drugs, according to findings from a combined study of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

“This pooled analysis of five RCTs in RA found that 2 years of low-dose glucocorticoid treatment [at 7.5 mg/day or less] leads to a modest weight gain of about 1 kg but has no effect on blood pressure,” lead study author Andriko Palmowski, MD, a physician and researcher in rheumatology and clinical immunology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues wrote in the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Crofford_Leslie_J_TN_web.jpg

“Many clinicians fear using even low-dose glucocorticoids because of the adverse effects associated with their long-term use at higher doses,” noted Leslie J. Crofford, MD, professor of medicine, pathology, microbiology, and immunology, and director of the division of rheumatology and immunology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Indeed, long-term use of even these low doses increases risk for many significant adverse effects, including osteoporosis and cataracts in observational cohorts,” added Dr. Crofford, who was not involved in the study.

Studies were combined for stronger results

Observational studies are prone to confounding, and the RCTs in the literature have been small, resulting in low statistical power, the authors explained.

To overcome these limitations, Dr. Palmowski and associates combined individual participant data from five RCTs of glucocorticoid treatment for RA in 12 countries in Europe. The 1,112 participants had early and established RA, averaged 61.4 years of age, and 68% were women. The GLORIA trial, an RCT that contributed about 40% of the overall study population, “explicitly included elderly patients and patients with multimorbidity who are often excluded from RA trials,” the authors wrote.

Participants in the intervention group took low-dose glucocorticoids (prednisone equivalent, ≤ 7.5 mg/day; three trials used a dose of 5 mg prednisone equivalent per day); and patients in the control groups took placebo, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or both. The researchers compared change over 2 years in body weight and mean arterial pressure between the groups.

At 2 years, both groups gained weight, but participants who took glucocorticoids gained an average of 1.1 kg (P < .001) more than the controls. Mean arterial pressure increased by around 2 mm Hg in both groups, with a –0.4 mm Hg between-group difference (P = .187).

Arkfeld_Daniel_G_CA_web.jpg

Daniel G. Arkfeld MD, DDS, professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, found this “a fascinating analysis” and called the lack of change in blood pressure important.

“Steroids are used less in RA due to perceived side effects. Yet many patients have ongoing synovitis and need steroids to enable them to work and perform other activities,” said Dr. Arkfeld, who also was not involved in the study. “NSAIDs are more of an issue, with up to 10% raising blood pressure. Should we be using more steroids and less NSAIDs?”

Dr. Arkfeld also was concerned that the small 2-year weight gain may become significant over time.

Huffman_Kim_Marie_NC_web.jpg

Kim Marie Huffman, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., agreed.

“More investigations and longer (or shorter) time periods may have yielded additional findings,” said Dr. Huffman, who also was not involved in the study. “Efforts should be made to minimize long-term prednisone use to minimize impact on weight gain and resulting consequences.”
 

Are these results applicable to U.S. patients?

“Low-dose prednisone is commonly used in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said. “Extrapolating the results to a U.S. population is probably fine.”

Dr. Arkfeld agreed that the results can be used to treat U.S. patients because of the large number of study participants.

Blank_Rebecca_B_NY_web.jpg

According to Rebecca B. Blank, MD, PhD, rheumatologist and instructor of medicine at NYU Langone Health, New York, this is an important study. But she cautioned that the literature does not contain good data for other potential harmful effects of long-term, low-dose glucocorticoid use. “Therefore, as per both ACR [American College of Rheumatology] and EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] recommendations, we should still try to limit glucocorticoids to the lowest dose and shortest duration possible in our RA patients,” advised Dr. Blank, who was not an author in the study.
 

Strengths, weaknesses, and thoughts on further research

“Pooling trials can be tricky, but these investigators used individual-level data, which increases the rigor of the analyses,” Dr. Crofford noted. “There were differences in patient populations and with the glucocorticoid doses and routes of administration. The fact that the patients in each of the studies were randomized is very important in determining if the outcomes can be attributed to the drugs or could be the results of other exposures.”

Dr. Arkfeld would like to know whether early versus late RA patients may have different results because they may have different pathophysiologies.

[embed:render:related:node:264581]

Dr. Huffman is interested in low-dose glucocorticoids’ impacts on glucose homeostasis, bone density, infection, and other common adverse effects.

In an accompanying editorial, David Fernandez, MD, PhD, of Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, wrote: “These findings provide a more quantifiable assessment of the potential adverse effects of steroid therapy than had existed previously and will be helpful to providers and patients as they decide on the relative risks and benefits of glucocorticoids as part of their therapy plan in rheumatoid arthritis.”

The study received no specific funding. Four of the study’s 13 authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fernandez and all outside experts who commented on the study reported no relevant financial relationships.

Patients taking long-term, low-dose glucocorticoids for rheumatoid arthritis over 2 years had a very modest relative weight gain but no relative increase in blood pressure when compared with patients who did not take the drugs, according to findings from a combined study of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

“This pooled analysis of five RCTs in RA found that 2 years of low-dose glucocorticoid treatment [at 7.5 mg/day or less] leads to a modest weight gain of about 1 kg but has no effect on blood pressure,” lead study author Andriko Palmowski, MD, a physician and researcher in rheumatology and clinical immunology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues wrote in the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Crofford_Leslie_J_TN_web.jpg

“Many clinicians fear using even low-dose glucocorticoids because of the adverse effects associated with their long-term use at higher doses,” noted Leslie J. Crofford, MD, professor of medicine, pathology, microbiology, and immunology, and director of the division of rheumatology and immunology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Indeed, long-term use of even these low doses increases risk for many significant adverse effects, including osteoporosis and cataracts in observational cohorts,” added Dr. Crofford, who was not involved in the study.

Studies were combined for stronger results

Observational studies are prone to confounding, and the RCTs in the literature have been small, resulting in low statistical power, the authors explained.

To overcome these limitations, Dr. Palmowski and associates combined individual participant data from five RCTs of glucocorticoid treatment for RA in 12 countries in Europe. The 1,112 participants had early and established RA, averaged 61.4 years of age, and 68% were women. The GLORIA trial, an RCT that contributed about 40% of the overall study population, “explicitly included elderly patients and patients with multimorbidity who are often excluded from RA trials,” the authors wrote.

Participants in the intervention group took low-dose glucocorticoids (prednisone equivalent, ≤ 7.5 mg/day; three trials used a dose of 5 mg prednisone equivalent per day); and patients in the control groups took placebo, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or both. The researchers compared change over 2 years in body weight and mean arterial pressure between the groups.

At 2 years, both groups gained weight, but participants who took glucocorticoids gained an average of 1.1 kg (P < .001) more than the controls. Mean arterial pressure increased by around 2 mm Hg in both groups, with a –0.4 mm Hg between-group difference (P = .187).

Arkfeld_Daniel_G_CA_web.jpg

Daniel G. Arkfeld MD, DDS, professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, found this “a fascinating analysis” and called the lack of change in blood pressure important.

“Steroids are used less in RA due to perceived side effects. Yet many patients have ongoing synovitis and need steroids to enable them to work and perform other activities,” said Dr. Arkfeld, who also was not involved in the study. “NSAIDs are more of an issue, with up to 10% raising blood pressure. Should we be using more steroids and less NSAIDs?”

Dr. Arkfeld also was concerned that the small 2-year weight gain may become significant over time.

Huffman_Kim_Marie_NC_web.jpg

Kim Marie Huffman, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., agreed.

“More investigations and longer (or shorter) time periods may have yielded additional findings,” said Dr. Huffman, who also was not involved in the study. “Efforts should be made to minimize long-term prednisone use to minimize impact on weight gain and resulting consequences.”
 

Are these results applicable to U.S. patients?

“Low-dose prednisone is commonly used in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said. “Extrapolating the results to a U.S. population is probably fine.”

Dr. Arkfeld agreed that the results can be used to treat U.S. patients because of the large number of study participants.

Blank_Rebecca_B_NY_web.jpg

According to Rebecca B. Blank, MD, PhD, rheumatologist and instructor of medicine at NYU Langone Health, New York, this is an important study. But she cautioned that the literature does not contain good data for other potential harmful effects of long-term, low-dose glucocorticoid use. “Therefore, as per both ACR [American College of Rheumatology] and EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] recommendations, we should still try to limit glucocorticoids to the lowest dose and shortest duration possible in our RA patients,” advised Dr. Blank, who was not an author in the study.
 

Strengths, weaknesses, and thoughts on further research

“Pooling trials can be tricky, but these investigators used individual-level data, which increases the rigor of the analyses,” Dr. Crofford noted. “There were differences in patient populations and with the glucocorticoid doses and routes of administration. The fact that the patients in each of the studies were randomized is very important in determining if the outcomes can be attributed to the drugs or could be the results of other exposures.”

Dr. Arkfeld would like to know whether early versus late RA patients may have different results because they may have different pathophysiologies.

[embed:render:related:node:264581]

Dr. Huffman is interested in low-dose glucocorticoids’ impacts on glucose homeostasis, bone density, infection, and other common adverse effects.

In an accompanying editorial, David Fernandez, MD, PhD, of Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, wrote: “These findings provide a more quantifiable assessment of the potential adverse effects of steroid therapy than had existed previously and will be helpful to providers and patients as they decide on the relative risks and benefits of glucocorticoids as part of their therapy plan in rheumatoid arthritis.”

The study received no specific funding. Four of the study’s 13 authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fernandez and all outside experts who commented on the study reported no relevant financial relationships.

Patients taking long-term, low-dose glucocorticoids for rheumatoid arthritis over 2 years had a very modest relative weight gain but no relative increase in blood pressure when compared with patients who did not take the drugs, according to findings from a combined study of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

“This pooled analysis of five RCTs in RA found that 2 years of low-dose glucocorticoid treatment [at 7.5 mg/day or less] leads to a modest weight gain of about 1 kg but has no effect on blood pressure,” lead study author Andriko Palmowski, MD, a physician and researcher in rheumatology and clinical immunology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues wrote in the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Crofford_Leslie_J_TN_web.jpg

“Many clinicians fear using even low-dose glucocorticoids because of the adverse effects associated with their long-term use at higher doses,” noted Leslie J. Crofford, MD, professor of medicine, pathology, microbiology, and immunology, and director of the division of rheumatology and immunology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Indeed, long-term use of even these low doses increases risk for many significant adverse effects, including osteoporosis and cataracts in observational cohorts,” added Dr. Crofford, who was not involved in the study.

Studies were combined for stronger results

Observational studies are prone to confounding, and the RCTs in the literature have been small, resulting in low statistical power, the authors explained.

To overcome these limitations, Dr. Palmowski and associates combined individual participant data from five RCTs of glucocorticoid treatment for RA in 12 countries in Europe. The 1,112 participants had early and established RA, averaged 61.4 years of age, and 68% were women. The GLORIA trial, an RCT that contributed about 40% of the overall study population, “explicitly included elderly patients and patients with multimorbidity who are often excluded from RA trials,” the authors wrote.

Participants in the intervention group took low-dose glucocorticoids (prednisone equivalent, ≤ 7.5 mg/day; three trials used a dose of 5 mg prednisone equivalent per day); and patients in the control groups took placebo, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or both. The researchers compared change over 2 years in body weight and mean arterial pressure between the groups.

At 2 years, both groups gained weight, but participants who took glucocorticoids gained an average of 1.1 kg (P < .001) more than the controls. Mean arterial pressure increased by around 2 mm Hg in both groups, with a –0.4 mm Hg between-group difference (P = .187).

Arkfeld_Daniel_G_CA_web.jpg

Daniel G. Arkfeld MD, DDS, professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, found this “a fascinating analysis” and called the lack of change in blood pressure important.

“Steroids are used less in RA due to perceived side effects. Yet many patients have ongoing synovitis and need steroids to enable them to work and perform other activities,” said Dr. Arkfeld, who also was not involved in the study. “NSAIDs are more of an issue, with up to 10% raising blood pressure. Should we be using more steroids and less NSAIDs?”

Dr. Arkfeld also was concerned that the small 2-year weight gain may become significant over time.

Huffman_Kim_Marie_NC_web.jpg

Kim Marie Huffman, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., agreed.

“More investigations and longer (or shorter) time periods may have yielded additional findings,” said Dr. Huffman, who also was not involved in the study. “Efforts should be made to minimize long-term prednisone use to minimize impact on weight gain and resulting consequences.”
 

Are these results applicable to U.S. patients?

“Low-dose prednisone is commonly used in the U.S.,” Dr. Huffman said. “Extrapolating the results to a U.S. population is probably fine.”

Dr. Arkfeld agreed that the results can be used to treat U.S. patients because of the large number of study participants.

Blank_Rebecca_B_NY_web.jpg

According to Rebecca B. Blank, MD, PhD, rheumatologist and instructor of medicine at NYU Langone Health, New York, this is an important study. But she cautioned that the literature does not contain good data for other potential harmful effects of long-term, low-dose glucocorticoid use. “Therefore, as per both ACR [American College of Rheumatology] and EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] recommendations, we should still try to limit glucocorticoids to the lowest dose and shortest duration possible in our RA patients,” advised Dr. Blank, who was not an author in the study.
 

Strengths, weaknesses, and thoughts on further research

“Pooling trials can be tricky, but these investigators used individual-level data, which increases the rigor of the analyses,” Dr. Crofford noted. “There were differences in patient populations and with the glucocorticoid doses and routes of administration. The fact that the patients in each of the studies were randomized is very important in determining if the outcomes can be attributed to the drugs or could be the results of other exposures.”

Dr. Arkfeld would like to know whether early versus late RA patients may have different results because they may have different pathophysiologies.

[embed:render:related:node:264581]

Dr. Huffman is interested in low-dose glucocorticoids’ impacts on glucose homeostasis, bone density, infection, and other common adverse effects.

In an accompanying editorial, David Fernandez, MD, PhD, of Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, wrote: “These findings provide a more quantifiable assessment of the potential adverse effects of steroid therapy than had existed previously and will be helpful to providers and patients as they decide on the relative risks and benefits of glucocorticoids as part of their therapy plan in rheumatoid arthritis.”

The study received no specific funding. Four of the study’s 13 authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fernandez and all outside experts who commented on the study reported no relevant financial relationships.

Clinicians are using dupilumab off label to treat a wider range of allergic conditions in adults and children.

The drug, marketed as Dupixent, is currently approved in the United States to treat atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis in adults. Dupilumab is also approved to treat eosinophilic esophagitis in patients aged 12 years and older and atopic dermatitis and asthma in some patients as young as age 6 months.

As the roster of approved and off-label indications grows, skin specialists said, pediatricians and other primary care providers should become familiar with the drug – given the increasing likelihood that their patients may be taking the medication.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved dupilumab in 2017 for eczema and has continued to add new treatment indications, the most recent being for prurigo nodularis, in 2022. Sanofi, which markets the drug with Regeneron, announced in April 2022 that some 430,000 patients worldwide were taking the drug – a figure it hoped to raise by 1.5 million by 2025.
 

A well-tolerated – if expensive – drug

Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 (IL-4) receptor alpha-antagonist biologic, blocks both IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, Marlys Fassett, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

Dr. Fassett said she prescribes the drug off label for chronic idiopathic urticaria, including in older patients, and finds that the side effects in older patients are similar to those in younger people. The medication costs $36,000 per year, although some patients can get it more cheaply.

“Dupixent is a super-safe drug because it doesn’t immunosuppress any other part of the immune system, so you still have good antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal immunity,” she added. “That makes perfect sense as a biological mechanism, and it’s been found safe in clinical trials.”

Case reports of potential adverse reactions to dupilumab have included ocular surface disease, lichen planus, and rash on the face and neck.

“We’re still learning about complications and are watching patients carefully,” said Marissa J. Perman, MD, section chief of dermatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Many people with atopic dermatitis also have other allergic conditions, such as contact dermatitis, asthma, prurigo nodularis, allergic rhinitis, and seasonal allergies. Each of these conditions has a pathway that depends on IL-4 receptors, Dr. Fassett said.

“It’s amazing how many conditions Dupixent improves. Sometimes we prescribe on-label Dupixent for atopic dermatitis, and inadvertently, the drug also improves that patient’s other, off-label conditions,” Dr. Fassett said. “I think that’s the best evidence that Dupixent works in these off-label cases.”

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said she uses off-label dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and intense pruritus of unknown etiology.

“And several times I have treated drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, a rare adverse drug reaction that causes a rash and eosinophilia,” Dr. Strowd added.

[embed:render:related:node:264226]

Tissa Hata, MD, professor of medicine and clinical service chief at the University of California, San Diego, mainly treats elderly patients. She uses dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and chronic pruritus. “There have been reports of using Dupixent to treat adult alopecia areata, chronic urticaria, localized scleroderma, and even keloids,” she told this news organization.

As a pediatric dermatologist, Dr. Perman treats children with atopic dermatitis as young as 3 months of age. She also uses dupilumab for alopecia areata, graft vs. host disease, and pruritus not otherwise specified.

Conjunctivitis and facial redness are two side effects Dr. Fassett sometimes sees with dupilumab. They occur similarly with all conditions and in all age groups. “We don’t know why they occur, and we don’t always know how to alleviate them,” she said. “So a small number of patients stop using Dupixent because they can’t tolerate those two side effects.

“We’re not worried about infection risk,” Dr. Fassett said. “Your patients may have heard of dupilumab as an immunosuppressant, but its immunosuppression is very focused. You can reassure them that they’re not at increased risk for viral or bacterial infections when they’re on this drug.”

“I don’t think there are any different safety signals to watch for with on-label vs. off-label Dupixent use,” Dr. Strowd added. “In general, the medicine is very safe.”

Dr. Hata said she is impressed with dupilumab’s safety in her elderly patients. All her patients older than 85 years who have taken the drug for bullous pemphigoid have tolerated it well, she said.

“Dupixent seems to be a safe alternative for elderly patients with pruritus because they often cannot tolerate sedating antihistamines due to the risk of falling,” Dr. Hata said. “And UV therapy may be difficult for elderly patients due to problems with transport.”

Although some of Dr. Hata’s elderly patients with atopic dermatitis have discontinued use of the drug after developing conjunctivitis, none taking the drug off label have discontinued it because of side effects, she noted.

“Dupixent manages the condition, but it is not a cure,” Dr. Fassett noted. “Based on the current data, we think it’s safe and effective to take long term, potentially for life.”

Making injections less bothersome

Dupilumab is injected subcutaneously from a single-dose prefilled syringe or a prefilled pen (syringe hidden in an opaque sheath), typically in the thigh, arm, abdomen, or buttocks. According to Sanofi and Regeneron, patients receive dupilumab injections every 2 to 4 weeks in doses based on their age and weight.

“The medication is somewhat viscous, so taking the syringe or pen out of the refrigerator ahead of time to warm it up can make the experience less painful,” Dr. Strowd advised. “For pediatric patients, I sometimes prescribe topical lidocaine applied 30 minutes before injection.”

Dr. Hata suggested icing the skin prior to injecting or distracting the patient by tapping a different area of the skin.

For her pediatric patients, Dr. Perman said she uses “lots of distraction, EMLA cream, and having one person hold the child while a second person injects.”

Clinic and pharmacy staff may show patients how to inject properly, Dr. Fassett added; and the product website provides injection tutorials.
 

Off-label dupixent can be expensive, difficult to obtain

The list price per injection, regardless of dose, is around $1,800. But according to the company’s website, most patients have health insurance or qualify for other assistance, so “very few patients pay the list price.”

Even so, “due to cost and insurance coverage hurdles, obtaining Dupixent for off-label use can be difficult,” Dr. Strowd said.

“In academic medicine, we can obtain drugs for our patients that community doctors may not get approval for,” Dr. Fassett added. “Community doctors can use information in the medical literature and in news articles to press insurance companies to spend money to provide their patients with Dupixent.”

The experts who commented have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians are using dupilumab off label to treat a wider range of allergic conditions in adults and children.

The drug, marketed as Dupixent, is currently approved in the United States to treat atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis in adults. Dupilumab is also approved to treat eosinophilic esophagitis in patients aged 12 years and older and atopic dermatitis and asthma in some patients as young as age 6 months.

As the roster of approved and off-label indications grows, skin specialists said, pediatricians and other primary care providers should become familiar with the drug – given the increasing likelihood that their patients may be taking the medication.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved dupilumab in 2017 for eczema and has continued to add new treatment indications, the most recent being for prurigo nodularis, in 2022. Sanofi, which markets the drug with Regeneron, announced in April 2022 that some 430,000 patients worldwide were taking the drug – a figure it hoped to raise by 1.5 million by 2025.
 

A well-tolerated – if expensive – drug

Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 (IL-4) receptor alpha-antagonist biologic, blocks both IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, Marlys Fassett, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

Dr. Fassett said she prescribes the drug off label for chronic idiopathic urticaria, including in older patients, and finds that the side effects in older patients are similar to those in younger people. The medication costs $36,000 per year, although some patients can get it more cheaply.

“Dupixent is a super-safe drug because it doesn’t immunosuppress any other part of the immune system, so you still have good antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal immunity,” she added. “That makes perfect sense as a biological mechanism, and it’s been found safe in clinical trials.”

Case reports of potential adverse reactions to dupilumab have included ocular surface disease, lichen planus, and rash on the face and neck.

“We’re still learning about complications and are watching patients carefully,” said Marissa J. Perman, MD, section chief of dermatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Many people with atopic dermatitis also have other allergic conditions, such as contact dermatitis, asthma, prurigo nodularis, allergic rhinitis, and seasonal allergies. Each of these conditions has a pathway that depends on IL-4 receptors, Dr. Fassett said.

“It’s amazing how many conditions Dupixent improves. Sometimes we prescribe on-label Dupixent for atopic dermatitis, and inadvertently, the drug also improves that patient’s other, off-label conditions,” Dr. Fassett said. “I think that’s the best evidence that Dupixent works in these off-label cases.”

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said she uses off-label dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and intense pruritus of unknown etiology.

“And several times I have treated drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, a rare adverse drug reaction that causes a rash and eosinophilia,” Dr. Strowd added.

[embed:render:related:node:264226]

Tissa Hata, MD, professor of medicine and clinical service chief at the University of California, San Diego, mainly treats elderly patients. She uses dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and chronic pruritus. “There have been reports of using Dupixent to treat adult alopecia areata, chronic urticaria, localized scleroderma, and even keloids,” she told this news organization.

As a pediatric dermatologist, Dr. Perman treats children with atopic dermatitis as young as 3 months of age. She also uses dupilumab for alopecia areata, graft vs. host disease, and pruritus not otherwise specified.

Conjunctivitis and facial redness are two side effects Dr. Fassett sometimes sees with dupilumab. They occur similarly with all conditions and in all age groups. “We don’t know why they occur, and we don’t always know how to alleviate them,” she said. “So a small number of patients stop using Dupixent because they can’t tolerate those two side effects.

“We’re not worried about infection risk,” Dr. Fassett said. “Your patients may have heard of dupilumab as an immunosuppressant, but its immunosuppression is very focused. You can reassure them that they’re not at increased risk for viral or bacterial infections when they’re on this drug.”

“I don’t think there are any different safety signals to watch for with on-label vs. off-label Dupixent use,” Dr. Strowd added. “In general, the medicine is very safe.”

Dr. Hata said she is impressed with dupilumab’s safety in her elderly patients. All her patients older than 85 years who have taken the drug for bullous pemphigoid have tolerated it well, she said.

“Dupixent seems to be a safe alternative for elderly patients with pruritus because they often cannot tolerate sedating antihistamines due to the risk of falling,” Dr. Hata said. “And UV therapy may be difficult for elderly patients due to problems with transport.”

Although some of Dr. Hata’s elderly patients with atopic dermatitis have discontinued use of the drug after developing conjunctivitis, none taking the drug off label have discontinued it because of side effects, she noted.

“Dupixent manages the condition, but it is not a cure,” Dr. Fassett noted. “Based on the current data, we think it’s safe and effective to take long term, potentially for life.”

Making injections less bothersome

Dupilumab is injected subcutaneously from a single-dose prefilled syringe or a prefilled pen (syringe hidden in an opaque sheath), typically in the thigh, arm, abdomen, or buttocks. According to Sanofi and Regeneron, patients receive dupilumab injections every 2 to 4 weeks in doses based on their age and weight.

“The medication is somewhat viscous, so taking the syringe or pen out of the refrigerator ahead of time to warm it up can make the experience less painful,” Dr. Strowd advised. “For pediatric patients, I sometimes prescribe topical lidocaine applied 30 minutes before injection.”

Dr. Hata suggested icing the skin prior to injecting or distracting the patient by tapping a different area of the skin.

For her pediatric patients, Dr. Perman said she uses “lots of distraction, EMLA cream, and having one person hold the child while a second person injects.”

Clinic and pharmacy staff may show patients how to inject properly, Dr. Fassett added; and the product website provides injection tutorials.
 

Off-label dupixent can be expensive, difficult to obtain

The list price per injection, regardless of dose, is around $1,800. But according to the company’s website, most patients have health insurance or qualify for other assistance, so “very few patients pay the list price.”

Even so, “due to cost and insurance coverage hurdles, obtaining Dupixent for off-label use can be difficult,” Dr. Strowd said.

“In academic medicine, we can obtain drugs for our patients that community doctors may not get approval for,” Dr. Fassett added. “Community doctors can use information in the medical literature and in news articles to press insurance companies to spend money to provide their patients with Dupixent.”

The experts who commented have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians are using dupilumab off label to treat a wider range of allergic conditions in adults and children.

The drug, marketed as Dupixent, is currently approved in the United States to treat atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis in adults. Dupilumab is also approved to treat eosinophilic esophagitis in patients aged 12 years and older and atopic dermatitis and asthma in some patients as young as age 6 months.

As the roster of approved and off-label indications grows, skin specialists said, pediatricians and other primary care providers should become familiar with the drug – given the increasing likelihood that their patients may be taking the medication.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved dupilumab in 2017 for eczema and has continued to add new treatment indications, the most recent being for prurigo nodularis, in 2022. Sanofi, which markets the drug with Regeneron, announced in April 2022 that some 430,000 patients worldwide were taking the drug – a figure it hoped to raise by 1.5 million by 2025.
 

A well-tolerated – if expensive – drug

Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 (IL-4) receptor alpha-antagonist biologic, blocks both IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, Marlys Fassett, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

Dr. Fassett said she prescribes the drug off label for chronic idiopathic urticaria, including in older patients, and finds that the side effects in older patients are similar to those in younger people. The medication costs $36,000 per year, although some patients can get it more cheaply.

“Dupixent is a super-safe drug because it doesn’t immunosuppress any other part of the immune system, so you still have good antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal immunity,” she added. “That makes perfect sense as a biological mechanism, and it’s been found safe in clinical trials.”

Case reports of potential adverse reactions to dupilumab have included ocular surface disease, lichen planus, and rash on the face and neck.

“We’re still learning about complications and are watching patients carefully,” said Marissa J. Perman, MD, section chief of dermatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Many people with atopic dermatitis also have other allergic conditions, such as contact dermatitis, asthma, prurigo nodularis, allergic rhinitis, and seasonal allergies. Each of these conditions has a pathway that depends on IL-4 receptors, Dr. Fassett said.

“It’s amazing how many conditions Dupixent improves. Sometimes we prescribe on-label Dupixent for atopic dermatitis, and inadvertently, the drug also improves that patient’s other, off-label conditions,” Dr. Fassett said. “I think that’s the best evidence that Dupixent works in these off-label cases.”

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said she uses off-label dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and intense pruritus of unknown etiology.

“And several times I have treated drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, a rare adverse drug reaction that causes a rash and eosinophilia,” Dr. Strowd added.

[embed:render:related:node:264226]

Tissa Hata, MD, professor of medicine and clinical service chief at the University of California, San Diego, mainly treats elderly patients. She uses dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and chronic pruritus. “There have been reports of using Dupixent to treat adult alopecia areata, chronic urticaria, localized scleroderma, and even keloids,” she told this news organization.

As a pediatric dermatologist, Dr. Perman treats children with atopic dermatitis as young as 3 months of age. She also uses dupilumab for alopecia areata, graft vs. host disease, and pruritus not otherwise specified.

Conjunctivitis and facial redness are two side effects Dr. Fassett sometimes sees with dupilumab. They occur similarly with all conditions and in all age groups. “We don’t know why they occur, and we don’t always know how to alleviate them,” she said. “So a small number of patients stop using Dupixent because they can’t tolerate those two side effects.

“We’re not worried about infection risk,” Dr. Fassett said. “Your patients may have heard of dupilumab as an immunosuppressant, but its immunosuppression is very focused. You can reassure them that they’re not at increased risk for viral or bacterial infections when they’re on this drug.”

“I don’t think there are any different safety signals to watch for with on-label vs. off-label Dupixent use,” Dr. Strowd added. “In general, the medicine is very safe.”

Dr. Hata said she is impressed with dupilumab’s safety in her elderly patients. All her patients older than 85 years who have taken the drug for bullous pemphigoid have tolerated it well, she said.

“Dupixent seems to be a safe alternative for elderly patients with pruritus because they often cannot tolerate sedating antihistamines due to the risk of falling,” Dr. Hata said. “And UV therapy may be difficult for elderly patients due to problems with transport.”

Although some of Dr. Hata’s elderly patients with atopic dermatitis have discontinued use of the drug after developing conjunctivitis, none taking the drug off label have discontinued it because of side effects, she noted.

“Dupixent manages the condition, but it is not a cure,” Dr. Fassett noted. “Based on the current data, we think it’s safe and effective to take long term, potentially for life.”

Making injections less bothersome

Dupilumab is injected subcutaneously from a single-dose prefilled syringe or a prefilled pen (syringe hidden in an opaque sheath), typically in the thigh, arm, abdomen, or buttocks. According to Sanofi and Regeneron, patients receive dupilumab injections every 2 to 4 weeks in doses based on their age and weight.

“The medication is somewhat viscous, so taking the syringe or pen out of the refrigerator ahead of time to warm it up can make the experience less painful,” Dr. Strowd advised. “For pediatric patients, I sometimes prescribe topical lidocaine applied 30 minutes before injection.”

Dr. Hata suggested icing the skin prior to injecting or distracting the patient by tapping a different area of the skin.

For her pediatric patients, Dr. Perman said she uses “lots of distraction, EMLA cream, and having one person hold the child while a second person injects.”

Clinic and pharmacy staff may show patients how to inject properly, Dr. Fassett added; and the product website provides injection tutorials.
 

Off-label dupixent can be expensive, difficult to obtain

The list price per injection, regardless of dose, is around $1,800. But according to the company’s website, most patients have health insurance or qualify for other assistance, so “very few patients pay the list price.”

Even so, “due to cost and insurance coverage hurdles, obtaining Dupixent for off-label use can be difficult,” Dr. Strowd said.

“In academic medicine, we can obtain drugs for our patients that community doctors may not get approval for,” Dr. Fassett added. “Community doctors can use information in the medical literature and in news articles to press insurance companies to spend money to provide their patients with Dupixent.”

The experts who commented have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.