User login
RA risk raised by work-related inhaled agents
Exposure to inhaled agents in the workplace could be putting people at risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
In an analysis of data from the long-running Swedish Epidemiological Investigation of RA (EIRA) population-based cohort study, there was a 21% increased risk of RA and a 25% increased risk of anti–citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–positive RA associated with exposure to any occupationally inhaled agent.
“We have investigated a number of occupational airborne exposures and found that exposure for those agents infer a high risk for RA,” Lars Klareskog, MD, PhD, senior professor of rheumatology at the Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital (Solna) in Stockholm, said in an interview.
Dr. Klareskog, who is one of the lead authors of the published work, added that the risk is particularly high in individuals who had a genetic susceptibility and in those who smoked.
“The importance of this is that it further demonstrates that exposures to the lung may trigger immune reactions associated with the major subset of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Klareskog said. “Second, it shows that those exposed to these agents should be very keen to not smoke.” “These findings further implicate the respiratory tract mucosa in ACPA-positive RA pathogenesis,” agreed Vanessa L. Kronzer, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
They also “impress the need for public policy initiatives related to occupational inhalants to prevent RA,” they suggested in an editorial.
Multiple occupational inhalable exposures assessed
In the analysis, the researchers assessed exposure to 32 inhalable agents in people with (n = 4,033) and without RA (n = 6,485). The list of agents considered included detergents, diesel engine exhaust, fine particulate matter, solvents, and agricultural chemicals.
A total of 17 agents showed a positive association with an increased risk of ACPA-positive RA. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks noted that breathing in insecticides and fungicides at work was associated with the highest odds ratios for having ACPA-positive RA (both 2.38).
“Importantly, both the number and duration of exposures exhibited a dose-response effect on RA risk,” the editorialists said.
They also picked out that there was “a gene-environment interaction for RA risk for certain inhalants,” including diesel engine exhaust, asbestos, carbon monoxide, and quartz dust.
Smoking amplified the risk for ACPA-positive RA associated with certain agents, such as detergents, and adding in genetic susceptibility for a third exposure increased the risk still further.
A key message is that there are many agents that can affect the airways and increase the risk of RA rather than there being a specific one, Dr. Klareskog said.
“On one hand, it’s a message of public health,” he said. Many public health authorities are aware of the potential risks of inhaled agents on the lung, “but this just adds another dimension that it’s bad also for rheumatoid arthritis.” Thus, greater efforts to help protect people from being exposed at work may be needed.
From the individual’s perspective, “if you have RA or other immune diseases in your family, then you may know that you’re at increased risk,” Dr. Klareskog said. The message here is perhaps to “be aware, [protect yourself], and stop smoking.”
The EIRA study was supported by funding from the Swedish Research Foundation for Health, Working Life, and Welfare, the Swedish Research Council, the AFA foundation, Region Stockholm, King Gustaf V’s 80-year foundation, and the Swedish Rheumatic Foundation. Dr. Klareskog and coauthors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks had no disclosures of relevance to their comments.
Exposure to inhaled agents in the workplace could be putting people at risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
In an analysis of data from the long-running Swedish Epidemiological Investigation of RA (EIRA) population-based cohort study, there was a 21% increased risk of RA and a 25% increased risk of anti–citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–positive RA associated with exposure to any occupationally inhaled agent.
“We have investigated a number of occupational airborne exposures and found that exposure for those agents infer a high risk for RA,” Lars Klareskog, MD, PhD, senior professor of rheumatology at the Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital (Solna) in Stockholm, said in an interview.
Dr. Klareskog, who is one of the lead authors of the published work, added that the risk is particularly high in individuals who had a genetic susceptibility and in those who smoked.
“The importance of this is that it further demonstrates that exposures to the lung may trigger immune reactions associated with the major subset of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Klareskog said. “Second, it shows that those exposed to these agents should be very keen to not smoke.” “These findings further implicate the respiratory tract mucosa in ACPA-positive RA pathogenesis,” agreed Vanessa L. Kronzer, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
They also “impress the need for public policy initiatives related to occupational inhalants to prevent RA,” they suggested in an editorial.
Multiple occupational inhalable exposures assessed
In the analysis, the researchers assessed exposure to 32 inhalable agents in people with (n = 4,033) and without RA (n = 6,485). The list of agents considered included detergents, diesel engine exhaust, fine particulate matter, solvents, and agricultural chemicals.
A total of 17 agents showed a positive association with an increased risk of ACPA-positive RA. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks noted that breathing in insecticides and fungicides at work was associated with the highest odds ratios for having ACPA-positive RA (both 2.38).
“Importantly, both the number and duration of exposures exhibited a dose-response effect on RA risk,” the editorialists said.
They also picked out that there was “a gene-environment interaction for RA risk for certain inhalants,” including diesel engine exhaust, asbestos, carbon monoxide, and quartz dust.
Smoking amplified the risk for ACPA-positive RA associated with certain agents, such as detergents, and adding in genetic susceptibility for a third exposure increased the risk still further.
A key message is that there are many agents that can affect the airways and increase the risk of RA rather than there being a specific one, Dr. Klareskog said.
“On one hand, it’s a message of public health,” he said. Many public health authorities are aware of the potential risks of inhaled agents on the lung, “but this just adds another dimension that it’s bad also for rheumatoid arthritis.” Thus, greater efforts to help protect people from being exposed at work may be needed.
From the individual’s perspective, “if you have RA or other immune diseases in your family, then you may know that you’re at increased risk,” Dr. Klareskog said. The message here is perhaps to “be aware, [protect yourself], and stop smoking.”
The EIRA study was supported by funding from the Swedish Research Foundation for Health, Working Life, and Welfare, the Swedish Research Council, the AFA foundation, Region Stockholm, King Gustaf V’s 80-year foundation, and the Swedish Rheumatic Foundation. Dr. Klareskog and coauthors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks had no disclosures of relevance to their comments.
Exposure to inhaled agents in the workplace could be putting people at risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
In an analysis of data from the long-running Swedish Epidemiological Investigation of RA (EIRA) population-based cohort study, there was a 21% increased risk of RA and a 25% increased risk of anti–citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–positive RA associated with exposure to any occupationally inhaled agent.
“We have investigated a number of occupational airborne exposures and found that exposure for those agents infer a high risk for RA,” Lars Klareskog, MD, PhD, senior professor of rheumatology at the Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital (Solna) in Stockholm, said in an interview.
Dr. Klareskog, who is one of the lead authors of the published work, added that the risk is particularly high in individuals who had a genetic susceptibility and in those who smoked.
“The importance of this is that it further demonstrates that exposures to the lung may trigger immune reactions associated with the major subset of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Klareskog said. “Second, it shows that those exposed to these agents should be very keen to not smoke.” “These findings further implicate the respiratory tract mucosa in ACPA-positive RA pathogenesis,” agreed Vanessa L. Kronzer, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
They also “impress the need for public policy initiatives related to occupational inhalants to prevent RA,” they suggested in an editorial.
Multiple occupational inhalable exposures assessed
In the analysis, the researchers assessed exposure to 32 inhalable agents in people with (n = 4,033) and without RA (n = 6,485). The list of agents considered included detergents, diesel engine exhaust, fine particulate matter, solvents, and agricultural chemicals.
A total of 17 agents showed a positive association with an increased risk of ACPA-positive RA. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks noted that breathing in insecticides and fungicides at work was associated with the highest odds ratios for having ACPA-positive RA (both 2.38).
“Importantly, both the number and duration of exposures exhibited a dose-response effect on RA risk,” the editorialists said.
They also picked out that there was “a gene-environment interaction for RA risk for certain inhalants,” including diesel engine exhaust, asbestos, carbon monoxide, and quartz dust.
Smoking amplified the risk for ACPA-positive RA associated with certain agents, such as detergents, and adding in genetic susceptibility for a third exposure increased the risk still further.
A key message is that there are many agents that can affect the airways and increase the risk of RA rather than there being a specific one, Dr. Klareskog said.
“On one hand, it’s a message of public health,” he said. Many public health authorities are aware of the potential risks of inhaled agents on the lung, “but this just adds another dimension that it’s bad also for rheumatoid arthritis.” Thus, greater efforts to help protect people from being exposed at work may be needed.
From the individual’s perspective, “if you have RA or other immune diseases in your family, then you may know that you’re at increased risk,” Dr. Klareskog said. The message here is perhaps to “be aware, [protect yourself], and stop smoking.”
The EIRA study was supported by funding from the Swedish Research Foundation for Health, Working Life, and Welfare, the Swedish Research Council, the AFA foundation, Region Stockholm, King Gustaf V’s 80-year foundation, and the Swedish Rheumatic Foundation. Dr. Klareskog and coauthors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks had no disclosures of relevance to their comments.
FROM ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Gestational hypertension-diabetes combo signals CVD risk
Women who develop transient hypertensive disorders during their pregnancy are at risk for developing subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly if this experienced at the same time as gestational diabetes.
In a large population-based study, the adjusted hazard ratios for developing CVD following a gestational hypertensive disorder (GHTD) alone were 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.151-2.25) within 5 years and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.76) after 5 years or more.
When gestational diabetes was added into the mix, however, the risk for CVD after 5 years more than doubled (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.60-3.67). Risk in the earlier postpartum period was also raised by the combination, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.78-2.58).
Having gestational diabetes by itself did not seem to increase the risk for later CVD in the analysis, despite being linked to higher heart disease risk in other studies.
“These are women coming out of a pregnancy – young women of reproductive age – so this is not a group that typically has cardiovascular events,” said Ravi Retnakaran, MD, in an interview, an investigator in the new study, which is published in JAMA Network Open.
“If they are somebody who has both disorders concurrently in their pregnancy, they may be at even greater risk than a woman with one or the other disorder,” added Dr. Retnakaran, who is professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and an endocrinologist at the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, also in Toronto. “In other words, amongst already high-risk patients. This is identifying a subset at maybe an even higher risk.”
It doesn’t mean that there is a huge absolute risk, Dr. Retnakaran said, but it is showing that there is a heightened risk such that women and their clinicians need to be aware of and potentially the need for greater preventative care in the future.
“It is allowing you to identify future lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
Study rationale and design
GHTD is “a forerunner of hypertension,” and gestational diabetes is “a precursor of diabetes” – each associated with a high risk of developing CVD in the years after pregnancy, the investigators said. While studies have looked at their individual contributions to future CVD risk, not many had looked to see what risks having both may confer in the postpregnancy years.
For the analysis, data on 886,295 women with GHTD (43,861), gestational diabetes (54,061), both (4,975), or neither (783,398) were obtained from several Canadian administrative health databases.
The mean age was around 30 years across the groups, with those with both conditions or gestational diabetes alone more likely to be older than those with GTHD alone or neither condition (32 vs. 29 years, respectively, P < .001).
After a total follow-up period of 12 years, 1,999 CVD events were recorded, most of them (1,162) 5 years after the pregnancy.
Pregnancy is a stress test for the heart
“We know that what we call adverse pregnancy outcomes – things like gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia – are on the rise globally,” Natalie A. Bello, MD, director of hypertension research at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, commented in an interview.
“People who are younger and of childbearing age who are going into pregnancy now are less healthy than they perhaps were in the past,” Dr. Bello suggested, with more hypertension, more obesity, and people being less physically active. “We think that’s translating into some of the pregnancy complications.”
That’s concerning for a number of reasons, said Dr. Bello, who is also the cochair of the American College of Cardiology’s Cardio-Obstetrics Workgroup, and the biggest one perhaps is the stress that these may conditions may be placing on the heart.
“We know that when individuals have an adverse pregnancy outcome like gestational hypertension, or gestational diabetes, their risk for heart disease is increased in the future compared to someone who has an uncomplicated pregnancy,” she said. “So, we sort of say pregnancy is like a stress test for your heart.”
Dr. Bello added that “these situations, these adverse pregnancy outcomes are an indicator for us as physicians, but also they should be for patients as well, to sort of make sure they’re talking to their doctor about their risk factors and modifying them whenever possible.”
The population studied came from quite a racially, ethnically, and economically diverse area of Canada, Dr. Bello pointed out, although because of the nature of an administrative database there wasn’t information on individual level risk factors.
“We don’t know things like smoking, or if individuals were obese when they were pregnant. So, there are some limitations that should be noted,” she said.
Also, the results don’t mean that isolated gestational diabetes “isn’t something we need to be concerned about,” Dr. Bello observed, adding that the study may have been underpowered to look at this association. “It may just be that it will take a longer time for individuals who have gestational diabetes who don’t make lifestyle changes to develop diabetes, and then develop heart disease.”
The main message is that the women who have a co-occurrence of gestational hypertension and gestational diabetes are at particularly high risk of cardiovascular disease in the future,” said Dr. Retnakaran.
“The way to look at it from a patient standpoint is that we are all on different tracks in terms of our cardiometabolic destiny,” and that these data give “some understanding of what kind of tracks they are on for future risk,” Dr. Retnakaran said.
“A history of either gestational hypertension, and/or gestational diabetes should be really a warning sign for physicians and for patients that they have a higher risk of heart disease,” said Dr. Bello.
She added that this is a signal “that we need to do things to modify their risk, because we know that about 80% of heart disease is modifiable and preventable with proper risk factor management.”
The study was funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Dr. Retnakaran has received grants and personal fees from Novo Nordisk and Merck, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, and personal fees from Eli Lily Takeda, and Sanofi. Dr. Bello had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Women who develop transient hypertensive disorders during their pregnancy are at risk for developing subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly if this experienced at the same time as gestational diabetes.
In a large population-based study, the adjusted hazard ratios for developing CVD following a gestational hypertensive disorder (GHTD) alone were 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.151-2.25) within 5 years and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.76) after 5 years or more.
When gestational diabetes was added into the mix, however, the risk for CVD after 5 years more than doubled (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.60-3.67). Risk in the earlier postpartum period was also raised by the combination, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.78-2.58).
Having gestational diabetes by itself did not seem to increase the risk for later CVD in the analysis, despite being linked to higher heart disease risk in other studies.
“These are women coming out of a pregnancy – young women of reproductive age – so this is not a group that typically has cardiovascular events,” said Ravi Retnakaran, MD, in an interview, an investigator in the new study, which is published in JAMA Network Open.
“If they are somebody who has both disorders concurrently in their pregnancy, they may be at even greater risk than a woman with one or the other disorder,” added Dr. Retnakaran, who is professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and an endocrinologist at the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, also in Toronto. “In other words, amongst already high-risk patients. This is identifying a subset at maybe an even higher risk.”
It doesn’t mean that there is a huge absolute risk, Dr. Retnakaran said, but it is showing that there is a heightened risk such that women and their clinicians need to be aware of and potentially the need for greater preventative care in the future.
“It is allowing you to identify future lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
Study rationale and design
GHTD is “a forerunner of hypertension,” and gestational diabetes is “a precursor of diabetes” – each associated with a high risk of developing CVD in the years after pregnancy, the investigators said. While studies have looked at their individual contributions to future CVD risk, not many had looked to see what risks having both may confer in the postpregnancy years.
For the analysis, data on 886,295 women with GHTD (43,861), gestational diabetes (54,061), both (4,975), or neither (783,398) were obtained from several Canadian administrative health databases.
The mean age was around 30 years across the groups, with those with both conditions or gestational diabetes alone more likely to be older than those with GTHD alone or neither condition (32 vs. 29 years, respectively, P < .001).
After a total follow-up period of 12 years, 1,999 CVD events were recorded, most of them (1,162) 5 years after the pregnancy.
Pregnancy is a stress test for the heart
“We know that what we call adverse pregnancy outcomes – things like gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia – are on the rise globally,” Natalie A. Bello, MD, director of hypertension research at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, commented in an interview.
“People who are younger and of childbearing age who are going into pregnancy now are less healthy than they perhaps were in the past,” Dr. Bello suggested, with more hypertension, more obesity, and people being less physically active. “We think that’s translating into some of the pregnancy complications.”
That’s concerning for a number of reasons, said Dr. Bello, who is also the cochair of the American College of Cardiology’s Cardio-Obstetrics Workgroup, and the biggest one perhaps is the stress that these may conditions may be placing on the heart.
“We know that when individuals have an adverse pregnancy outcome like gestational hypertension, or gestational diabetes, their risk for heart disease is increased in the future compared to someone who has an uncomplicated pregnancy,” she said. “So, we sort of say pregnancy is like a stress test for your heart.”
Dr. Bello added that “these situations, these adverse pregnancy outcomes are an indicator for us as physicians, but also they should be for patients as well, to sort of make sure they’re talking to their doctor about their risk factors and modifying them whenever possible.”
The population studied came from quite a racially, ethnically, and economically diverse area of Canada, Dr. Bello pointed out, although because of the nature of an administrative database there wasn’t information on individual level risk factors.
“We don’t know things like smoking, or if individuals were obese when they were pregnant. So, there are some limitations that should be noted,” she said.
Also, the results don’t mean that isolated gestational diabetes “isn’t something we need to be concerned about,” Dr. Bello observed, adding that the study may have been underpowered to look at this association. “It may just be that it will take a longer time for individuals who have gestational diabetes who don’t make lifestyle changes to develop diabetes, and then develop heart disease.”
The main message is that the women who have a co-occurrence of gestational hypertension and gestational diabetes are at particularly high risk of cardiovascular disease in the future,” said Dr. Retnakaran.
“The way to look at it from a patient standpoint is that we are all on different tracks in terms of our cardiometabolic destiny,” and that these data give “some understanding of what kind of tracks they are on for future risk,” Dr. Retnakaran said.
“A history of either gestational hypertension, and/or gestational diabetes should be really a warning sign for physicians and for patients that they have a higher risk of heart disease,” said Dr. Bello.
She added that this is a signal “that we need to do things to modify their risk, because we know that about 80% of heart disease is modifiable and preventable with proper risk factor management.”
The study was funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Dr. Retnakaran has received grants and personal fees from Novo Nordisk and Merck, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, and personal fees from Eli Lily Takeda, and Sanofi. Dr. Bello had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Women who develop transient hypertensive disorders during their pregnancy are at risk for developing subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly if this experienced at the same time as gestational diabetes.
In a large population-based study, the adjusted hazard ratios for developing CVD following a gestational hypertensive disorder (GHTD) alone were 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.151-2.25) within 5 years and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.76) after 5 years or more.
When gestational diabetes was added into the mix, however, the risk for CVD after 5 years more than doubled (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.60-3.67). Risk in the earlier postpartum period was also raised by the combination, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.78-2.58).
Having gestational diabetes by itself did not seem to increase the risk for later CVD in the analysis, despite being linked to higher heart disease risk in other studies.
“These are women coming out of a pregnancy – young women of reproductive age – so this is not a group that typically has cardiovascular events,” said Ravi Retnakaran, MD, in an interview, an investigator in the new study, which is published in JAMA Network Open.
“If they are somebody who has both disorders concurrently in their pregnancy, they may be at even greater risk than a woman with one or the other disorder,” added Dr. Retnakaran, who is professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and an endocrinologist at the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, also in Toronto. “In other words, amongst already high-risk patients. This is identifying a subset at maybe an even higher risk.”
It doesn’t mean that there is a huge absolute risk, Dr. Retnakaran said, but it is showing that there is a heightened risk such that women and their clinicians need to be aware of and potentially the need for greater preventative care in the future.
“It is allowing you to identify future lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
Study rationale and design
GHTD is “a forerunner of hypertension,” and gestational diabetes is “a precursor of diabetes” – each associated with a high risk of developing CVD in the years after pregnancy, the investigators said. While studies have looked at their individual contributions to future CVD risk, not many had looked to see what risks having both may confer in the postpregnancy years.
For the analysis, data on 886,295 women with GHTD (43,861), gestational diabetes (54,061), both (4,975), or neither (783,398) were obtained from several Canadian administrative health databases.
The mean age was around 30 years across the groups, with those with both conditions or gestational diabetes alone more likely to be older than those with GTHD alone or neither condition (32 vs. 29 years, respectively, P < .001).
After a total follow-up period of 12 years, 1,999 CVD events were recorded, most of them (1,162) 5 years after the pregnancy.
Pregnancy is a stress test for the heart
“We know that what we call adverse pregnancy outcomes – things like gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia – are on the rise globally,” Natalie A. Bello, MD, director of hypertension research at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, commented in an interview.
“People who are younger and of childbearing age who are going into pregnancy now are less healthy than they perhaps were in the past,” Dr. Bello suggested, with more hypertension, more obesity, and people being less physically active. “We think that’s translating into some of the pregnancy complications.”
That’s concerning for a number of reasons, said Dr. Bello, who is also the cochair of the American College of Cardiology’s Cardio-Obstetrics Workgroup, and the biggest one perhaps is the stress that these may conditions may be placing on the heart.
“We know that when individuals have an adverse pregnancy outcome like gestational hypertension, or gestational diabetes, their risk for heart disease is increased in the future compared to someone who has an uncomplicated pregnancy,” she said. “So, we sort of say pregnancy is like a stress test for your heart.”
Dr. Bello added that “these situations, these adverse pregnancy outcomes are an indicator for us as physicians, but also they should be for patients as well, to sort of make sure they’re talking to their doctor about their risk factors and modifying them whenever possible.”
The population studied came from quite a racially, ethnically, and economically diverse area of Canada, Dr. Bello pointed out, although because of the nature of an administrative database there wasn’t information on individual level risk factors.
“We don’t know things like smoking, or if individuals were obese when they were pregnant. So, there are some limitations that should be noted,” she said.
Also, the results don’t mean that isolated gestational diabetes “isn’t something we need to be concerned about,” Dr. Bello observed, adding that the study may have been underpowered to look at this association. “It may just be that it will take a longer time for individuals who have gestational diabetes who don’t make lifestyle changes to develop diabetes, and then develop heart disease.”
The main message is that the women who have a co-occurrence of gestational hypertension and gestational diabetes are at particularly high risk of cardiovascular disease in the future,” said Dr. Retnakaran.
“The way to look at it from a patient standpoint is that we are all on different tracks in terms of our cardiometabolic destiny,” and that these data give “some understanding of what kind of tracks they are on for future risk,” Dr. Retnakaran said.
“A history of either gestational hypertension, and/or gestational diabetes should be really a warning sign for physicians and for patients that they have a higher risk of heart disease,” said Dr. Bello.
She added that this is a signal “that we need to do things to modify their risk, because we know that about 80% of heart disease is modifiable and preventable with proper risk factor management.”
The study was funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Dr. Retnakaran has received grants and personal fees from Novo Nordisk and Merck, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, and personal fees from Eli Lily Takeda, and Sanofi. Dr. Bello had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Rituximab raises remission rate in granulomatosis with polyangiitis
More patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) were in remission at 6 months if they had received rituximab (Rituxan) rather than cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) as induction therapy, according to a target trial emulation performed by the French Vasculitis Study Group (FVSG).
Remission, which was defined as a score of zero on the validated Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) and use of no more than 10 mg of prednisone a day, was documented in 73.1% of rituximab-treated patients and 40.1% of cyclophosphamide-treated patients.
Similar rates of remission were observed regardless of whether patients were newly diagnosed with GPA (76.1% vs. 41.6%) or had been recently treated for relapsing disease (75.2% vs. 44.5%), FVSG researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.
This research “may inform clinical decision-making regarding the choice of remission-inducing regimen for patients with GPA,” the researchers suggested.
Practice already shifting to rituximab
“The results are largely in line with previous perceptions,” David R.W. Jayne, MD, honorary consultant and director of the vasculitis and lupus service at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, observed in an emailed comment.
“The difference is a bit bigger [in favor of rituximab] than I would have expected,” said Dr. Jayne, who is also professor of clinical autoimmunity at the University of Cambridge. He noted that clinical practice was already moving toward using rituximab in place of cyclophosphamide.
Rituximab gained a European license to treat antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitides (AAV) just over a decade ago. Since then, it has slowly started to replace the use of cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, which were the preferred method up until then.
Part of the reason for this shift is the toxicity associated with cyclophosphamide, although that’s not to say that rituximab is free from safety concerns, Dr. Jayne said.
“Toxicity issues with rituximab, especially secondary immunodeficiency, more severe COVID, and blocking vaccine responses, are becoming bigger issues for day-to-day practice,” he noted. Nonetheless, “the introduction of rituximab has been a revolution in AAV treatment. It has encouraged pharma investment in the disease, such as recent approval of avacopan [Tavneos], and it is helping patients.”
Why simulate and not perform a randomized trial?
There were several reasons for performing the current evaluation, study coauthor Benjamin Terrier, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
“The pivotal study, published in 2010, that led to the approval of rituximab was a noninferiority study in comparison with cyclophosphamide, but it included patients with both GPA, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and MPA, microscopic polyangiitis,” explained Dr. Terrier, professor of internal medicine at the National Referral Center for Rare Systemic Autoimmune Diseases at Cochin Hospital in Paris.
“A post hoc analysis showed that, in the patients with a PR3 [proteinase 3]-ANCA and in the patients with relapsing disease, rituximab was superior,” he added.
“So, there was some data which suggest that rituximab could be differentially effective between the different subgroups of patients. So that’s why we wanted to answer this question.”
Since it is not always feasible to do a randomized trial, particularly when it concerns a rare disease such as GPA, Dr. Terrier and associates decided to perform a target trial emulation using data from the FVSG registry, which collates information from 32 hospitals in France. Such studies are gaining in popularity and have been shown to provide a very good level of evidence, he said.
Data collections and secondary endpoint results
The researchers obtained data on 194 patients in the registry who were treated for GPA between April 2008 and April 2018. The majority (85.1%) of patients included were newly diagnosed with GPA, and 56.7% were men. The mean age of patients was 54 years.
Information on the PR3-ANCA status of patients was available for 182 patients, and this showed that the majority (80.8%) were positive for this autoantibody.
A weighted analysis was undertaken to iron out any differences in baseline characteristics, such as the fact that more patients had been treated with at least one dose of cyclophosphamide than rituximab (133 vs. 61).
The primary outcome was remission at 6 months, but a key secondary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a BVAS score of zero at this time point. This turned out to be similar among the rituximab- and cyclophosphamide-treated patients (85.5% vs. 82.6%, respectively).
Another secondary endpoint looked at the retention rate without failure at 24 months, with fewer postinclusion treatment failures seen with rituximab than with cyclophosphamide (7 vs. 51 patients, respectively). Most treatment failures were caused by relapses (7 vs. 33).
In terms of safety, the researchers said they found “no increased toxicity signal” for rituximab over cyclophosphamide. In fact, more severe adverse events were noted in the latter group.
Take-home messages
While of course there are limitations, considering the earlier data and the current results, “we probably have enough data to consider that, in the vast majority of GPA patients, in PR3-ANCA patients, rituximab is probably the best option,” Dr. Terrier said.
There are still patients for whom there isn’t a definitive answer on which drug may be best, such as those with severe disease who were not included in the trials or represent few patients in the registry. For them, it is “still a case-by-case discussion, and I think we have to decide really, with caution,” Dr. Terrier said.
What this study also shows is that emulated trials are possible, he added. “I think it shows that we could have some answers to other questions by emulating trials in this rare disease.”
The FVSG registry has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Dr. Terrier reported receiving personal fees from Vifor Pharma Group, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Jayne has received lecture fees and a research grant from Roche/Genentech.
More patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) were in remission at 6 months if they had received rituximab (Rituxan) rather than cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) as induction therapy, according to a target trial emulation performed by the French Vasculitis Study Group (FVSG).
Remission, which was defined as a score of zero on the validated Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) and use of no more than 10 mg of prednisone a day, was documented in 73.1% of rituximab-treated patients and 40.1% of cyclophosphamide-treated patients.
Similar rates of remission were observed regardless of whether patients were newly diagnosed with GPA (76.1% vs. 41.6%) or had been recently treated for relapsing disease (75.2% vs. 44.5%), FVSG researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.
This research “may inform clinical decision-making regarding the choice of remission-inducing regimen for patients with GPA,” the researchers suggested.
Practice already shifting to rituximab
“The results are largely in line with previous perceptions,” David R.W. Jayne, MD, honorary consultant and director of the vasculitis and lupus service at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, observed in an emailed comment.
“The difference is a bit bigger [in favor of rituximab] than I would have expected,” said Dr. Jayne, who is also professor of clinical autoimmunity at the University of Cambridge. He noted that clinical practice was already moving toward using rituximab in place of cyclophosphamide.
Rituximab gained a European license to treat antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitides (AAV) just over a decade ago. Since then, it has slowly started to replace the use of cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, which were the preferred method up until then.
Part of the reason for this shift is the toxicity associated with cyclophosphamide, although that’s not to say that rituximab is free from safety concerns, Dr. Jayne said.
“Toxicity issues with rituximab, especially secondary immunodeficiency, more severe COVID, and blocking vaccine responses, are becoming bigger issues for day-to-day practice,” he noted. Nonetheless, “the introduction of rituximab has been a revolution in AAV treatment. It has encouraged pharma investment in the disease, such as recent approval of avacopan [Tavneos], and it is helping patients.”
Why simulate and not perform a randomized trial?
There were several reasons for performing the current evaluation, study coauthor Benjamin Terrier, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
“The pivotal study, published in 2010, that led to the approval of rituximab was a noninferiority study in comparison with cyclophosphamide, but it included patients with both GPA, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and MPA, microscopic polyangiitis,” explained Dr. Terrier, professor of internal medicine at the National Referral Center for Rare Systemic Autoimmune Diseases at Cochin Hospital in Paris.
“A post hoc analysis showed that, in the patients with a PR3 [proteinase 3]-ANCA and in the patients with relapsing disease, rituximab was superior,” he added.
“So, there was some data which suggest that rituximab could be differentially effective between the different subgroups of patients. So that’s why we wanted to answer this question.”
Since it is not always feasible to do a randomized trial, particularly when it concerns a rare disease such as GPA, Dr. Terrier and associates decided to perform a target trial emulation using data from the FVSG registry, which collates information from 32 hospitals in France. Such studies are gaining in popularity and have been shown to provide a very good level of evidence, he said.
Data collections and secondary endpoint results
The researchers obtained data on 194 patients in the registry who were treated for GPA between April 2008 and April 2018. The majority (85.1%) of patients included were newly diagnosed with GPA, and 56.7% were men. The mean age of patients was 54 years.
Information on the PR3-ANCA status of patients was available for 182 patients, and this showed that the majority (80.8%) were positive for this autoantibody.
A weighted analysis was undertaken to iron out any differences in baseline characteristics, such as the fact that more patients had been treated with at least one dose of cyclophosphamide than rituximab (133 vs. 61).
The primary outcome was remission at 6 months, but a key secondary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a BVAS score of zero at this time point. This turned out to be similar among the rituximab- and cyclophosphamide-treated patients (85.5% vs. 82.6%, respectively).
Another secondary endpoint looked at the retention rate without failure at 24 months, with fewer postinclusion treatment failures seen with rituximab than with cyclophosphamide (7 vs. 51 patients, respectively). Most treatment failures were caused by relapses (7 vs. 33).
In terms of safety, the researchers said they found “no increased toxicity signal” for rituximab over cyclophosphamide. In fact, more severe adverse events were noted in the latter group.
Take-home messages
While of course there are limitations, considering the earlier data and the current results, “we probably have enough data to consider that, in the vast majority of GPA patients, in PR3-ANCA patients, rituximab is probably the best option,” Dr. Terrier said.
There are still patients for whom there isn’t a definitive answer on which drug may be best, such as those with severe disease who were not included in the trials or represent few patients in the registry. For them, it is “still a case-by-case discussion, and I think we have to decide really, with caution,” Dr. Terrier said.
What this study also shows is that emulated trials are possible, he added. “I think it shows that we could have some answers to other questions by emulating trials in this rare disease.”
The FVSG registry has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Dr. Terrier reported receiving personal fees from Vifor Pharma Group, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Jayne has received lecture fees and a research grant from Roche/Genentech.
More patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) were in remission at 6 months if they had received rituximab (Rituxan) rather than cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) as induction therapy, according to a target trial emulation performed by the French Vasculitis Study Group (FVSG).
Remission, which was defined as a score of zero on the validated Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) and use of no more than 10 mg of prednisone a day, was documented in 73.1% of rituximab-treated patients and 40.1% of cyclophosphamide-treated patients.
Similar rates of remission were observed regardless of whether patients were newly diagnosed with GPA (76.1% vs. 41.6%) or had been recently treated for relapsing disease (75.2% vs. 44.5%), FVSG researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.
This research “may inform clinical decision-making regarding the choice of remission-inducing regimen for patients with GPA,” the researchers suggested.
Practice already shifting to rituximab
“The results are largely in line with previous perceptions,” David R.W. Jayne, MD, honorary consultant and director of the vasculitis and lupus service at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, observed in an emailed comment.
“The difference is a bit bigger [in favor of rituximab] than I would have expected,” said Dr. Jayne, who is also professor of clinical autoimmunity at the University of Cambridge. He noted that clinical practice was already moving toward using rituximab in place of cyclophosphamide.
Rituximab gained a European license to treat antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitides (AAV) just over a decade ago. Since then, it has slowly started to replace the use of cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, which were the preferred method up until then.
Part of the reason for this shift is the toxicity associated with cyclophosphamide, although that’s not to say that rituximab is free from safety concerns, Dr. Jayne said.
“Toxicity issues with rituximab, especially secondary immunodeficiency, more severe COVID, and blocking vaccine responses, are becoming bigger issues for day-to-day practice,” he noted. Nonetheless, “the introduction of rituximab has been a revolution in AAV treatment. It has encouraged pharma investment in the disease, such as recent approval of avacopan [Tavneos], and it is helping patients.”
Why simulate and not perform a randomized trial?
There were several reasons for performing the current evaluation, study coauthor Benjamin Terrier, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
“The pivotal study, published in 2010, that led to the approval of rituximab was a noninferiority study in comparison with cyclophosphamide, but it included patients with both GPA, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and MPA, microscopic polyangiitis,” explained Dr. Terrier, professor of internal medicine at the National Referral Center for Rare Systemic Autoimmune Diseases at Cochin Hospital in Paris.
“A post hoc analysis showed that, in the patients with a PR3 [proteinase 3]-ANCA and in the patients with relapsing disease, rituximab was superior,” he added.
“So, there was some data which suggest that rituximab could be differentially effective between the different subgroups of patients. So that’s why we wanted to answer this question.”
Since it is not always feasible to do a randomized trial, particularly when it concerns a rare disease such as GPA, Dr. Terrier and associates decided to perform a target trial emulation using data from the FVSG registry, which collates information from 32 hospitals in France. Such studies are gaining in popularity and have been shown to provide a very good level of evidence, he said.
Data collections and secondary endpoint results
The researchers obtained data on 194 patients in the registry who were treated for GPA between April 2008 and April 2018. The majority (85.1%) of patients included were newly diagnosed with GPA, and 56.7% were men. The mean age of patients was 54 years.
Information on the PR3-ANCA status of patients was available for 182 patients, and this showed that the majority (80.8%) were positive for this autoantibody.
A weighted analysis was undertaken to iron out any differences in baseline characteristics, such as the fact that more patients had been treated with at least one dose of cyclophosphamide than rituximab (133 vs. 61).
The primary outcome was remission at 6 months, but a key secondary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a BVAS score of zero at this time point. This turned out to be similar among the rituximab- and cyclophosphamide-treated patients (85.5% vs. 82.6%, respectively).
Another secondary endpoint looked at the retention rate without failure at 24 months, with fewer postinclusion treatment failures seen with rituximab than with cyclophosphamide (7 vs. 51 patients, respectively). Most treatment failures were caused by relapses (7 vs. 33).
In terms of safety, the researchers said they found “no increased toxicity signal” for rituximab over cyclophosphamide. In fact, more severe adverse events were noted in the latter group.
Take-home messages
While of course there are limitations, considering the earlier data and the current results, “we probably have enough data to consider that, in the vast majority of GPA patients, in PR3-ANCA patients, rituximab is probably the best option,” Dr. Terrier said.
There are still patients for whom there isn’t a definitive answer on which drug may be best, such as those with severe disease who were not included in the trials or represent few patients in the registry. For them, it is “still a case-by-case discussion, and I think we have to decide really, with caution,” Dr. Terrier said.
What this study also shows is that emulated trials are possible, he added. “I think it shows that we could have some answers to other questions by emulating trials in this rare disease.”
The FVSG registry has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Dr. Terrier reported receiving personal fees from Vifor Pharma Group, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Jayne has received lecture fees and a research grant from Roche/Genentech.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
52-week data show lebrikizumab atopic dermatitis effects maintained
from the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials.
“We’re focused on the responders,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, as he presented the positive findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Responders were the 291 people whose atopic dermatitis greatly improved after an initial 16 weeks’ treatment with lebrikizumab in both trials and who were then randomly allocated to receive injections every 2 weeks (Q2W, n = 113) or every 4 weeks (Q4W, n = 118), or to receive placebo injections Q2W (n = 60).
“Very interestingly, for me, the Q4W maintenance dosing was just as good as the Q2W maintenance dosing,” said Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.
“Another highlight of these data is that the patients who went on to placebo, about 50% of the patients maintained good responses, despite no treatment from week 16 to week 52,” he added.
Most patients did not require topical steroids, and “there were no surprises here” in terms of the safety profile. Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody, binds to soluble interleukin-13 and blocks IL-13 signaling.
“So, the study really shows that specific targeting of IL-13 with lebrikizumab, either Q2W or Q4W, has high maintenance of efficacy and is reasonably tolerated and safe in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis,” Dr. Blauvelt concluded.
“We know now that IL-13 is a critical cytokine in AD [atopic dermatitis] pathogenesis. The unique features of this drug I want to highlight is that it has high binding affinity for IL-13,” he said.
“It has a slow dissociation off rate, meaning it binds IL-13 tightly, very potently, and stays blocking and stays hold of IL-13 in a strong manner,” he added. The drug has a half-life of 25 days.
These features could be very important for long-term dosing of the drug, he argued.
Lebrikizumab phase 3 trials
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two of several phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.
These include the completed ADhere study, in which lebrikizumab was used in combination with topical steroids and showed positive results in skin improvement and relief of pruritus.
The ADore study, an open-label trial in adolescents, is yet to report. The ongoing ADjoin study, a long-term extension study, is actively recruiting.
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two identically designed – multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group – monotherapy trials that initially pitched two dosing regimens of lebrikizumab (250 mg) against placebo with a double loading dose at baseline and week 2 and then one dose every 2 weeks. The pair of trials enrolled a total of 869 adolescents and adults.
After the 16-week induction period, all patients in the lebrikizumab arm who had responded to treatment were rerandomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab 250 mg Q2W or Q4W, or placebo Q2W during a 36-week long-term maintenance treatment period.
This brought the total treatment time to 52 weeks for those whose atopic dermatitis had initially responded to lebrikizumab, explained Blauvelt.
Responders were those who, at 16 weeks, had an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) with a 2-point improvement or who had a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI 75) without the need for rescue medication, compared with baseline values.
Induction and maintenance phase results
At the end of the 16-week induction period, a greater proportion of patients who had been treated with lebrikizumab than placebo met a primary outcome of IGA 0/1 in each trial (43.1% vs. 12.7% in ADvocate1 and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in ADvocate2).
A similar result was seen for another primary outcome, EASI 75 (58.8% vs. 16.2% and 52.1% vs. 18.1%) and for a secondary outcome, improvement in pruritus using a numerical rating scale (45.9% vs. 13.0% and 39.8% vs. 11.5%).
In the maintenance phase, with respect to responders, Dr. Blauvelt reported “very similar results” between the QW2 and Q4W maintenance dosing, “and still a quite high response in [half] the patients who were randomized to placebo at week 16.”
In the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, respectively, an IGA 0/1 with at least a 2-point improvement was maintained at week 52 in 75.8% and 64.6% of patients treated with the Q2W lebrikizumab dose, 74.2% and 80.6% of those treated with the Q4W dose, and 46.5% and 49.8% of those given placebo.
EASI 75 was maintained at week 52 in a respective 79.2% and 77.4% of patients treated with the Q2W dose, 79.2% and 84.7% with the Q4W dose, and 61.3% and 72.0% with placebo.
As for maintenance of at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus score, results at 52 weeks were 81.2% and 90.3% for the 2-week dose, 80.4% and 88.1% for the 4-week dose, and 65.4% and 67.6% for placebo.
Although topical corticosteroid treatment was allowed during the maintenance phase, only about 15% of patients needed this, Dr. Blauvelt said.
Different dosing results questioned
During the discussion period, one delegate highlighted that the twice-weekly maintenance dosing schedule seemed to “do worse a little bit” than the 4-week dosing, with both “close to placebo,” although “the long-term effect is already very impressive.”
Dr. Blauvelt noted that a pooled analysis had been done and that “it’s very clear that being on lebrikizumab works better than not being on lebrikizumab.
“Now, Q2W versus Q4W. We believe that this may be due to the long half-life of the drug possibly. It could be due to the slow disassociation rate, it’s binding tightly,” he suggested.
“We also could talk about disease modification, right. So, it opens up the concept of hit hard, hit early for 16 weeks, and then maybe you can modify disease over time,” Dr. Blauvelt said.
He added: “That’s highly speculative, of course.”
Short-term safety data
The 52-week safety profile of lebrikizumab is consistent with previously published data at 16 weeks, Dr. Blauvelt said. The most common adverse events during the studies included atopic dermatitis, nasopharyngitis, conjunctivitis, conjunctivitis allergic, headache, and COVID-19.
“This drug has comparable efficacy with dupilumab and tralokinumab,” said Jashin J. Wu, MD, from the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., in an interview. He was not involved in the study.
“As it does not have any significant advantages with less long-term safety data, I do not see a place for it in my practice,” Dr. Wu said.
Dupilumab (Dupixent) and tralokinumab (Adbry) are monoclonal antibodies that also block IL-13. Both are already licensed for treating atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, and tralokinumab was approved in 2021.
The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly has exclusive rights for the development and commercialization of lebrikizumab in the United States and all countries outside Europe; European rights belong to Almirall for all dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis. Dr. Blauvelt acts as an investigator and adviser to these companies as well as many other pharmaceutical companies that are involved in developing new dermatologic treatments. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
from the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials.
“We’re focused on the responders,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, as he presented the positive findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Responders were the 291 people whose atopic dermatitis greatly improved after an initial 16 weeks’ treatment with lebrikizumab in both trials and who were then randomly allocated to receive injections every 2 weeks (Q2W, n = 113) or every 4 weeks (Q4W, n = 118), or to receive placebo injections Q2W (n = 60).
“Very interestingly, for me, the Q4W maintenance dosing was just as good as the Q2W maintenance dosing,” said Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.
“Another highlight of these data is that the patients who went on to placebo, about 50% of the patients maintained good responses, despite no treatment from week 16 to week 52,” he added.
Most patients did not require topical steroids, and “there were no surprises here” in terms of the safety profile. Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody, binds to soluble interleukin-13 and blocks IL-13 signaling.
“So, the study really shows that specific targeting of IL-13 with lebrikizumab, either Q2W or Q4W, has high maintenance of efficacy and is reasonably tolerated and safe in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis,” Dr. Blauvelt concluded.
“We know now that IL-13 is a critical cytokine in AD [atopic dermatitis] pathogenesis. The unique features of this drug I want to highlight is that it has high binding affinity for IL-13,” he said.
“It has a slow dissociation off rate, meaning it binds IL-13 tightly, very potently, and stays blocking and stays hold of IL-13 in a strong manner,” he added. The drug has a half-life of 25 days.
These features could be very important for long-term dosing of the drug, he argued.
Lebrikizumab phase 3 trials
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two of several phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.
These include the completed ADhere study, in which lebrikizumab was used in combination with topical steroids and showed positive results in skin improvement and relief of pruritus.
The ADore study, an open-label trial in adolescents, is yet to report. The ongoing ADjoin study, a long-term extension study, is actively recruiting.
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two identically designed – multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group – monotherapy trials that initially pitched two dosing regimens of lebrikizumab (250 mg) against placebo with a double loading dose at baseline and week 2 and then one dose every 2 weeks. The pair of trials enrolled a total of 869 adolescents and adults.
After the 16-week induction period, all patients in the lebrikizumab arm who had responded to treatment were rerandomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab 250 mg Q2W or Q4W, or placebo Q2W during a 36-week long-term maintenance treatment period.
This brought the total treatment time to 52 weeks for those whose atopic dermatitis had initially responded to lebrikizumab, explained Blauvelt.
Responders were those who, at 16 weeks, had an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) with a 2-point improvement or who had a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI 75) without the need for rescue medication, compared with baseline values.
Induction and maintenance phase results
At the end of the 16-week induction period, a greater proportion of patients who had been treated with lebrikizumab than placebo met a primary outcome of IGA 0/1 in each trial (43.1% vs. 12.7% in ADvocate1 and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in ADvocate2).
A similar result was seen for another primary outcome, EASI 75 (58.8% vs. 16.2% and 52.1% vs. 18.1%) and for a secondary outcome, improvement in pruritus using a numerical rating scale (45.9% vs. 13.0% and 39.8% vs. 11.5%).
In the maintenance phase, with respect to responders, Dr. Blauvelt reported “very similar results” between the QW2 and Q4W maintenance dosing, “and still a quite high response in [half] the patients who were randomized to placebo at week 16.”
In the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, respectively, an IGA 0/1 with at least a 2-point improvement was maintained at week 52 in 75.8% and 64.6% of patients treated with the Q2W lebrikizumab dose, 74.2% and 80.6% of those treated with the Q4W dose, and 46.5% and 49.8% of those given placebo.
EASI 75 was maintained at week 52 in a respective 79.2% and 77.4% of patients treated with the Q2W dose, 79.2% and 84.7% with the Q4W dose, and 61.3% and 72.0% with placebo.
As for maintenance of at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus score, results at 52 weeks were 81.2% and 90.3% for the 2-week dose, 80.4% and 88.1% for the 4-week dose, and 65.4% and 67.6% for placebo.
Although topical corticosteroid treatment was allowed during the maintenance phase, only about 15% of patients needed this, Dr. Blauvelt said.
Different dosing results questioned
During the discussion period, one delegate highlighted that the twice-weekly maintenance dosing schedule seemed to “do worse a little bit” than the 4-week dosing, with both “close to placebo,” although “the long-term effect is already very impressive.”
Dr. Blauvelt noted that a pooled analysis had been done and that “it’s very clear that being on lebrikizumab works better than not being on lebrikizumab.
“Now, Q2W versus Q4W. We believe that this may be due to the long half-life of the drug possibly. It could be due to the slow disassociation rate, it’s binding tightly,” he suggested.
“We also could talk about disease modification, right. So, it opens up the concept of hit hard, hit early for 16 weeks, and then maybe you can modify disease over time,” Dr. Blauvelt said.
He added: “That’s highly speculative, of course.”
Short-term safety data
The 52-week safety profile of lebrikizumab is consistent with previously published data at 16 weeks, Dr. Blauvelt said. The most common adverse events during the studies included atopic dermatitis, nasopharyngitis, conjunctivitis, conjunctivitis allergic, headache, and COVID-19.
“This drug has comparable efficacy with dupilumab and tralokinumab,” said Jashin J. Wu, MD, from the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., in an interview. He was not involved in the study.
“As it does not have any significant advantages with less long-term safety data, I do not see a place for it in my practice,” Dr. Wu said.
Dupilumab (Dupixent) and tralokinumab (Adbry) are monoclonal antibodies that also block IL-13. Both are already licensed for treating atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, and tralokinumab was approved in 2021.
The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly has exclusive rights for the development and commercialization of lebrikizumab in the United States and all countries outside Europe; European rights belong to Almirall for all dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis. Dr. Blauvelt acts as an investigator and adviser to these companies as well as many other pharmaceutical companies that are involved in developing new dermatologic treatments. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
from the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials.
“We’re focused on the responders,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, as he presented the positive findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Responders were the 291 people whose atopic dermatitis greatly improved after an initial 16 weeks’ treatment with lebrikizumab in both trials and who were then randomly allocated to receive injections every 2 weeks (Q2W, n = 113) or every 4 weeks (Q4W, n = 118), or to receive placebo injections Q2W (n = 60).
“Very interestingly, for me, the Q4W maintenance dosing was just as good as the Q2W maintenance dosing,” said Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.
“Another highlight of these data is that the patients who went on to placebo, about 50% of the patients maintained good responses, despite no treatment from week 16 to week 52,” he added.
Most patients did not require topical steroids, and “there were no surprises here” in terms of the safety profile. Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody, binds to soluble interleukin-13 and blocks IL-13 signaling.
“So, the study really shows that specific targeting of IL-13 with lebrikizumab, either Q2W or Q4W, has high maintenance of efficacy and is reasonably tolerated and safe in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis,” Dr. Blauvelt concluded.
“We know now that IL-13 is a critical cytokine in AD [atopic dermatitis] pathogenesis. The unique features of this drug I want to highlight is that it has high binding affinity for IL-13,” he said.
“It has a slow dissociation off rate, meaning it binds IL-13 tightly, very potently, and stays blocking and stays hold of IL-13 in a strong manner,” he added. The drug has a half-life of 25 days.
These features could be very important for long-term dosing of the drug, he argued.
Lebrikizumab phase 3 trials
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two of several phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.
These include the completed ADhere study, in which lebrikizumab was used in combination with topical steroids and showed positive results in skin improvement and relief of pruritus.
The ADore study, an open-label trial in adolescents, is yet to report. The ongoing ADjoin study, a long-term extension study, is actively recruiting.
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two identically designed – multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group – monotherapy trials that initially pitched two dosing regimens of lebrikizumab (250 mg) against placebo with a double loading dose at baseline and week 2 and then one dose every 2 weeks. The pair of trials enrolled a total of 869 adolescents and adults.
After the 16-week induction period, all patients in the lebrikizumab arm who had responded to treatment were rerandomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab 250 mg Q2W or Q4W, or placebo Q2W during a 36-week long-term maintenance treatment period.
This brought the total treatment time to 52 weeks for those whose atopic dermatitis had initially responded to lebrikizumab, explained Blauvelt.
Responders were those who, at 16 weeks, had an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) with a 2-point improvement or who had a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI 75) without the need for rescue medication, compared with baseline values.
Induction and maintenance phase results
At the end of the 16-week induction period, a greater proportion of patients who had been treated with lebrikizumab than placebo met a primary outcome of IGA 0/1 in each trial (43.1% vs. 12.7% in ADvocate1 and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in ADvocate2).
A similar result was seen for another primary outcome, EASI 75 (58.8% vs. 16.2% and 52.1% vs. 18.1%) and for a secondary outcome, improvement in pruritus using a numerical rating scale (45.9% vs. 13.0% and 39.8% vs. 11.5%).
In the maintenance phase, with respect to responders, Dr. Blauvelt reported “very similar results” between the QW2 and Q4W maintenance dosing, “and still a quite high response in [half] the patients who were randomized to placebo at week 16.”
In the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, respectively, an IGA 0/1 with at least a 2-point improvement was maintained at week 52 in 75.8% and 64.6% of patients treated with the Q2W lebrikizumab dose, 74.2% and 80.6% of those treated with the Q4W dose, and 46.5% and 49.8% of those given placebo.
EASI 75 was maintained at week 52 in a respective 79.2% and 77.4% of patients treated with the Q2W dose, 79.2% and 84.7% with the Q4W dose, and 61.3% and 72.0% with placebo.
As for maintenance of at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus score, results at 52 weeks were 81.2% and 90.3% for the 2-week dose, 80.4% and 88.1% for the 4-week dose, and 65.4% and 67.6% for placebo.
Although topical corticosteroid treatment was allowed during the maintenance phase, only about 15% of patients needed this, Dr. Blauvelt said.
Different dosing results questioned
During the discussion period, one delegate highlighted that the twice-weekly maintenance dosing schedule seemed to “do worse a little bit” than the 4-week dosing, with both “close to placebo,” although “the long-term effect is already very impressive.”
Dr. Blauvelt noted that a pooled analysis had been done and that “it’s very clear that being on lebrikizumab works better than not being on lebrikizumab.
“Now, Q2W versus Q4W. We believe that this may be due to the long half-life of the drug possibly. It could be due to the slow disassociation rate, it’s binding tightly,” he suggested.
“We also could talk about disease modification, right. So, it opens up the concept of hit hard, hit early for 16 weeks, and then maybe you can modify disease over time,” Dr. Blauvelt said.
He added: “That’s highly speculative, of course.”
Short-term safety data
The 52-week safety profile of lebrikizumab is consistent with previously published data at 16 weeks, Dr. Blauvelt said. The most common adverse events during the studies included atopic dermatitis, nasopharyngitis, conjunctivitis, conjunctivitis allergic, headache, and COVID-19.
“This drug has comparable efficacy with dupilumab and tralokinumab,” said Jashin J. Wu, MD, from the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., in an interview. He was not involved in the study.
“As it does not have any significant advantages with less long-term safety data, I do not see a place for it in my practice,” Dr. Wu said.
Dupilumab (Dupixent) and tralokinumab (Adbry) are monoclonal antibodies that also block IL-13. Both are already licensed for treating atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, and tralokinumab was approved in 2021.
The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly has exclusive rights for the development and commercialization of lebrikizumab in the United States and all countries outside Europe; European rights belong to Almirall for all dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis. Dr. Blauvelt acts as an investigator and adviser to these companies as well as many other pharmaceutical companies that are involved in developing new dermatologic treatments. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
Ruxolitinib repigments many vitiligo-affected body areas
.
Those difficult areas include the hands and feet, said Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of Université Côte d’Azur and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France).
Indeed, a 50% or greater improvement in the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI-50) of the hands and feet was achieved with ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) in around one-third of patients after 52 weeks’ treatment, and more than half of patients showed improvement in the upper and lower extremities.
During one of the late-breaking news sessions, Dr. Passeron presented a pooled analysis of the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 (TRuE-V1) and Study 2 (TruE-V2), which assessed VASI-50 data by body regions.
Similarly positive results were seen on the head and neck and the trunk, with VASI-50 being reached in a respective 68% and 48% of patients after a full year of treatment.
“VASI-50 response rates rose steadily through 52 weeks for both the head and trunk,” said Dr. Passeron. He noted that the trials were initially double-blinded for 24 weeks and that there was a further open-label extension phase through week 52.
In the latter phase, all patients were treated with ruxolitinib; those who originally received a vehicle agent as placebo crossed over to the active treatment.
First FDA-approved treatment for adults and adolescents with vitiligo
Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor that has been available for the treatment for atopic dermatitis for more than a year. It was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of vitiligo in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years and older.
This approval was based on the positive findings of the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 studies, which showed that after 24 weeks, 30% of patients treated with ruxolitinib had at least 75% improvement in the facial VASI, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.
“These studies demonstrated very nice results, especially on the face, which is the easiest part to repigment in vitiligo,” Dr. Passeron said.
“We know that the location is very important when it comes to repigmentation of vitiligo,” he added. He noted that other body areas, “the extremities, for example, are much more difficult.”
The analysis he presented specifically assessed the effect of ruxolitinib cream on repigmentation in other areas.
Pooled analysis performed
Data from the two TRuE-V trials were pooled. The new analysis included a total of 661 individuals; of those patients, 443 had been treated with topical ruxolitinib, and 218 had received a vehicle cream as a placebo.
For the first 24 weeks, patients received twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream. This was followed by a 28-week extension phase in which everyone was treated with ruxolitinib cream, after which there was a 30-day final follow-up period.
Dr. Passeron reported data by body region for weeks 12, 24, and 52, which showed an increasing percentage of patients with VASI-50.
“We didn’t look at the face; that we know well, that is a very good result,” he said.
The best results were seen for the head and neck. VASI-50 was reached by 28.3%, 45.3%, and 68.1% of patients treated with ruxolitinib cream at weeks 12, 24, and 52, respectively. Corresponding rates for the placebo-crossover group were 19.8%, 23.8%, and 51%.
Repigmentation rates of the hand, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, and feet were about 9%-15% for both ruxolitinib and placebo at 12 weeks, but by 24 weeks, there was a clear increase in repigmentation rates in the ruxolitinib group for all body areas.
The 24-week VASI-50 rates for hand repigmentation were 24.9% for ruxolitinib cream and 14.4% for placebo. Corresponding rates for upper extremity repigmentation were 33.2% and 8.2%; for the trunk, 26.4% and 12.2%; for the lower extremities, 29.5% and 12.2%; and for the feet, 18.5% and 12.5%.
“The results are quite poor at 12 weeks,” Dr. Passeron said. “It’s very important to keep this in mind; it takes time to repigment vitiligo, it takes to 6-24 months. We have to explain to our patients that they will have to wait to see the results.”
Steady improvements, no new safety concerns
Regarding VASI-50 over time, there was a steady increase in total body scores; 47.7% of patients who received ruxolitinib and 23.3% of placebo-treated patients hit this target at 52 weeks.
“And what is also very important to see is that we didn’t reach the plateau,” Dr. Passeron reported.
Similar patterns were seen for all the other body areas. Again there was a suggestion that rates may continue to rise with continued long-term treatment.
“About one-third of the patients reached at least 50% repigmentation after 1 year of treatment in the hands and feet,” Dr. Passeron said. He noted that certain areas, such as the back of the hand or tips of the fingers, may be unresponsive.
“So, we have to also to warn the patient that probably on these areas we have to combine it with other treatment because it remains very, very difficult to treat.”
There were no new safety concerns regarding treatment-emergent adverse events, which were reported in 52% of patients who received ruxolitinib and in 36% of placebo-treated patients.
The most common adverse reactions included COVID-19 (6.1% vs. 3.1%), acne at the application site (5.3% vs. 1.3%), and pruritus at the application site (3.9% vs. 2.7%), although cases were “mild or moderate,” said Dr. Passeron.
An expert’s take-home
“The results of TRuE-V phase 3 studies are encouraging and exciting,” Viktoria Eleftheriadou, MD, MRCP(UK), SCE(Derm), PhD, said in providing an independent comment for this news organization.
“Although ruxolitinib cream is applied on the skin, this novel treatment for vitiligo is not without risks; therefore, careful monitoring of patients who are started on this topical treatment would be prudent,” said Dr. Eleftheriadou, who is a consultant dermatologist for Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
“I would like to see how many patients achieved VASI-75 or VASI-80 score, which from patients’ perspectives is a more meaningful outcome, as well as how long these results will last for,” she added.
The study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Dr. Passeron has received grants, honoraria, or both from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr. Passeron is the cofounder of YUKIN Therapeutics and has patents on WNT agonists or GSK2b antagonist for repigmentation of vitiligo and on the use of CXCR3B blockers in vitiligo. Dr. Eleftheriadou is an investigator and trial development group member on the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial (specific), a lead investigator on the pilot HI-Light Vitiligo Trial, and a medical advisory panel member of the Vitiligo Society UK. Dr. Eleftheriadou also provides consultancy services to Incyte and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
.
Those difficult areas include the hands and feet, said Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of Université Côte d’Azur and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France).
Indeed, a 50% or greater improvement in the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI-50) of the hands and feet was achieved with ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) in around one-third of patients after 52 weeks’ treatment, and more than half of patients showed improvement in the upper and lower extremities.
During one of the late-breaking news sessions, Dr. Passeron presented a pooled analysis of the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 (TRuE-V1) and Study 2 (TruE-V2), which assessed VASI-50 data by body regions.
Similarly positive results were seen on the head and neck and the trunk, with VASI-50 being reached in a respective 68% and 48% of patients after a full year of treatment.
“VASI-50 response rates rose steadily through 52 weeks for both the head and trunk,” said Dr. Passeron. He noted that the trials were initially double-blinded for 24 weeks and that there was a further open-label extension phase through week 52.
In the latter phase, all patients were treated with ruxolitinib; those who originally received a vehicle agent as placebo crossed over to the active treatment.
First FDA-approved treatment for adults and adolescents with vitiligo
Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor that has been available for the treatment for atopic dermatitis for more than a year. It was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of vitiligo in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years and older.
This approval was based on the positive findings of the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 studies, which showed that after 24 weeks, 30% of patients treated with ruxolitinib had at least 75% improvement in the facial VASI, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.
“These studies demonstrated very nice results, especially on the face, which is the easiest part to repigment in vitiligo,” Dr. Passeron said.
“We know that the location is very important when it comes to repigmentation of vitiligo,” he added. He noted that other body areas, “the extremities, for example, are much more difficult.”
The analysis he presented specifically assessed the effect of ruxolitinib cream on repigmentation in other areas.
Pooled analysis performed
Data from the two TRuE-V trials were pooled. The new analysis included a total of 661 individuals; of those patients, 443 had been treated with topical ruxolitinib, and 218 had received a vehicle cream as a placebo.
For the first 24 weeks, patients received twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream. This was followed by a 28-week extension phase in which everyone was treated with ruxolitinib cream, after which there was a 30-day final follow-up period.
Dr. Passeron reported data by body region for weeks 12, 24, and 52, which showed an increasing percentage of patients with VASI-50.
“We didn’t look at the face; that we know well, that is a very good result,” he said.
The best results were seen for the head and neck. VASI-50 was reached by 28.3%, 45.3%, and 68.1% of patients treated with ruxolitinib cream at weeks 12, 24, and 52, respectively. Corresponding rates for the placebo-crossover group were 19.8%, 23.8%, and 51%.
Repigmentation rates of the hand, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, and feet were about 9%-15% for both ruxolitinib and placebo at 12 weeks, but by 24 weeks, there was a clear increase in repigmentation rates in the ruxolitinib group for all body areas.
The 24-week VASI-50 rates for hand repigmentation were 24.9% for ruxolitinib cream and 14.4% for placebo. Corresponding rates for upper extremity repigmentation were 33.2% and 8.2%; for the trunk, 26.4% and 12.2%; for the lower extremities, 29.5% and 12.2%; and for the feet, 18.5% and 12.5%.
“The results are quite poor at 12 weeks,” Dr. Passeron said. “It’s very important to keep this in mind; it takes time to repigment vitiligo, it takes to 6-24 months. We have to explain to our patients that they will have to wait to see the results.”
Steady improvements, no new safety concerns
Regarding VASI-50 over time, there was a steady increase in total body scores; 47.7% of patients who received ruxolitinib and 23.3% of placebo-treated patients hit this target at 52 weeks.
“And what is also very important to see is that we didn’t reach the plateau,” Dr. Passeron reported.
Similar patterns were seen for all the other body areas. Again there was a suggestion that rates may continue to rise with continued long-term treatment.
“About one-third of the patients reached at least 50% repigmentation after 1 year of treatment in the hands and feet,” Dr. Passeron said. He noted that certain areas, such as the back of the hand or tips of the fingers, may be unresponsive.
“So, we have to also to warn the patient that probably on these areas we have to combine it with other treatment because it remains very, very difficult to treat.”
There were no new safety concerns regarding treatment-emergent adverse events, which were reported in 52% of patients who received ruxolitinib and in 36% of placebo-treated patients.
The most common adverse reactions included COVID-19 (6.1% vs. 3.1%), acne at the application site (5.3% vs. 1.3%), and pruritus at the application site (3.9% vs. 2.7%), although cases were “mild or moderate,” said Dr. Passeron.
An expert’s take-home
“The results of TRuE-V phase 3 studies are encouraging and exciting,” Viktoria Eleftheriadou, MD, MRCP(UK), SCE(Derm), PhD, said in providing an independent comment for this news organization.
“Although ruxolitinib cream is applied on the skin, this novel treatment for vitiligo is not without risks; therefore, careful monitoring of patients who are started on this topical treatment would be prudent,” said Dr. Eleftheriadou, who is a consultant dermatologist for Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
“I would like to see how many patients achieved VASI-75 or VASI-80 score, which from patients’ perspectives is a more meaningful outcome, as well as how long these results will last for,” she added.
The study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Dr. Passeron has received grants, honoraria, or both from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr. Passeron is the cofounder of YUKIN Therapeutics and has patents on WNT agonists or GSK2b antagonist for repigmentation of vitiligo and on the use of CXCR3B blockers in vitiligo. Dr. Eleftheriadou is an investigator and trial development group member on the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial (specific), a lead investigator on the pilot HI-Light Vitiligo Trial, and a medical advisory panel member of the Vitiligo Society UK. Dr. Eleftheriadou also provides consultancy services to Incyte and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
.
Those difficult areas include the hands and feet, said Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of Université Côte d’Azur and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France).
Indeed, a 50% or greater improvement in the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI-50) of the hands and feet was achieved with ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) in around one-third of patients after 52 weeks’ treatment, and more than half of patients showed improvement in the upper and lower extremities.
During one of the late-breaking news sessions, Dr. Passeron presented a pooled analysis of the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 (TRuE-V1) and Study 2 (TruE-V2), which assessed VASI-50 data by body regions.
Similarly positive results were seen on the head and neck and the trunk, with VASI-50 being reached in a respective 68% and 48% of patients after a full year of treatment.
“VASI-50 response rates rose steadily through 52 weeks for both the head and trunk,” said Dr. Passeron. He noted that the trials were initially double-blinded for 24 weeks and that there was a further open-label extension phase through week 52.
In the latter phase, all patients were treated with ruxolitinib; those who originally received a vehicle agent as placebo crossed over to the active treatment.
First FDA-approved treatment for adults and adolescents with vitiligo
Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor that has been available for the treatment for atopic dermatitis for more than a year. It was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of vitiligo in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years and older.
This approval was based on the positive findings of the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 studies, which showed that after 24 weeks, 30% of patients treated with ruxolitinib had at least 75% improvement in the facial VASI, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.
“These studies demonstrated very nice results, especially on the face, which is the easiest part to repigment in vitiligo,” Dr. Passeron said.
“We know that the location is very important when it comes to repigmentation of vitiligo,” he added. He noted that other body areas, “the extremities, for example, are much more difficult.”
The analysis he presented specifically assessed the effect of ruxolitinib cream on repigmentation in other areas.
Pooled analysis performed
Data from the two TRuE-V trials were pooled. The new analysis included a total of 661 individuals; of those patients, 443 had been treated with topical ruxolitinib, and 218 had received a vehicle cream as a placebo.
For the first 24 weeks, patients received twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream. This was followed by a 28-week extension phase in which everyone was treated with ruxolitinib cream, after which there was a 30-day final follow-up period.
Dr. Passeron reported data by body region for weeks 12, 24, and 52, which showed an increasing percentage of patients with VASI-50.
“We didn’t look at the face; that we know well, that is a very good result,” he said.
The best results were seen for the head and neck. VASI-50 was reached by 28.3%, 45.3%, and 68.1% of patients treated with ruxolitinib cream at weeks 12, 24, and 52, respectively. Corresponding rates for the placebo-crossover group were 19.8%, 23.8%, and 51%.
Repigmentation rates of the hand, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, and feet were about 9%-15% for both ruxolitinib and placebo at 12 weeks, but by 24 weeks, there was a clear increase in repigmentation rates in the ruxolitinib group for all body areas.
The 24-week VASI-50 rates for hand repigmentation were 24.9% for ruxolitinib cream and 14.4% for placebo. Corresponding rates for upper extremity repigmentation were 33.2% and 8.2%; for the trunk, 26.4% and 12.2%; for the lower extremities, 29.5% and 12.2%; and for the feet, 18.5% and 12.5%.
“The results are quite poor at 12 weeks,” Dr. Passeron said. “It’s very important to keep this in mind; it takes time to repigment vitiligo, it takes to 6-24 months. We have to explain to our patients that they will have to wait to see the results.”
Steady improvements, no new safety concerns
Regarding VASI-50 over time, there was a steady increase in total body scores; 47.7% of patients who received ruxolitinib and 23.3% of placebo-treated patients hit this target at 52 weeks.
“And what is also very important to see is that we didn’t reach the plateau,” Dr. Passeron reported.
Similar patterns were seen for all the other body areas. Again there was a suggestion that rates may continue to rise with continued long-term treatment.
“About one-third of the patients reached at least 50% repigmentation after 1 year of treatment in the hands and feet,” Dr. Passeron said. He noted that certain areas, such as the back of the hand or tips of the fingers, may be unresponsive.
“So, we have to also to warn the patient that probably on these areas we have to combine it with other treatment because it remains very, very difficult to treat.”
There were no new safety concerns regarding treatment-emergent adverse events, which were reported in 52% of patients who received ruxolitinib and in 36% of placebo-treated patients.
The most common adverse reactions included COVID-19 (6.1% vs. 3.1%), acne at the application site (5.3% vs. 1.3%), and pruritus at the application site (3.9% vs. 2.7%), although cases were “mild or moderate,” said Dr. Passeron.
An expert’s take-home
“The results of TRuE-V phase 3 studies are encouraging and exciting,” Viktoria Eleftheriadou, MD, MRCP(UK), SCE(Derm), PhD, said in providing an independent comment for this news organization.
“Although ruxolitinib cream is applied on the skin, this novel treatment for vitiligo is not without risks; therefore, careful monitoring of patients who are started on this topical treatment would be prudent,” said Dr. Eleftheriadou, who is a consultant dermatologist for Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
“I would like to see how many patients achieved VASI-75 or VASI-80 score, which from patients’ perspectives is a more meaningful outcome, as well as how long these results will last for,” she added.
The study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Dr. Passeron has received grants, honoraria, or both from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr. Passeron is the cofounder of YUKIN Therapeutics and has patents on WNT agonists or GSK2b antagonist for repigmentation of vitiligo and on the use of CXCR3B blockers in vitiligo. Dr. Eleftheriadou is an investigator and trial development group member on the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial (specific), a lead investigator on the pilot HI-Light Vitiligo Trial, and a medical advisory panel member of the Vitiligo Society UK. Dr. Eleftheriadou also provides consultancy services to Incyte and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
BREEZE-AD-PEDS: First data for baricitinib in childhood eczema reported
The oral Janus kinase
After 16 weeks of treatment, the primary endpoint – an Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline – was met by 41.7% of patients given 2 mg (those younger than age 10) or 4 mg of baricitinib (those aged 10-17 years), the highest dose studied in each of those two age groups.
By comparison, the primary endpoint was met in 16.4% of children in the placebo group (P < .001).
Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of AD in adults in many countries, Antonio Torrelo, MD, of the Hospital Infantil Niño Jesús, Madrid, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with severe alopecia areata in June and is under FDA review for the treatment of AD.
The phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial
BREEZE-AD-PEDS was a randomized, double-blind trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in 483 children and adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Participants were aged 2-17 years. Those aged 2-5 years had been diagnosed with AD for at least 6 months; if they were older, they had been diagnosed for at least 12 months.
Three dosing levels of baricitinib were tested: 121 patients were given a low dose, which was 0.5 mg/day in children aged 2 to less than 10 years and 1 mg/day in those aged 10 to less than 18 years. A medium dose – 1 mg/day in the younger children and 2 mg/day in the older children – was given to 120 children, while a high dose – 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day, respectively – was given to another 120 children.
Topical treatments were permitted, although for entry into the trial, participants had to have had an inadequate response to steroids and an inadequate or no response to topical calcineurin inhibitors. In all groups, age, gender, race, geographic region, age at diagnosis of AD, and duration of AD “were more or less similar,” Dr. Torello said.
Good results, but only with highest dose
The primary IGA endpoint was reached by 25.8% of children in the medium-dose group and by 18.2% in the low-dose group. Neither result was statistically significant in comparison with placebo (16.4%).
When breaking down the results between different ages, “the results in the IGA scores are consistent in both age subgroups – below 10 years and over 10 years,” Dr. Torello noted. The results are also consistent across body weights (< 20 kg, 20-60 kg, and > 60 kg), he added.
Among those treated with the high dose of baricitinib, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75% and 95% improvement scores were reached in 52.5% and 30% of patients, respectively. Corresponding figures for the medium dose were 40% and 21.7%; for the low baricitinib dose, 32.2% and 11.6%; and for placebo, 32% and 12.3%. Again, only the results for the highest baricitinib dose were significant in comparison with placebo.
A similar pattern was seen for improvement in itch, and there was a 75% improvement in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD75) results.
Safety of baricitinib in children
The labeling for JAK inhibitors that have been approved to date, including baricitinib, include a boxed warning regarding risks for thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. The warning is based on use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Dr. Torello summarized baricitinib’s safety profile in the trial as being “consistent with the well-known safety profile for baricitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
In the study, no severe adverse effects were noted, and no new safety signals were observed, he said. The rate of any treatment-emergent effect among patients was around 50% and was similar across all baricitinib and placebo groups. Study discontinuations because of a side effect were more frequent in the placebo arm (1.6% of patients) than in the baricitinib low-, medium-, and high-dose arms (0.8%, 0%, and 0.8%, respectively).
There were no cases of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or other adverse effects of special interest, including major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations, and opportunistic infections, Dr. Torrelo said.
No patient experienced elevations in liver enzyme levels, although there were some cases of elevated creatinine phosphokinase levels (16% in the placebo group and 19% in the baricitinib arms altogether) that were not from muscle injury. There was a possible increase in low-density cholesterol level (3.3% of those taking placebo vs. 10.1% of baricitinib-treated patients).
Is there a role for baricitinib?
“Baricitinib is a potential therapeutic option with a favorable benefit-to-risk profile for children between 2 and 18 years who have moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and candidates for systemic therapy,” Dr. Torrelo said. “No single drug is capable to treat every patient with atopic dermatitis,” he added in discussing the possible place of baricitinib in pediatric practice.
“There are patients who do not respond to dupilumab, who apparently respond later to JAK inhibitors,” he noted.
“We are trying to work phenotypically, trying to learn what kind of patients – especially children who have a more heterogeneous disease than adults – can be better treated with JAK inhibitors or dupilumab.” There may be other important considerations in choosing a treatment in children, Dr. Torrelo said, including that JAK inhibitors can be given orally, while dupilumab is administered by injection.
Asked to comment on the results, Jashin J. Wu, MD, founder and CEO of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., pointed out that “only the higher dose is significantly more effective than placebo.”
In his view, “the potentially severe adverse events are not worth the risk compared to more effective agents, such as dupilumab, in this pediatric population,” added Dr. Wu, who recently authored a review of the role of JAK inhibitors in skin disease. He was not involved with the baricitinib study.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly in collaboration with Incyte. Dr. Torello has participated in advisory boards and/or has served as a principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The oral Janus kinase
After 16 weeks of treatment, the primary endpoint – an Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline – was met by 41.7% of patients given 2 mg (those younger than age 10) or 4 mg of baricitinib (those aged 10-17 years), the highest dose studied in each of those two age groups.
By comparison, the primary endpoint was met in 16.4% of children in the placebo group (P < .001).
Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of AD in adults in many countries, Antonio Torrelo, MD, of the Hospital Infantil Niño Jesús, Madrid, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with severe alopecia areata in June and is under FDA review for the treatment of AD.
The phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial
BREEZE-AD-PEDS was a randomized, double-blind trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in 483 children and adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Participants were aged 2-17 years. Those aged 2-5 years had been diagnosed with AD for at least 6 months; if they were older, they had been diagnosed for at least 12 months.
Three dosing levels of baricitinib were tested: 121 patients were given a low dose, which was 0.5 mg/day in children aged 2 to less than 10 years and 1 mg/day in those aged 10 to less than 18 years. A medium dose – 1 mg/day in the younger children and 2 mg/day in the older children – was given to 120 children, while a high dose – 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day, respectively – was given to another 120 children.
Topical treatments were permitted, although for entry into the trial, participants had to have had an inadequate response to steroids and an inadequate or no response to topical calcineurin inhibitors. In all groups, age, gender, race, geographic region, age at diagnosis of AD, and duration of AD “were more or less similar,” Dr. Torello said.
Good results, but only with highest dose
The primary IGA endpoint was reached by 25.8% of children in the medium-dose group and by 18.2% in the low-dose group. Neither result was statistically significant in comparison with placebo (16.4%).
When breaking down the results between different ages, “the results in the IGA scores are consistent in both age subgroups – below 10 years and over 10 years,” Dr. Torello noted. The results are also consistent across body weights (< 20 kg, 20-60 kg, and > 60 kg), he added.
Among those treated with the high dose of baricitinib, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75% and 95% improvement scores were reached in 52.5% and 30% of patients, respectively. Corresponding figures for the medium dose were 40% and 21.7%; for the low baricitinib dose, 32.2% and 11.6%; and for placebo, 32% and 12.3%. Again, only the results for the highest baricitinib dose were significant in comparison with placebo.
A similar pattern was seen for improvement in itch, and there was a 75% improvement in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD75) results.
Safety of baricitinib in children
The labeling for JAK inhibitors that have been approved to date, including baricitinib, include a boxed warning regarding risks for thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. The warning is based on use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Dr. Torello summarized baricitinib’s safety profile in the trial as being “consistent with the well-known safety profile for baricitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
In the study, no severe adverse effects were noted, and no new safety signals were observed, he said. The rate of any treatment-emergent effect among patients was around 50% and was similar across all baricitinib and placebo groups. Study discontinuations because of a side effect were more frequent in the placebo arm (1.6% of patients) than in the baricitinib low-, medium-, and high-dose arms (0.8%, 0%, and 0.8%, respectively).
There were no cases of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or other adverse effects of special interest, including major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations, and opportunistic infections, Dr. Torrelo said.
No patient experienced elevations in liver enzyme levels, although there were some cases of elevated creatinine phosphokinase levels (16% in the placebo group and 19% in the baricitinib arms altogether) that were not from muscle injury. There was a possible increase in low-density cholesterol level (3.3% of those taking placebo vs. 10.1% of baricitinib-treated patients).
Is there a role for baricitinib?
“Baricitinib is a potential therapeutic option with a favorable benefit-to-risk profile for children between 2 and 18 years who have moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and candidates for systemic therapy,” Dr. Torrelo said. “No single drug is capable to treat every patient with atopic dermatitis,” he added in discussing the possible place of baricitinib in pediatric practice.
“There are patients who do not respond to dupilumab, who apparently respond later to JAK inhibitors,” he noted.
“We are trying to work phenotypically, trying to learn what kind of patients – especially children who have a more heterogeneous disease than adults – can be better treated with JAK inhibitors or dupilumab.” There may be other important considerations in choosing a treatment in children, Dr. Torrelo said, including that JAK inhibitors can be given orally, while dupilumab is administered by injection.
Asked to comment on the results, Jashin J. Wu, MD, founder and CEO of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., pointed out that “only the higher dose is significantly more effective than placebo.”
In his view, “the potentially severe adverse events are not worth the risk compared to more effective agents, such as dupilumab, in this pediatric population,” added Dr. Wu, who recently authored a review of the role of JAK inhibitors in skin disease. He was not involved with the baricitinib study.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly in collaboration with Incyte. Dr. Torello has participated in advisory boards and/or has served as a principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The oral Janus kinase
After 16 weeks of treatment, the primary endpoint – an Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline – was met by 41.7% of patients given 2 mg (those younger than age 10) or 4 mg of baricitinib (those aged 10-17 years), the highest dose studied in each of those two age groups.
By comparison, the primary endpoint was met in 16.4% of children in the placebo group (P < .001).
Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of AD in adults in many countries, Antonio Torrelo, MD, of the Hospital Infantil Niño Jesús, Madrid, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with severe alopecia areata in June and is under FDA review for the treatment of AD.
The phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial
BREEZE-AD-PEDS was a randomized, double-blind trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in 483 children and adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Participants were aged 2-17 years. Those aged 2-5 years had been diagnosed with AD for at least 6 months; if they were older, they had been diagnosed for at least 12 months.
Three dosing levels of baricitinib were tested: 121 patients were given a low dose, which was 0.5 mg/day in children aged 2 to less than 10 years and 1 mg/day in those aged 10 to less than 18 years. A medium dose – 1 mg/day in the younger children and 2 mg/day in the older children – was given to 120 children, while a high dose – 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day, respectively – was given to another 120 children.
Topical treatments were permitted, although for entry into the trial, participants had to have had an inadequate response to steroids and an inadequate or no response to topical calcineurin inhibitors. In all groups, age, gender, race, geographic region, age at diagnosis of AD, and duration of AD “were more or less similar,” Dr. Torello said.
Good results, but only with highest dose
The primary IGA endpoint was reached by 25.8% of children in the medium-dose group and by 18.2% in the low-dose group. Neither result was statistically significant in comparison with placebo (16.4%).
When breaking down the results between different ages, “the results in the IGA scores are consistent in both age subgroups – below 10 years and over 10 years,” Dr. Torello noted. The results are also consistent across body weights (< 20 kg, 20-60 kg, and > 60 kg), he added.
Among those treated with the high dose of baricitinib, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75% and 95% improvement scores were reached in 52.5% and 30% of patients, respectively. Corresponding figures for the medium dose were 40% and 21.7%; for the low baricitinib dose, 32.2% and 11.6%; and for placebo, 32% and 12.3%. Again, only the results for the highest baricitinib dose were significant in comparison with placebo.
A similar pattern was seen for improvement in itch, and there was a 75% improvement in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD75) results.
Safety of baricitinib in children
The labeling for JAK inhibitors that have been approved to date, including baricitinib, include a boxed warning regarding risks for thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. The warning is based on use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Dr. Torello summarized baricitinib’s safety profile in the trial as being “consistent with the well-known safety profile for baricitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
In the study, no severe adverse effects were noted, and no new safety signals were observed, he said. The rate of any treatment-emergent effect among patients was around 50% and was similar across all baricitinib and placebo groups. Study discontinuations because of a side effect were more frequent in the placebo arm (1.6% of patients) than in the baricitinib low-, medium-, and high-dose arms (0.8%, 0%, and 0.8%, respectively).
There were no cases of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or other adverse effects of special interest, including major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations, and opportunistic infections, Dr. Torrelo said.
No patient experienced elevations in liver enzyme levels, although there were some cases of elevated creatinine phosphokinase levels (16% in the placebo group and 19% in the baricitinib arms altogether) that were not from muscle injury. There was a possible increase in low-density cholesterol level (3.3% of those taking placebo vs. 10.1% of baricitinib-treated patients).
Is there a role for baricitinib?
“Baricitinib is a potential therapeutic option with a favorable benefit-to-risk profile for children between 2 and 18 years who have moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and candidates for systemic therapy,” Dr. Torrelo said. “No single drug is capable to treat every patient with atopic dermatitis,” he added in discussing the possible place of baricitinib in pediatric practice.
“There are patients who do not respond to dupilumab, who apparently respond later to JAK inhibitors,” he noted.
“We are trying to work phenotypically, trying to learn what kind of patients – especially children who have a more heterogeneous disease than adults – can be better treated with JAK inhibitors or dupilumab.” There may be other important considerations in choosing a treatment in children, Dr. Torrelo said, including that JAK inhibitors can be given orally, while dupilumab is administered by injection.
Asked to comment on the results, Jashin J. Wu, MD, founder and CEO of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., pointed out that “only the higher dose is significantly more effective than placebo.”
In his view, “the potentially severe adverse events are not worth the risk compared to more effective agents, such as dupilumab, in this pediatric population,” added Dr. Wu, who recently authored a review of the role of JAK inhibitors in skin disease. He was not involved with the baricitinib study.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly in collaboration with Incyte. Dr. Torello has participated in advisory boards and/or has served as a principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
Alopecia areata: Positive results reported for two investigational JAK inhibitors
in separate studies reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
In the THRIVE-AA1 study, the primary endpoint of a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of 20 or lower –which indicates that hair regrowth has occurred on at least 80% of the scalp – was achieved among patients taking deuruxolitinib, which was a significantly higher proportion than with placebo (P < .0001). Importantly, the JAK inhibitor’s effects were seen in as early as 4 weeks, and there was significant improvement in both eyelash and eyebrow hair regrowth.
In the unrelated ALLEGRO-LT study, effects from treatment with the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib appeared to be sustained for 2 years; 69.6% of patients treated with ritlecitinib had a SALT score of 20 or lower by 24 months.
These data are “very exciting for alopecia areata because the patients selected are very severe,” observed Mahtab Samimi, MD, PhD, who cochaired the late-breaking session in which the study findings were discussed.
THRIVE-AA1 included only patients with hair loss of 50% or more. The ALLEGRO-LT study included patients with total scalp or total body hair loss (areata totalis/areata universalis) of 25%-50% at enrollment.
Moreover, “very stringent criteria” were used. SALT scores of 10 or less were evaluated in both studies, observed Dr. Samimi, professor of dermatology at the University of Tours (France).
“We can be ambitious now for our patients with alopecia areata; that’s really good news,” Dr. Samimi added.
Deuruxolitinib and the THRIVE trials
Deuruxolitinib is an oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor that has been tested in two similarly designed, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials in patients with AA, THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE-AA2.
Two doses of deuruxolitinib, 8 mg and 12 mg given twice daily, were evaluated in the trials, which altogether included just over 1,200 patients.
Results of THRIVE-AA1 have been reported by the manufacturer. Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented a more comprehensive review at the EADV meeting.
He reported that at 24 weeks, SALT scores of 20 or lower were achieved by 30% of adults with AA who were treated with deuruxolitinib 8 mg and by 42% of those treated with deuruxolitinib 12 mg. This primary endpoint was seen in only 1% of the placebo-treated patients.
The more stringent endpoint of having a SALT score of 10 or less, which indicates that hair regrowth has occurred over 90% of the scalp, was met by 21% of patients who received deuruxolitinib 8 mg twice a day and by 35% of those who received the 12-mg dose twice a day at 24 weeks. This endpoint was not reached by any of the placebo-treated patients.
“This is truly transformative therapy,” Dr. King said when presenting the findings. “We know that the chances of spontaneous remission when you have severe disease is next to zero,” he added.
There were reasonably high rates of patient satisfaction with the treatment, according to Dr. King. He said that 42% of those who took 8 mg twice a day and 53% of those who took 12 mg twice a day said they were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the degree of scalp hair regrowth achieved, compared with 5% for placebo.
Safety was as expected, and there were no signs of any blood clots, said Dr. King. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) that affected 5% or more of patients included acne and headache. Serious TEAEs were reported by 1.1% and 0.5% of those taking the 8-mg and 12-mg twice-daily doses, respectively, compared with 2.9% of those who received placebo.
Overall, the results look promising for deuruxolitinib, he added. He noted that almost all patients included in the trial have opted to continue in the open-label long-term safety study.
Prescribing information of the JAK inhibitors approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration includes a boxed warning about risk of serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and thrombosis. The warning is based on experience with another JAK inhibitor for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Ritlecitinib and the ALLEGRO studies
Interim results of the ongoing, open-label, phase 3 ALLEGRO-LT study with ritlecitinib were presented separately by Athanasios Tsianakas, MD, head of the department of dermatology at Fachklinik Bad Bentheim, Germany.
Ritlecitinib, which targets JAK3 and also the TEC family of tyrosine kinases, had met all of its endpoints in the prior ALLEGRO Phase 2b/3 study, Dr. Tsianakas said. Those included the benchmarks of a SALT score of 20 or less and a SALT score of 10 or less.
“Ritlecitinib showed a very good long-term efficacy and good safety profile in our adolescent and adult patients suffering from alopecia areata,” said Dr. Tsianakas.
A total of 447 patients were included in the trial. They were treated with 50 mg of ritlecitinib every day; some had already participated in the ALLEGRO trial, while others had been newly recruited. The latter group entered the trial after a 4-week run-in period, during which a 200-mg daily loading dose was given for 4 weeks.
Most (86%) patients had been exposed to ritlecitinib for at least 12 months; one-fifth had discontinued treatment at the data cutoff, generally because the patients no longer met the eligibility criteria for the trial.
Safety was paramount, Dr. Tsianakas highlighted. There were few adverse events that led to temporary or permanent discontinuation of the study drug. The most common TEAEs that affected 5% or more of patients included headache and acne. There were two cases of MACE (one nonfatal myocardial infarction and one nonfatal stroke).
The proportion of patients with a SALT score of 20 or less was 2.5% at 1 month, 27.9% at 3 months, 50.1% at 6 months, 59.8% at 9 months, and 65.5% at 12 months. Thereafter, there was little shift in the response. A sustained effect, in which a SALT score of 20 or less was seen out to 24 months, occurred in 69.9% of patients.
A similar pattern was seen for SALT scores of 10 or less, ranging from 16.5% at 3 months to 62.5% at 24 months.
Following in baricitinib’s footsteps?
This not the first time that JAK inhibitors have been shown to have beneficial effects for patients with AA. Baricitinib (Olumiant) recently became the first JAK inhibitor to be granted marketing approval for AA in the United States, largely on the basis of two pivotal phase 3 studies, BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2.
“This is just such an incredibly exciting time,” said Dr. King. “Our discoveries in the lab are being translated into effective therapies for patients with diseases for which we’ve not previously had therapies,” he commented.
“Our concept of interferon gamma– and interleukin-15–mediated disease is probably not true for everybody,” said, Dr. King, who acknowledged that some patients with AA do not respond to JAK-inhibitor therapy or may need additional or alternative treatment.
“It’s probably not that homogeneous a disease,” he added. “It’s fascinating that the very first drugs for this disease are showing efficacy in as many patients as they are.”
The THRIVE-AAI study was funded by CONCERT Pharmaceuticals. Dr. King has served on advisory boards, has provided consulting services to, or has been a trial investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including CoNCERT Pharmaceuticals. The ALLEGRO-LT study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Tsianakas has acted as a clinical trial investigator and speaker for Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in separate studies reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
In the THRIVE-AA1 study, the primary endpoint of a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of 20 or lower –which indicates that hair regrowth has occurred on at least 80% of the scalp – was achieved among patients taking deuruxolitinib, which was a significantly higher proportion than with placebo (P < .0001). Importantly, the JAK inhibitor’s effects were seen in as early as 4 weeks, and there was significant improvement in both eyelash and eyebrow hair regrowth.
In the unrelated ALLEGRO-LT study, effects from treatment with the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib appeared to be sustained for 2 years; 69.6% of patients treated with ritlecitinib had a SALT score of 20 or lower by 24 months.
These data are “very exciting for alopecia areata because the patients selected are very severe,” observed Mahtab Samimi, MD, PhD, who cochaired the late-breaking session in which the study findings were discussed.
THRIVE-AA1 included only patients with hair loss of 50% or more. The ALLEGRO-LT study included patients with total scalp or total body hair loss (areata totalis/areata universalis) of 25%-50% at enrollment.
Moreover, “very stringent criteria” were used. SALT scores of 10 or less were evaluated in both studies, observed Dr. Samimi, professor of dermatology at the University of Tours (France).
“We can be ambitious now for our patients with alopecia areata; that’s really good news,” Dr. Samimi added.
Deuruxolitinib and the THRIVE trials
Deuruxolitinib is an oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor that has been tested in two similarly designed, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials in patients with AA, THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE-AA2.
Two doses of deuruxolitinib, 8 mg and 12 mg given twice daily, were evaluated in the trials, which altogether included just over 1,200 patients.
Results of THRIVE-AA1 have been reported by the manufacturer. Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented a more comprehensive review at the EADV meeting.
He reported that at 24 weeks, SALT scores of 20 or lower were achieved by 30% of adults with AA who were treated with deuruxolitinib 8 mg and by 42% of those treated with deuruxolitinib 12 mg. This primary endpoint was seen in only 1% of the placebo-treated patients.
The more stringent endpoint of having a SALT score of 10 or less, which indicates that hair regrowth has occurred over 90% of the scalp, was met by 21% of patients who received deuruxolitinib 8 mg twice a day and by 35% of those who received the 12-mg dose twice a day at 24 weeks. This endpoint was not reached by any of the placebo-treated patients.
“This is truly transformative therapy,” Dr. King said when presenting the findings. “We know that the chances of spontaneous remission when you have severe disease is next to zero,” he added.
There were reasonably high rates of patient satisfaction with the treatment, according to Dr. King. He said that 42% of those who took 8 mg twice a day and 53% of those who took 12 mg twice a day said they were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the degree of scalp hair regrowth achieved, compared with 5% for placebo.
Safety was as expected, and there were no signs of any blood clots, said Dr. King. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) that affected 5% or more of patients included acne and headache. Serious TEAEs were reported by 1.1% and 0.5% of those taking the 8-mg and 12-mg twice-daily doses, respectively, compared with 2.9% of those who received placebo.
Overall, the results look promising for deuruxolitinib, he added. He noted that almost all patients included in the trial have opted to continue in the open-label long-term safety study.
Prescribing information of the JAK inhibitors approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration includes a boxed warning about risk of serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and thrombosis. The warning is based on experience with another JAK inhibitor for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Ritlecitinib and the ALLEGRO studies
Interim results of the ongoing, open-label, phase 3 ALLEGRO-LT study with ritlecitinib were presented separately by Athanasios Tsianakas, MD, head of the department of dermatology at Fachklinik Bad Bentheim, Germany.
Ritlecitinib, which targets JAK3 and also the TEC family of tyrosine kinases, had met all of its endpoints in the prior ALLEGRO Phase 2b/3 study, Dr. Tsianakas said. Those included the benchmarks of a SALT score of 20 or less and a SALT score of 10 or less.
“Ritlecitinib showed a very good long-term efficacy and good safety profile in our adolescent and adult patients suffering from alopecia areata,” said Dr. Tsianakas.
A total of 447 patients were included in the trial. They were treated with 50 mg of ritlecitinib every day; some had already participated in the ALLEGRO trial, while others had been newly recruited. The latter group entered the trial after a 4-week run-in period, during which a 200-mg daily loading dose was given for 4 weeks.
Most (86%) patients had been exposed to ritlecitinib for at least 12 months; one-fifth had discontinued treatment at the data cutoff, generally because the patients no longer met the eligibility criteria for the trial.
Safety was paramount, Dr. Tsianakas highlighted. There were few adverse events that led to temporary or permanent discontinuation of the study drug. The most common TEAEs that affected 5% or more of patients included headache and acne. There were two cases of MACE (one nonfatal myocardial infarction and one nonfatal stroke).
The proportion of patients with a SALT score of 20 or less was 2.5% at 1 month, 27.9% at 3 months, 50.1% at 6 months, 59.8% at 9 months, and 65.5% at 12 months. Thereafter, there was little shift in the response. A sustained effect, in which a SALT score of 20 or less was seen out to 24 months, occurred in 69.9% of patients.
A similar pattern was seen for SALT scores of 10 or less, ranging from 16.5% at 3 months to 62.5% at 24 months.
Following in baricitinib’s footsteps?
This not the first time that JAK inhibitors have been shown to have beneficial effects for patients with AA. Baricitinib (Olumiant) recently became the first JAK inhibitor to be granted marketing approval for AA in the United States, largely on the basis of two pivotal phase 3 studies, BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2.
“This is just such an incredibly exciting time,” said Dr. King. “Our discoveries in the lab are being translated into effective therapies for patients with diseases for which we’ve not previously had therapies,” he commented.
“Our concept of interferon gamma– and interleukin-15–mediated disease is probably not true for everybody,” said, Dr. King, who acknowledged that some patients with AA do not respond to JAK-inhibitor therapy or may need additional or alternative treatment.
“It’s probably not that homogeneous a disease,” he added. “It’s fascinating that the very first drugs for this disease are showing efficacy in as many patients as they are.”
The THRIVE-AAI study was funded by CONCERT Pharmaceuticals. Dr. King has served on advisory boards, has provided consulting services to, or has been a trial investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including CoNCERT Pharmaceuticals. The ALLEGRO-LT study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Tsianakas has acted as a clinical trial investigator and speaker for Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in separate studies reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
In the THRIVE-AA1 study, the primary endpoint of a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of 20 or lower –which indicates that hair regrowth has occurred on at least 80% of the scalp – was achieved among patients taking deuruxolitinib, which was a significantly higher proportion than with placebo (P < .0001). Importantly, the JAK inhibitor’s effects were seen in as early as 4 weeks, and there was significant improvement in both eyelash and eyebrow hair regrowth.
In the unrelated ALLEGRO-LT study, effects from treatment with the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib appeared to be sustained for 2 years; 69.6% of patients treated with ritlecitinib had a SALT score of 20 or lower by 24 months.
These data are “very exciting for alopecia areata because the patients selected are very severe,” observed Mahtab Samimi, MD, PhD, who cochaired the late-breaking session in which the study findings were discussed.
THRIVE-AA1 included only patients with hair loss of 50% or more. The ALLEGRO-LT study included patients with total scalp or total body hair loss (areata totalis/areata universalis) of 25%-50% at enrollment.
Moreover, “very stringent criteria” were used. SALT scores of 10 or less were evaluated in both studies, observed Dr. Samimi, professor of dermatology at the University of Tours (France).
“We can be ambitious now for our patients with alopecia areata; that’s really good news,” Dr. Samimi added.
Deuruxolitinib and the THRIVE trials
Deuruxolitinib is an oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor that has been tested in two similarly designed, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials in patients with AA, THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE-AA2.
Two doses of deuruxolitinib, 8 mg and 12 mg given twice daily, were evaluated in the trials, which altogether included just over 1,200 patients.
Results of THRIVE-AA1 have been reported by the manufacturer. Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented a more comprehensive review at the EADV meeting.
He reported that at 24 weeks, SALT scores of 20 or lower were achieved by 30% of adults with AA who were treated with deuruxolitinib 8 mg and by 42% of those treated with deuruxolitinib 12 mg. This primary endpoint was seen in only 1% of the placebo-treated patients.
The more stringent endpoint of having a SALT score of 10 or less, which indicates that hair regrowth has occurred over 90% of the scalp, was met by 21% of patients who received deuruxolitinib 8 mg twice a day and by 35% of those who received the 12-mg dose twice a day at 24 weeks. This endpoint was not reached by any of the placebo-treated patients.
“This is truly transformative therapy,” Dr. King said when presenting the findings. “We know that the chances of spontaneous remission when you have severe disease is next to zero,” he added.
There were reasonably high rates of patient satisfaction with the treatment, according to Dr. King. He said that 42% of those who took 8 mg twice a day and 53% of those who took 12 mg twice a day said they were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the degree of scalp hair regrowth achieved, compared with 5% for placebo.
Safety was as expected, and there were no signs of any blood clots, said Dr. King. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) that affected 5% or more of patients included acne and headache. Serious TEAEs were reported by 1.1% and 0.5% of those taking the 8-mg and 12-mg twice-daily doses, respectively, compared with 2.9% of those who received placebo.
Overall, the results look promising for deuruxolitinib, he added. He noted that almost all patients included in the trial have opted to continue in the open-label long-term safety study.
Prescribing information of the JAK inhibitors approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration includes a boxed warning about risk of serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and thrombosis. The warning is based on experience with another JAK inhibitor for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Ritlecitinib and the ALLEGRO studies
Interim results of the ongoing, open-label, phase 3 ALLEGRO-LT study with ritlecitinib were presented separately by Athanasios Tsianakas, MD, head of the department of dermatology at Fachklinik Bad Bentheim, Germany.
Ritlecitinib, which targets JAK3 and also the TEC family of tyrosine kinases, had met all of its endpoints in the prior ALLEGRO Phase 2b/3 study, Dr. Tsianakas said. Those included the benchmarks of a SALT score of 20 or less and a SALT score of 10 or less.
“Ritlecitinib showed a very good long-term efficacy and good safety profile in our adolescent and adult patients suffering from alopecia areata,” said Dr. Tsianakas.
A total of 447 patients were included in the trial. They were treated with 50 mg of ritlecitinib every day; some had already participated in the ALLEGRO trial, while others had been newly recruited. The latter group entered the trial after a 4-week run-in period, during which a 200-mg daily loading dose was given for 4 weeks.
Most (86%) patients had been exposed to ritlecitinib for at least 12 months; one-fifth had discontinued treatment at the data cutoff, generally because the patients no longer met the eligibility criteria for the trial.
Safety was paramount, Dr. Tsianakas highlighted. There were few adverse events that led to temporary or permanent discontinuation of the study drug. The most common TEAEs that affected 5% or more of patients included headache and acne. There were two cases of MACE (one nonfatal myocardial infarction and one nonfatal stroke).
The proportion of patients with a SALT score of 20 or less was 2.5% at 1 month, 27.9% at 3 months, 50.1% at 6 months, 59.8% at 9 months, and 65.5% at 12 months. Thereafter, there was little shift in the response. A sustained effect, in which a SALT score of 20 or less was seen out to 24 months, occurred in 69.9% of patients.
A similar pattern was seen for SALT scores of 10 or less, ranging from 16.5% at 3 months to 62.5% at 24 months.
Following in baricitinib’s footsteps?
This not the first time that JAK inhibitors have been shown to have beneficial effects for patients with AA. Baricitinib (Olumiant) recently became the first JAK inhibitor to be granted marketing approval for AA in the United States, largely on the basis of two pivotal phase 3 studies, BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2.
“This is just such an incredibly exciting time,” said Dr. King. “Our discoveries in the lab are being translated into effective therapies for patients with diseases for which we’ve not previously had therapies,” he commented.
“Our concept of interferon gamma– and interleukin-15–mediated disease is probably not true for everybody,” said, Dr. King, who acknowledged that some patients with AA do not respond to JAK-inhibitor therapy or may need additional or alternative treatment.
“It’s probably not that homogeneous a disease,” he added. “It’s fascinating that the very first drugs for this disease are showing efficacy in as many patients as they are.”
The THRIVE-AAI study was funded by CONCERT Pharmaceuticals. Dr. King has served on advisory boards, has provided consulting services to, or has been a trial investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including CoNCERT Pharmaceuticals. The ALLEGRO-LT study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Tsianakas has acted as a clinical trial investigator and speaker for Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
Study identifies skin biomarkers that predict newborn eczema risk
It might be possible to develop a simple test to identify newborn children who are at risk of later developing atopic dermatitis (AD), according to findings from a Danish prospective birth cohort study.
but also for having more severe disease.
“We are able to identify predictive immune biomarkers of atopic dermatitis using a noninvasive method that was not associated with any pain,” one of the study’s investigators, Anne-Sofie Halling, MD, said at a press briefing at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“Importantly, we were able to predict atopic dermatitis occurring months after [sample] collection,” said Dr. Halling, who works at Bispebjerg Hospital and is a PhD student at the University of Copenhagen.
These findings could hopefully be used to help identify children “so that preventive strategies can target these children ... and decrease the incidence of this common disease,” she added.
AD is caused “by a complex interplay between skin barrier dysfunction and immune dysregulation,” Dr. Halling said, and it is “the first step in the so-called atopic march, where children also develop food allergy, asthma, and rhinitis.” Almost all cases of AD begin during the first years of life. Approximately 15%-20% of children can be affected, she noted, emphasizing the high burden of the disease and pointing out that strategies are shifting toward trying to prevent the disease in those at risk.
Copenhagen BABY cohort
This is where the BABY study comes in, Dr. Halling said. The study enrolled 450 children at birth and followed them until age 2 years. Gene mutation testing was performed at enrollment. All children underwent skin examination, and skin samples were taken using tape strips. Tape strips were applied to the back of the hand of children born at term and between the shoulder blades on the back of children who were premature.
Skin examinations were repeated, and skin samples were obtained again at age 2 months. They were taken again only if there were any signs of AD. For those diagnosed with AD, disease severity was assessed using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) by the treating physician. Children were excluded if they had AD at the time the tape strip testing was due to be performed.
Comparing term and preterm children
Dr. Halling noted that analyses were performed separately for the 300 children born at term and for the 150 who were preterm.
The prevalence of AD was higher among children born at term than among the preterm children (34.6% vs. 21.2%), and the median time to onset was shorter (6 months vs. 8 months). There were also differences in the EASI scores among those who developed AD; median scores were higher in the children born at term than in the preterm children (4.1 vs. 1.6).
More children born at term than preterm children had moderate to severe AD (23.3% vs. 8%), Dr. Halling reported.
TARC, IL-8, and IL-18 predictive of AD
Multiple immune biomarkers were tested, including various cytokines and filaggrin degradation products. On examination of skin samples collected at birth, no particular biomarkers were found at higher levels among children who developed AD in comparison with those who did not develop AD.
With regard to biomarkers examined in skin samples at 2 months of age, however, the results were different, Dr. Halling said. One particular cytokine, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC), was seen to double the risk of AD in the first 2 years of a child’s life.
This doubled risk was seen not only among the children born at term but also among those born preterm, although the data were only significant with regard to the children born at term.
The unadjusted hazard ratios and adjusted HRs (adjusted for parental atopy and filaggrin gene mutations) in term children were 2.11 (95% confidence interval, 1.36-3.26; P = .0008) and 1.85 (95% CI, 1.18-2.89; P = .007), respectively.
For preterm children, the HRs were 2.23 (95% CI, 0.85-5.86; P = .1) and 2.60 (95% CI, 0.98-6.85; P =.05), respectively.
These findings were in line with findings of other studies, Dr. Halling said. “It is well recognized that TARC is currently the best biomarker in patients with established atopic dermatitis.” Moreover, she reported that TARC was associated with a cumulative increase in the risk for AD and that levels were found to be higher in children in whom onset occurred at a later age than among those diagnosed before 6 months of age.
“This is important, as these findings shows that TARC levels predict atopic dermatitis that occurred many months later,” Dr. Halling said.
And, in term-born children at least, TARC upped the chances that the severity of AD would be greater than had it not been present (adjusted HR, 4.65; 95% CI, 1.91-11.31; P = .0007).
Increased levels of interleukin-8 (IL-8) and IL-18 at 2 months of age were also found to be predictive of having moderate to severe AD. The risk was more than double in comparison with those in whom levels were not increased, again only in term-born children.
‘Stimulating and interesting findings’
These data are “very stimulating and interesting,” Dedee Murrell, MD, professor and head of the department of dermatology at St. George Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney, observed at the press briefing.
“You found this significant association mainly in the newborn children born at term, and the association in the preterm babies wasn’t as high. Is that anything to do with how they were taken care of in the hospital?” Dr. Murrell asked.
“That’s a really good question,” Dr. Halling said. “Maybe they need to be exposed for a month or two before we are actually able to identify which children will develop atopic dermatitis.”
The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation. Dr. Halling has acted as a consultant for Coloplast and as a speaker for Leo Pharma. Dr. Murrell has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It might be possible to develop a simple test to identify newborn children who are at risk of later developing atopic dermatitis (AD), according to findings from a Danish prospective birth cohort study.
but also for having more severe disease.
“We are able to identify predictive immune biomarkers of atopic dermatitis using a noninvasive method that was not associated with any pain,” one of the study’s investigators, Anne-Sofie Halling, MD, said at a press briefing at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“Importantly, we were able to predict atopic dermatitis occurring months after [sample] collection,” said Dr. Halling, who works at Bispebjerg Hospital and is a PhD student at the University of Copenhagen.
These findings could hopefully be used to help identify children “so that preventive strategies can target these children ... and decrease the incidence of this common disease,” she added.
AD is caused “by a complex interplay between skin barrier dysfunction and immune dysregulation,” Dr. Halling said, and it is “the first step in the so-called atopic march, where children also develop food allergy, asthma, and rhinitis.” Almost all cases of AD begin during the first years of life. Approximately 15%-20% of children can be affected, she noted, emphasizing the high burden of the disease and pointing out that strategies are shifting toward trying to prevent the disease in those at risk.
Copenhagen BABY cohort
This is where the BABY study comes in, Dr. Halling said. The study enrolled 450 children at birth and followed them until age 2 years. Gene mutation testing was performed at enrollment. All children underwent skin examination, and skin samples were taken using tape strips. Tape strips were applied to the back of the hand of children born at term and between the shoulder blades on the back of children who were premature.
Skin examinations were repeated, and skin samples were obtained again at age 2 months. They were taken again only if there were any signs of AD. For those diagnosed with AD, disease severity was assessed using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) by the treating physician. Children were excluded if they had AD at the time the tape strip testing was due to be performed.
Comparing term and preterm children
Dr. Halling noted that analyses were performed separately for the 300 children born at term and for the 150 who were preterm.
The prevalence of AD was higher among children born at term than among the preterm children (34.6% vs. 21.2%), and the median time to onset was shorter (6 months vs. 8 months). There were also differences in the EASI scores among those who developed AD; median scores were higher in the children born at term than in the preterm children (4.1 vs. 1.6).
More children born at term than preterm children had moderate to severe AD (23.3% vs. 8%), Dr. Halling reported.
TARC, IL-8, and IL-18 predictive of AD
Multiple immune biomarkers were tested, including various cytokines and filaggrin degradation products. On examination of skin samples collected at birth, no particular biomarkers were found at higher levels among children who developed AD in comparison with those who did not develop AD.
With regard to biomarkers examined in skin samples at 2 months of age, however, the results were different, Dr. Halling said. One particular cytokine, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC), was seen to double the risk of AD in the first 2 years of a child’s life.
This doubled risk was seen not only among the children born at term but also among those born preterm, although the data were only significant with regard to the children born at term.
The unadjusted hazard ratios and adjusted HRs (adjusted for parental atopy and filaggrin gene mutations) in term children were 2.11 (95% confidence interval, 1.36-3.26; P = .0008) and 1.85 (95% CI, 1.18-2.89; P = .007), respectively.
For preterm children, the HRs were 2.23 (95% CI, 0.85-5.86; P = .1) and 2.60 (95% CI, 0.98-6.85; P =.05), respectively.
These findings were in line with findings of other studies, Dr. Halling said. “It is well recognized that TARC is currently the best biomarker in patients with established atopic dermatitis.” Moreover, she reported that TARC was associated with a cumulative increase in the risk for AD and that levels were found to be higher in children in whom onset occurred at a later age than among those diagnosed before 6 months of age.
“This is important, as these findings shows that TARC levels predict atopic dermatitis that occurred many months later,” Dr. Halling said.
And, in term-born children at least, TARC upped the chances that the severity of AD would be greater than had it not been present (adjusted HR, 4.65; 95% CI, 1.91-11.31; P = .0007).
Increased levels of interleukin-8 (IL-8) and IL-18 at 2 months of age were also found to be predictive of having moderate to severe AD. The risk was more than double in comparison with those in whom levels were not increased, again only in term-born children.
‘Stimulating and interesting findings’
These data are “very stimulating and interesting,” Dedee Murrell, MD, professor and head of the department of dermatology at St. George Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney, observed at the press briefing.
“You found this significant association mainly in the newborn children born at term, and the association in the preterm babies wasn’t as high. Is that anything to do with how they were taken care of in the hospital?” Dr. Murrell asked.
“That’s a really good question,” Dr. Halling said. “Maybe they need to be exposed for a month or two before we are actually able to identify which children will develop atopic dermatitis.”
The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation. Dr. Halling has acted as a consultant for Coloplast and as a speaker for Leo Pharma. Dr. Murrell has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It might be possible to develop a simple test to identify newborn children who are at risk of later developing atopic dermatitis (AD), according to findings from a Danish prospective birth cohort study.
but also for having more severe disease.
“We are able to identify predictive immune biomarkers of atopic dermatitis using a noninvasive method that was not associated with any pain,” one of the study’s investigators, Anne-Sofie Halling, MD, said at a press briefing at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“Importantly, we were able to predict atopic dermatitis occurring months after [sample] collection,” said Dr. Halling, who works at Bispebjerg Hospital and is a PhD student at the University of Copenhagen.
These findings could hopefully be used to help identify children “so that preventive strategies can target these children ... and decrease the incidence of this common disease,” she added.
AD is caused “by a complex interplay between skin barrier dysfunction and immune dysregulation,” Dr. Halling said, and it is “the first step in the so-called atopic march, where children also develop food allergy, asthma, and rhinitis.” Almost all cases of AD begin during the first years of life. Approximately 15%-20% of children can be affected, she noted, emphasizing the high burden of the disease and pointing out that strategies are shifting toward trying to prevent the disease in those at risk.
Copenhagen BABY cohort
This is where the BABY study comes in, Dr. Halling said. The study enrolled 450 children at birth and followed them until age 2 years. Gene mutation testing was performed at enrollment. All children underwent skin examination, and skin samples were taken using tape strips. Tape strips were applied to the back of the hand of children born at term and between the shoulder blades on the back of children who were premature.
Skin examinations were repeated, and skin samples were obtained again at age 2 months. They were taken again only if there were any signs of AD. For those diagnosed with AD, disease severity was assessed using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) by the treating physician. Children were excluded if they had AD at the time the tape strip testing was due to be performed.
Comparing term and preterm children
Dr. Halling noted that analyses were performed separately for the 300 children born at term and for the 150 who were preterm.
The prevalence of AD was higher among children born at term than among the preterm children (34.6% vs. 21.2%), and the median time to onset was shorter (6 months vs. 8 months). There were also differences in the EASI scores among those who developed AD; median scores were higher in the children born at term than in the preterm children (4.1 vs. 1.6).
More children born at term than preterm children had moderate to severe AD (23.3% vs. 8%), Dr. Halling reported.
TARC, IL-8, and IL-18 predictive of AD
Multiple immune biomarkers were tested, including various cytokines and filaggrin degradation products. On examination of skin samples collected at birth, no particular biomarkers were found at higher levels among children who developed AD in comparison with those who did not develop AD.
With regard to biomarkers examined in skin samples at 2 months of age, however, the results were different, Dr. Halling said. One particular cytokine, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC), was seen to double the risk of AD in the first 2 years of a child’s life.
This doubled risk was seen not only among the children born at term but also among those born preterm, although the data were only significant with regard to the children born at term.
The unadjusted hazard ratios and adjusted HRs (adjusted for parental atopy and filaggrin gene mutations) in term children were 2.11 (95% confidence interval, 1.36-3.26; P = .0008) and 1.85 (95% CI, 1.18-2.89; P = .007), respectively.
For preterm children, the HRs were 2.23 (95% CI, 0.85-5.86; P = .1) and 2.60 (95% CI, 0.98-6.85; P =.05), respectively.
These findings were in line with findings of other studies, Dr. Halling said. “It is well recognized that TARC is currently the best biomarker in patients with established atopic dermatitis.” Moreover, she reported that TARC was associated with a cumulative increase in the risk for AD and that levels were found to be higher in children in whom onset occurred at a later age than among those diagnosed before 6 months of age.
“This is important, as these findings shows that TARC levels predict atopic dermatitis that occurred many months later,” Dr. Halling said.
And, in term-born children at least, TARC upped the chances that the severity of AD would be greater than had it not been present (adjusted HR, 4.65; 95% CI, 1.91-11.31; P = .0007).
Increased levels of interleukin-8 (IL-8) and IL-18 at 2 months of age were also found to be predictive of having moderate to severe AD. The risk was more than double in comparison with those in whom levels were not increased, again only in term-born children.
‘Stimulating and interesting findings’
These data are “very stimulating and interesting,” Dedee Murrell, MD, professor and head of the department of dermatology at St. George Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney, observed at the press briefing.
“You found this significant association mainly in the newborn children born at term, and the association in the preterm babies wasn’t as high. Is that anything to do with how they were taken care of in the hospital?” Dr. Murrell asked.
“That’s a really good question,” Dr. Halling said. “Maybe they need to be exposed for a month or two before we are actually able to identify which children will develop atopic dermatitis.”
The study was funded by the Lundbeck Foundation. Dr. Halling has acted as a consultant for Coloplast and as a speaker for Leo Pharma. Dr. Murrell has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
Ezetimibe-statin combo lowers liver fat in open-label trial
Ezetimibe given in combination with rosuvastatin has a beneficial effect on liver fat in people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according results of a randomized, active-controlled trial.
The findings, which come from the investigator-initiated ESSENTIAL trial, are likely to add to the debate over whether or not the lipid-lowering combination could be of benefit beyond its effects in the blood.
“We used magnetic resonance imaging-derived proton density fat fraction [MRI-PDFF], which is highly reliable method of assessing hepatic steatosis,” Youngjoon Kim, PhD, one of the study investigators, said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Barcelona.
“It enables accurate, repeatable and reproducible quantitative assessment of liver fat over the entire liver,” observed Dr. Kim, who works at Severance Hospital, part of Yonsei University in Seoul.
He reported that there was a significant 5.8% decrease in liver fat following 24 weeks’ treatment with ezetimibe and rosuvastatin comparing baseline with end of treatment MRI-PDFF values; a drop that was significant (18.2% vs. 12.3%, P < .001).
Rosuvastatin monotherapy also reduced liver fat from 15.0% at baseline to 12.4% after 24 weeks; this drop of 2.6% was also significant (P = .003).
This gave an absolute mean difference between the two study arms of 3.2% (P = .02).
Rationale for the ESSENTIAL study
Dr. Kim observed during his presentation that NAFLD is burgeoning problem around the world. Ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin was a combination treatment already used widely in clinical practice, and there had been some suggestion that ezetimibe might have an effect on liver fat.
“Although the effect of ezetimibe on hepatic steatosis is still controversial, ezetimibe has been reported to reduce visceral fat and improve insulin resistance in several studies” Dr. Kim said.
“Recently, our group reported that the use of ezetimibe affects autophagy of hepatocytes and the NLRP3 [NOD-like receptors containing pyrin domain 3] inflammasome,” he said.
Moreover, he added, “ezetimibe improved NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] in an animal model. However, the effects of ezetimibe have not been clearly shown in a human study.”
Dr. Kim also acknowledged a prior randomized control trial that had looked at the role of ezetimibe in 50 patients with NASH, but had not shown a benefit for the drug over placebo in terms of liver fat reduction.
Addressing the Hawthorne effect
“The size of the effect by that might actually be more modest due to the Hawthorne effect,” said session chair Onno Holleboom, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam UMC in the Netherlands.
“What we observe in the large clinical trials is an enormous Hawthorne effect – participating in a NAFLD trial makes people live healthier because they have health checks,” he said.
“That’s a major problem for showing efficacy for the intervention arm,” he added, but of course the open design meant that the trial only had intervention arms; “there was no placebo arm.”
A randomized, active-controlled, clinician-initiated trial
The main objective of the ESSENTIAL trial was therefore to take another look at the potential effect of ezetimibe on hepatic steatosis and doing so in the setting of statin therapy.
In all, 70 patients with NAFLD that had been confirmed via ultrasound were recruited into the prospective, single center, phase 4 trial. Participants were randomized 1:1 to received either ezetimibe 10 mg plus rosuvastatin 5 mg daily or rosuvastatin 5 mg for up to 24 weeks.
Change in liver fat was measured via MRI-PDFF, taking the average values in each of nine liver segments. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) was also used to measure liver fibrosis, although results did not show any differences either from baseline to end of treatment values in either group or when the two treatment groups were compared.
Dr. Kim reported that both treatment with the ezetimibe-rosuvastatin combination and rosuvastatin monotherapy reduced parameters that might be associated with a negative outcome in NAFLD, such as body mass index and waist circumference, triglycerides, and LDL cholesterol. There was also a reduction in C-reactive protein levels in the blood, and interleulin-18. There was no change in liver enzymes.
Several subgroup analyses were performed indicating that “individuals with higher BMI, type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, and severe liver fibrosis were likely to be good responders to ezetimibe treatment,” Dr. Kim said.
“These data indicate that ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin is a safe and effective therapeutic option to treat patients with NAFLD and dyslipidemia,” he concluded.
The results of the ESSENTIAL study have been published in BMC Medicine.
The study was funded by the Yuhan Corporation. Dr. Kim had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Holleboom was not involved in the study and had no conflicts of interest.
Ezetimibe given in combination with rosuvastatin has a beneficial effect on liver fat in people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according results of a randomized, active-controlled trial.
The findings, which come from the investigator-initiated ESSENTIAL trial, are likely to add to the debate over whether or not the lipid-lowering combination could be of benefit beyond its effects in the blood.
“We used magnetic resonance imaging-derived proton density fat fraction [MRI-PDFF], which is highly reliable method of assessing hepatic steatosis,” Youngjoon Kim, PhD, one of the study investigators, said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Barcelona.
“It enables accurate, repeatable and reproducible quantitative assessment of liver fat over the entire liver,” observed Dr. Kim, who works at Severance Hospital, part of Yonsei University in Seoul.
He reported that there was a significant 5.8% decrease in liver fat following 24 weeks’ treatment with ezetimibe and rosuvastatin comparing baseline with end of treatment MRI-PDFF values; a drop that was significant (18.2% vs. 12.3%, P < .001).
Rosuvastatin monotherapy also reduced liver fat from 15.0% at baseline to 12.4% after 24 weeks; this drop of 2.6% was also significant (P = .003).
This gave an absolute mean difference between the two study arms of 3.2% (P = .02).
Rationale for the ESSENTIAL study
Dr. Kim observed during his presentation that NAFLD is burgeoning problem around the world. Ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin was a combination treatment already used widely in clinical practice, and there had been some suggestion that ezetimibe might have an effect on liver fat.
“Although the effect of ezetimibe on hepatic steatosis is still controversial, ezetimibe has been reported to reduce visceral fat and improve insulin resistance in several studies” Dr. Kim said.
“Recently, our group reported that the use of ezetimibe affects autophagy of hepatocytes and the NLRP3 [NOD-like receptors containing pyrin domain 3] inflammasome,” he said.
Moreover, he added, “ezetimibe improved NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] in an animal model. However, the effects of ezetimibe have not been clearly shown in a human study.”
Dr. Kim also acknowledged a prior randomized control trial that had looked at the role of ezetimibe in 50 patients with NASH, but had not shown a benefit for the drug over placebo in terms of liver fat reduction.
Addressing the Hawthorne effect
“The size of the effect by that might actually be more modest due to the Hawthorne effect,” said session chair Onno Holleboom, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam UMC in the Netherlands.
“What we observe in the large clinical trials is an enormous Hawthorne effect – participating in a NAFLD trial makes people live healthier because they have health checks,” he said.
“That’s a major problem for showing efficacy for the intervention arm,” he added, but of course the open design meant that the trial only had intervention arms; “there was no placebo arm.”
A randomized, active-controlled, clinician-initiated trial
The main objective of the ESSENTIAL trial was therefore to take another look at the potential effect of ezetimibe on hepatic steatosis and doing so in the setting of statin therapy.
In all, 70 patients with NAFLD that had been confirmed via ultrasound were recruited into the prospective, single center, phase 4 trial. Participants were randomized 1:1 to received either ezetimibe 10 mg plus rosuvastatin 5 mg daily or rosuvastatin 5 mg for up to 24 weeks.
Change in liver fat was measured via MRI-PDFF, taking the average values in each of nine liver segments. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) was also used to measure liver fibrosis, although results did not show any differences either from baseline to end of treatment values in either group or when the two treatment groups were compared.
Dr. Kim reported that both treatment with the ezetimibe-rosuvastatin combination and rosuvastatin monotherapy reduced parameters that might be associated with a negative outcome in NAFLD, such as body mass index and waist circumference, triglycerides, and LDL cholesterol. There was also a reduction in C-reactive protein levels in the blood, and interleulin-18. There was no change in liver enzymes.
Several subgroup analyses were performed indicating that “individuals with higher BMI, type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, and severe liver fibrosis were likely to be good responders to ezetimibe treatment,” Dr. Kim said.
“These data indicate that ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin is a safe and effective therapeutic option to treat patients with NAFLD and dyslipidemia,” he concluded.
The results of the ESSENTIAL study have been published in BMC Medicine.
The study was funded by the Yuhan Corporation. Dr. Kim had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Holleboom was not involved in the study and had no conflicts of interest.
Ezetimibe given in combination with rosuvastatin has a beneficial effect on liver fat in people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according results of a randomized, active-controlled trial.
The findings, which come from the investigator-initiated ESSENTIAL trial, are likely to add to the debate over whether or not the lipid-lowering combination could be of benefit beyond its effects in the blood.
“We used magnetic resonance imaging-derived proton density fat fraction [MRI-PDFF], which is highly reliable method of assessing hepatic steatosis,” Youngjoon Kim, PhD, one of the study investigators, said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Barcelona.
“It enables accurate, repeatable and reproducible quantitative assessment of liver fat over the entire liver,” observed Dr. Kim, who works at Severance Hospital, part of Yonsei University in Seoul.
He reported that there was a significant 5.8% decrease in liver fat following 24 weeks’ treatment with ezetimibe and rosuvastatin comparing baseline with end of treatment MRI-PDFF values; a drop that was significant (18.2% vs. 12.3%, P < .001).
Rosuvastatin monotherapy also reduced liver fat from 15.0% at baseline to 12.4% after 24 weeks; this drop of 2.6% was also significant (P = .003).
This gave an absolute mean difference between the two study arms of 3.2% (P = .02).
Rationale for the ESSENTIAL study
Dr. Kim observed during his presentation that NAFLD is burgeoning problem around the world. Ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin was a combination treatment already used widely in clinical practice, and there had been some suggestion that ezetimibe might have an effect on liver fat.
“Although the effect of ezetimibe on hepatic steatosis is still controversial, ezetimibe has been reported to reduce visceral fat and improve insulin resistance in several studies” Dr. Kim said.
“Recently, our group reported that the use of ezetimibe affects autophagy of hepatocytes and the NLRP3 [NOD-like receptors containing pyrin domain 3] inflammasome,” he said.
Moreover, he added, “ezetimibe improved NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] in an animal model. However, the effects of ezetimibe have not been clearly shown in a human study.”
Dr. Kim also acknowledged a prior randomized control trial that had looked at the role of ezetimibe in 50 patients with NASH, but had not shown a benefit for the drug over placebo in terms of liver fat reduction.
Addressing the Hawthorne effect
“The size of the effect by that might actually be more modest due to the Hawthorne effect,” said session chair Onno Holleboom, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam UMC in the Netherlands.
“What we observe in the large clinical trials is an enormous Hawthorne effect – participating in a NAFLD trial makes people live healthier because they have health checks,” he said.
“That’s a major problem for showing efficacy for the intervention arm,” he added, but of course the open design meant that the trial only had intervention arms; “there was no placebo arm.”
A randomized, active-controlled, clinician-initiated trial
The main objective of the ESSENTIAL trial was therefore to take another look at the potential effect of ezetimibe on hepatic steatosis and doing so in the setting of statin therapy.
In all, 70 patients with NAFLD that had been confirmed via ultrasound were recruited into the prospective, single center, phase 4 trial. Participants were randomized 1:1 to received either ezetimibe 10 mg plus rosuvastatin 5 mg daily or rosuvastatin 5 mg for up to 24 weeks.
Change in liver fat was measured via MRI-PDFF, taking the average values in each of nine liver segments. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) was also used to measure liver fibrosis, although results did not show any differences either from baseline to end of treatment values in either group or when the two treatment groups were compared.
Dr. Kim reported that both treatment with the ezetimibe-rosuvastatin combination and rosuvastatin monotherapy reduced parameters that might be associated with a negative outcome in NAFLD, such as body mass index and waist circumference, triglycerides, and LDL cholesterol. There was also a reduction in C-reactive protein levels in the blood, and interleulin-18. There was no change in liver enzymes.
Several subgroup analyses were performed indicating that “individuals with higher BMI, type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, and severe liver fibrosis were likely to be good responders to ezetimibe treatment,” Dr. Kim said.
“These data indicate that ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin is a safe and effective therapeutic option to treat patients with NAFLD and dyslipidemia,” he concluded.
The results of the ESSENTIAL study have been published in BMC Medicine.
The study was funded by the Yuhan Corporation. Dr. Kim had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Holleboom was not involved in the study and had no conflicts of interest.
FROM EASD 2022
Early age at hysterectomy ups type 2 diabetes risk
Data from a large French cohort study suggest that women who have a hysterectomy before 40-45 years of age may be at particular risk of subsequently developing type 2 diabetes.
A 20% increase in the risk for incident diabetes was found comparing women of all ages who had and had not had a hysterectomy (P = .0003).
This risk jumped to a 52% increase when only women below the age of 45 were considered (P < .0001) and was still 38% higher if only women under 40 years were analyzed (P = .005).
“Our findings clearly show that hysterectomy is a risk marker for diabetes,” Fabrice Bonnet, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Rennes (France), said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Importantly, this risk appears to occur “independently of any hormonal therapy, any reproductive factors, physical activity, and diet,” Dr. Bonnet added.
Findings challenged
“I would like to challenge your findings,” said Peter Nilsson, MD, PhD, a professor at Lund (Sweden) University, during the postpresentation discussion period.
“Could there be a detection bias?” queried Dr. Nilsson. “If you undergo surgery like this, there will be several postoperative visits to a physician and there’s a higher likelihood of somebody taking blood samples and detecting diabetes.
“So, if this is true, it could mean that postoperative controls of goiter or thyroid surgery would bring the same findings,” Dr. Nilsson suggested.
“It is an epidemiological cohort of woman followed for a long time,” Dr. Bonnet responded. “So of course, there probably was more blood testing than in the usual population, but we did not observe the association for another type of surgery and type 2 diabetes.”
Clarifying further, Dr. Bonnet said that they had looked at thyroid surgery but not any other types of abdominal surgery.
Assessing the risk of incident diabetes
Hysterectomy is a common surgery among women – more than 400,000 are estimated to be performed every year in the United States, and 80,000 in France, with a rising rate in developing countries, Dr. Bonnet said in an interview.
“We don’t know exactly why that is, but it could have long-term consequences in terms of metabolic effects and the incidence of diabetes,” he said.
Prior research has linked having a hysterectomy with an increased rate of hypertension and cardiovascular risk, and there have also been a few studies linking it to diabetes.
“Our aim was to analyze the relationship between the past history of hysterectomies and the risk of incident diabetes; and specifically, we assessed the influence of age,” Dr. Bonnet said.
To do so, data on more than 83,000 women who had participated in The French E3N Prospective Cohort Study (E3N) were obtained. This large epidemiologic study is the French component of the long-running EPIC study.
For inclusion in the analysis, women had to have no diabetes at baseline, to have had their uterus, ovaries, or both removed for benign gynecologic reasons, and to have had their surgeries performed before any diagnosis of diabetes had been made. A diagnosis of diabetes was identified through the women’s responses to self-report questionnaires and prescriptions for antidiabetic medications.
In all, 2,672 women were found to have developed diabetes during the 16-year follow-up period.
The hazard ratio for the risk of diabetes in women who had and had not had a hysterectomy was 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.43; P < .0001), taking age into account and stratifying for birth generation.
The association held, when there was adjustment for other factors such as smoking status, physical activity, history of diabetes, weight, and adherence to a Mediterranean diet (HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P = .02).
And, after adjustment for age at menarche, menopausal status, age at which menopause was reached, oral contraceptive and hormone therapy use, and the number of pregnancies, the risk for type 2 diabetes was still apparent in those who had undergoing a hysterectomy (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.33; P = .0003).
Risk increased with oophorectomy
“Women who had both hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy had the highest rates of incident diabetes, as compared to women without hysterectomy and no oophorectomy,” said Dr. Bonnet (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11-1.42; P = .0003).
“This suggests preserving ovarian function is of importance,” he added. “Try to keep the ovaries in place, so just have hysterectomy alone,” he suggested might be the advice to fellow clinicians.
“So, identifying women at higher risk could be followed by a prevention program,” he suggested. “We do this for women who have gestational diabetes,” but for women who have had a hysterectomy, “we didn’t pay attention to this until now.”
No increased risk for endometriosis
While hysterectomy appears to up the risk for diabetes, having endometriosis does not. In a separate analysis of data from the E3N cohort, no effect was seen despite the association between endometriosis and other cardiometabolic risk factors.
The HR for incident type 2 diabetes comparing women with and without endometriosis was 10.06 in a fully adjusted statistical model (95% CI, 0.87-1.29). While there was an increase in the risk for diabetes if a woman had endometriosis and had also had a hysterectomy, this was not significant (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54).
The E3N study was sponsored by the French Institute for Health and Research. Dr. Bonnet and Dr. Nilsson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
Data from a large French cohort study suggest that women who have a hysterectomy before 40-45 years of age may be at particular risk of subsequently developing type 2 diabetes.
A 20% increase in the risk for incident diabetes was found comparing women of all ages who had and had not had a hysterectomy (P = .0003).
This risk jumped to a 52% increase when only women below the age of 45 were considered (P < .0001) and was still 38% higher if only women under 40 years were analyzed (P = .005).
“Our findings clearly show that hysterectomy is a risk marker for diabetes,” Fabrice Bonnet, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Rennes (France), said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Importantly, this risk appears to occur “independently of any hormonal therapy, any reproductive factors, physical activity, and diet,” Dr. Bonnet added.
Findings challenged
“I would like to challenge your findings,” said Peter Nilsson, MD, PhD, a professor at Lund (Sweden) University, during the postpresentation discussion period.
“Could there be a detection bias?” queried Dr. Nilsson. “If you undergo surgery like this, there will be several postoperative visits to a physician and there’s a higher likelihood of somebody taking blood samples and detecting diabetes.
“So, if this is true, it could mean that postoperative controls of goiter or thyroid surgery would bring the same findings,” Dr. Nilsson suggested.
“It is an epidemiological cohort of woman followed for a long time,” Dr. Bonnet responded. “So of course, there probably was more blood testing than in the usual population, but we did not observe the association for another type of surgery and type 2 diabetes.”
Clarifying further, Dr. Bonnet said that they had looked at thyroid surgery but not any other types of abdominal surgery.
Assessing the risk of incident diabetes
Hysterectomy is a common surgery among women – more than 400,000 are estimated to be performed every year in the United States, and 80,000 in France, with a rising rate in developing countries, Dr. Bonnet said in an interview.
“We don’t know exactly why that is, but it could have long-term consequences in terms of metabolic effects and the incidence of diabetes,” he said.
Prior research has linked having a hysterectomy with an increased rate of hypertension and cardiovascular risk, and there have also been a few studies linking it to diabetes.
“Our aim was to analyze the relationship between the past history of hysterectomies and the risk of incident diabetes; and specifically, we assessed the influence of age,” Dr. Bonnet said.
To do so, data on more than 83,000 women who had participated in The French E3N Prospective Cohort Study (E3N) were obtained. This large epidemiologic study is the French component of the long-running EPIC study.
For inclusion in the analysis, women had to have no diabetes at baseline, to have had their uterus, ovaries, or both removed for benign gynecologic reasons, and to have had their surgeries performed before any diagnosis of diabetes had been made. A diagnosis of diabetes was identified through the women’s responses to self-report questionnaires and prescriptions for antidiabetic medications.
In all, 2,672 women were found to have developed diabetes during the 16-year follow-up period.
The hazard ratio for the risk of diabetes in women who had and had not had a hysterectomy was 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.43; P < .0001), taking age into account and stratifying for birth generation.
The association held, when there was adjustment for other factors such as smoking status, physical activity, history of diabetes, weight, and adherence to a Mediterranean diet (HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P = .02).
And, after adjustment for age at menarche, menopausal status, age at which menopause was reached, oral contraceptive and hormone therapy use, and the number of pregnancies, the risk for type 2 diabetes was still apparent in those who had undergoing a hysterectomy (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.33; P = .0003).
Risk increased with oophorectomy
“Women who had both hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy had the highest rates of incident diabetes, as compared to women without hysterectomy and no oophorectomy,” said Dr. Bonnet (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11-1.42; P = .0003).
“This suggests preserving ovarian function is of importance,” he added. “Try to keep the ovaries in place, so just have hysterectomy alone,” he suggested might be the advice to fellow clinicians.
“So, identifying women at higher risk could be followed by a prevention program,” he suggested. “We do this for women who have gestational diabetes,” but for women who have had a hysterectomy, “we didn’t pay attention to this until now.”
No increased risk for endometriosis
While hysterectomy appears to up the risk for diabetes, having endometriosis does not. In a separate analysis of data from the E3N cohort, no effect was seen despite the association between endometriosis and other cardiometabolic risk factors.
The HR for incident type 2 diabetes comparing women with and without endometriosis was 10.06 in a fully adjusted statistical model (95% CI, 0.87-1.29). While there was an increase in the risk for diabetes if a woman had endometriosis and had also had a hysterectomy, this was not significant (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54).
The E3N study was sponsored by the French Institute for Health and Research. Dr. Bonnet and Dr. Nilsson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
Data from a large French cohort study suggest that women who have a hysterectomy before 40-45 years of age may be at particular risk of subsequently developing type 2 diabetes.
A 20% increase in the risk for incident diabetes was found comparing women of all ages who had and had not had a hysterectomy (P = .0003).
This risk jumped to a 52% increase when only women below the age of 45 were considered (P < .0001) and was still 38% higher if only women under 40 years were analyzed (P = .005).
“Our findings clearly show that hysterectomy is a risk marker for diabetes,” Fabrice Bonnet, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Rennes (France), said at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Importantly, this risk appears to occur “independently of any hormonal therapy, any reproductive factors, physical activity, and diet,” Dr. Bonnet added.
Findings challenged
“I would like to challenge your findings,” said Peter Nilsson, MD, PhD, a professor at Lund (Sweden) University, during the postpresentation discussion period.
“Could there be a detection bias?” queried Dr. Nilsson. “If you undergo surgery like this, there will be several postoperative visits to a physician and there’s a higher likelihood of somebody taking blood samples and detecting diabetes.
“So, if this is true, it could mean that postoperative controls of goiter or thyroid surgery would bring the same findings,” Dr. Nilsson suggested.
“It is an epidemiological cohort of woman followed for a long time,” Dr. Bonnet responded. “So of course, there probably was more blood testing than in the usual population, but we did not observe the association for another type of surgery and type 2 diabetes.”
Clarifying further, Dr. Bonnet said that they had looked at thyroid surgery but not any other types of abdominal surgery.
Assessing the risk of incident diabetes
Hysterectomy is a common surgery among women – more than 400,000 are estimated to be performed every year in the United States, and 80,000 in France, with a rising rate in developing countries, Dr. Bonnet said in an interview.
“We don’t know exactly why that is, but it could have long-term consequences in terms of metabolic effects and the incidence of diabetes,” he said.
Prior research has linked having a hysterectomy with an increased rate of hypertension and cardiovascular risk, and there have also been a few studies linking it to diabetes.
“Our aim was to analyze the relationship between the past history of hysterectomies and the risk of incident diabetes; and specifically, we assessed the influence of age,” Dr. Bonnet said.
To do so, data on more than 83,000 women who had participated in The French E3N Prospective Cohort Study (E3N) were obtained. This large epidemiologic study is the French component of the long-running EPIC study.
For inclusion in the analysis, women had to have no diabetes at baseline, to have had their uterus, ovaries, or both removed for benign gynecologic reasons, and to have had their surgeries performed before any diagnosis of diabetes had been made. A diagnosis of diabetes was identified through the women’s responses to self-report questionnaires and prescriptions for antidiabetic medications.
In all, 2,672 women were found to have developed diabetes during the 16-year follow-up period.
The hazard ratio for the risk of diabetes in women who had and had not had a hysterectomy was 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.43; P < .0001), taking age into account and stratifying for birth generation.
The association held, when there was adjustment for other factors such as smoking status, physical activity, history of diabetes, weight, and adherence to a Mediterranean diet (HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P = .02).
And, after adjustment for age at menarche, menopausal status, age at which menopause was reached, oral contraceptive and hormone therapy use, and the number of pregnancies, the risk for type 2 diabetes was still apparent in those who had undergoing a hysterectomy (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.33; P = .0003).
Risk increased with oophorectomy
“Women who had both hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy had the highest rates of incident diabetes, as compared to women without hysterectomy and no oophorectomy,” said Dr. Bonnet (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11-1.42; P = .0003).
“This suggests preserving ovarian function is of importance,” he added. “Try to keep the ovaries in place, so just have hysterectomy alone,” he suggested might be the advice to fellow clinicians.
“So, identifying women at higher risk could be followed by a prevention program,” he suggested. “We do this for women who have gestational diabetes,” but for women who have had a hysterectomy, “we didn’t pay attention to this until now.”
No increased risk for endometriosis
While hysterectomy appears to up the risk for diabetes, having endometriosis does not. In a separate analysis of data from the E3N cohort, no effect was seen despite the association between endometriosis and other cardiometabolic risk factors.
The HR for incident type 2 diabetes comparing women with and without endometriosis was 10.06 in a fully adjusted statistical model (95% CI, 0.87-1.29). While there was an increase in the risk for diabetes if a woman had endometriosis and had also had a hysterectomy, this was not significant (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54).
The E3N study was sponsored by the French Institute for Health and Research. Dr. Bonnet and Dr. Nilsson had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM EASD 2022