Liam Davenport

For patients who experience endoscopic remission of ulcerative colitis (UC), signs of active disease on histology did not affect their risk of clinical relapse, according to a large prospective study that reinforces a low endoscopy score as the treatment target.

In the study of more than 250 patients in endoscopic remission from UC, 19% experienced a clinical relapse within 1 year. The researchers found that a lower baseline endoscopy score was linked to a lower risk of relapse.

While histologic activity, as reflected in the Geboes Score, was not associated with clinical relapse, the presence of basal plasmacytosis independently doubled the risk of relapse.

“Our findings do not support the use of histology as a target for treatment in patients with ulcerative colitis who already achieved clinical and endoscopic remission,” say Talat Bessissow, MD, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, and colleagues.

They add that the results “support the use of the Mayo endoscopic subscore of zero as the optimal target for endoscopic remission.”

Further prospective data are needed to “define the role of histology activity and basal plasmacytosis in the management of ulcerative colitis,” the authors write.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Uncertain role of histology

Dr. Bessissow told this news organization that “some studies have shown that histologic healing is associated with better long-term outcomes and less relapse, but this topic remains controversial because other studies have shown the opposite.”

“Our study does not support histology as a treatment target,” he continued, adding that therapy should not be changed solely on the basis of histology.

Dr. Bessissow clarified that although histology was not associated with less relapse over 1 year of follow-up, the role of histology on other, longer-term outcomes, such as surgery and colorectal cancer, still needs to be studied.

The natural history of UC is characterized by frequent relapse, the authors write, but “treating symptoms alone is not sufficient to prevent long-term complications.”

This led to a shift toward using endoscopic healing as a therapeutic goal, a move that was aided by the advent of novel medical therapies, including biologic agents. Crucially, endoscopic healing is associated with improved long-term outcomes, as well as improved quality of life.

The authors continue, however, that a “significant proportion” of patients experience relapse despite achieving endoscopic healing, which “could be explained in part by the fact that up to 40% of patients in endoscopic healing will have ongoing active histologic disease.”

However, in studies in which histologic activity was an endpoint, results have conflicted, and questions remain as to which parameters to include when assessing histologic activity.
 

Measuring the predictive values of endoscopy and histology

To investigate further, the researchers conducted a prospective observational study of consecutive adult patients with confirmed UC who presented to an endoscopy unit for colonoscopy for disease assessment or surveillance.

To qualify for the study, the patients’ conditions had to have been in clinical remission for at least 3 months prior to the colonoscopy. They were excluded if they had undergone prior surgical resection, had experienced disease remission for a period of over 10 years, or had used oral or rectal steroids within 90 days, among other criteria.

During an initial colonoscopy, two biopsies were performed, with specimens taken from the rectosigmoid and, when possible, from the right and left colon. Blood and stool samples were taken, and demographic and clinical data were collected.

The study enrolled 253 patients. Almost half (47.4%) were younger than 50 years, and 46.3% were women. They were followed for 12 months, during which 19% developed clinical relapse, defined as a partial Mayo endoscopic score (MES) of greater than 2.

When compared with patients with an MES of 0, the team found that patients with an MES of 1 or greater than or equal to 2 were at higher risk of relapse, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.65 and 2.57, respectively.

Interestingly, a lower baseline MES also was associated with a lower risk of relapse, and patients with proctitis were more likely to experience relapse than those with pancolitis.
 

No impact of histology on relapse risk

Further analysis revealed that there was no association between clinical relapse and age, sex, disease extent, and C-reactive protein, hemoglobin, and albumin levels. However, there was a significant association between relapse and the occurrence of at least one relapse in the 2 years prior to enrollment.

While the mean baseline fecal calprotectin (FC) level was numerically higher in patients who experienced relapse, compared with those who did not (306.9 mcg/g vs. 213.7 mcg/g), the difference was not significant.

FC of greater than 100 mcg/g was, however, significantly associated with relapse, at an odds ratio of 2.26, although the association was no longer significant when using the False Discovery Rate test.

Active histology was no more common among those who experienced relapse than among those who did not. But with regard to histologic factors, the team found that the presence of basal plasmacytosis was associated with clinical relapse, at an adjusted odds ratio of 2.07.

On the other hand, a Geboes Score of greater than or equal to 3.1, indicating the presence of epithelial neutrophils with or without crypt destruction or erosions, was not significantly associated with the risk of relapse, nor with the time to clinical relapse.
 

Clinical implications

Approached for comment, Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said that this is “the largest prospective study assessing histologic activity or remission to predict future disease relapse in ulcerative colitis.”

He told this news organization that what the findings mean for clinical practice is that “patients who achieve an endoscopic and clinical remission are at a low likelihood of clinical relapse,” and added that “these should be the ‘treat-to-target’ endpoints.”

“Patients who have biopsy evidence, [such as] histologic activity based on the Geboes Score, do not require an escalation of therapy or a change in inflammatory bowel disease therapy,” Dr. Regueiro said.

He noted, however, that one primary question remains: Aside from surveillance of dysplasia, is there a role for biopsy in cases of UC in which the Mayo score is 0?

“In my practice, I still take biopsies from a previously involved colitis segment, even if Mayo 0,” he said.

“If there is histologic activity, I would not increase or optimize the current medications, but I also would not deescalate,” Dr. Regueiro added. “I would keep the patient on a regular surveillance colonoscopy regimen, too.”

No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Bessissow has relationships with AbbVie, Alimentiv (formerly Robarts), Amgen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Ferring, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Pentax, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, and Viatris. Other authors have disclosed numerous financial relationships. Dr. Regueiro has disclosed no such relationships.

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

For patients who experience endoscopic remission of ulcerative colitis (UC), signs of active disease on histology did not affect their risk of clinical relapse, according to a large prospective study that reinforces a low endoscopy score as the treatment target.

In the study of more than 250 patients in endoscopic remission from UC, 19% experienced a clinical relapse within 1 year. The researchers found that a lower baseline endoscopy score was linked to a lower risk of relapse.

While histologic activity, as reflected in the Geboes Score, was not associated with clinical relapse, the presence of basal plasmacytosis independently doubled the risk of relapse.

“Our findings do not support the use of histology as a target for treatment in patients with ulcerative colitis who already achieved clinical and endoscopic remission,” say Talat Bessissow, MD, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, and colleagues.

They add that the results “support the use of the Mayo endoscopic subscore of zero as the optimal target for endoscopic remission.”

Further prospective data are needed to “define the role of histology activity and basal plasmacytosis in the management of ulcerative colitis,” the authors write.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Uncertain role of histology

Dr. Bessissow told this news organization that “some studies have shown that histologic healing is associated with better long-term outcomes and less relapse, but this topic remains controversial because other studies have shown the opposite.”

“Our study does not support histology as a treatment target,” he continued, adding that therapy should not be changed solely on the basis of histology.

Dr. Bessissow clarified that although histology was not associated with less relapse over 1 year of follow-up, the role of histology on other, longer-term outcomes, such as surgery and colorectal cancer, still needs to be studied.

The natural history of UC is characterized by frequent relapse, the authors write, but “treating symptoms alone is not sufficient to prevent long-term complications.”

This led to a shift toward using endoscopic healing as a therapeutic goal, a move that was aided by the advent of novel medical therapies, including biologic agents. Crucially, endoscopic healing is associated with improved long-term outcomes, as well as improved quality of life.

The authors continue, however, that a “significant proportion” of patients experience relapse despite achieving endoscopic healing, which “could be explained in part by the fact that up to 40% of patients in endoscopic healing will have ongoing active histologic disease.”

However, in studies in which histologic activity was an endpoint, results have conflicted, and questions remain as to which parameters to include when assessing histologic activity.
 

Measuring the predictive values of endoscopy and histology

To investigate further, the researchers conducted a prospective observational study of consecutive adult patients with confirmed UC who presented to an endoscopy unit for colonoscopy for disease assessment or surveillance.

To qualify for the study, the patients’ conditions had to have been in clinical remission for at least 3 months prior to the colonoscopy. They were excluded if they had undergone prior surgical resection, had experienced disease remission for a period of over 10 years, or had used oral or rectal steroids within 90 days, among other criteria.

During an initial colonoscopy, two biopsies were performed, with specimens taken from the rectosigmoid and, when possible, from the right and left colon. Blood and stool samples were taken, and demographic and clinical data were collected.

The study enrolled 253 patients. Almost half (47.4%) were younger than 50 years, and 46.3% were women. They were followed for 12 months, during which 19% developed clinical relapse, defined as a partial Mayo endoscopic score (MES) of greater than 2.

When compared with patients with an MES of 0, the team found that patients with an MES of 1 or greater than or equal to 2 were at higher risk of relapse, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.65 and 2.57, respectively.

Interestingly, a lower baseline MES also was associated with a lower risk of relapse, and patients with proctitis were more likely to experience relapse than those with pancolitis.
 

No impact of histology on relapse risk

Further analysis revealed that there was no association between clinical relapse and age, sex, disease extent, and C-reactive protein, hemoglobin, and albumin levels. However, there was a significant association between relapse and the occurrence of at least one relapse in the 2 years prior to enrollment.

While the mean baseline fecal calprotectin (FC) level was numerically higher in patients who experienced relapse, compared with those who did not (306.9 mcg/g vs. 213.7 mcg/g), the difference was not significant.

FC of greater than 100 mcg/g was, however, significantly associated with relapse, at an odds ratio of 2.26, although the association was no longer significant when using the False Discovery Rate test.

Active histology was no more common among those who experienced relapse than among those who did not. But with regard to histologic factors, the team found that the presence of basal plasmacytosis was associated with clinical relapse, at an adjusted odds ratio of 2.07.

On the other hand, a Geboes Score of greater than or equal to 3.1, indicating the presence of epithelial neutrophils with or without crypt destruction or erosions, was not significantly associated with the risk of relapse, nor with the time to clinical relapse.
 

Clinical implications

Approached for comment, Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said that this is “the largest prospective study assessing histologic activity or remission to predict future disease relapse in ulcerative colitis.”

He told this news organization that what the findings mean for clinical practice is that “patients who achieve an endoscopic and clinical remission are at a low likelihood of clinical relapse,” and added that “these should be the ‘treat-to-target’ endpoints.”

“Patients who have biopsy evidence, [such as] histologic activity based on the Geboes Score, do not require an escalation of therapy or a change in inflammatory bowel disease therapy,” Dr. Regueiro said.

He noted, however, that one primary question remains: Aside from surveillance of dysplasia, is there a role for biopsy in cases of UC in which the Mayo score is 0?

“In my practice, I still take biopsies from a previously involved colitis segment, even if Mayo 0,” he said.

“If there is histologic activity, I would not increase or optimize the current medications, but I also would not deescalate,” Dr. Regueiro added. “I would keep the patient on a regular surveillance colonoscopy regimen, too.”

No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Bessissow has relationships with AbbVie, Alimentiv (formerly Robarts), Amgen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Ferring, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Pentax, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, and Viatris. Other authors have disclosed numerous financial relationships. Dr. Regueiro has disclosed no such relationships.

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

For patients who experience endoscopic remission of ulcerative colitis (UC), signs of active disease on histology did not affect their risk of clinical relapse, according to a large prospective study that reinforces a low endoscopy score as the treatment target.

In the study of more than 250 patients in endoscopic remission from UC, 19% experienced a clinical relapse within 1 year. The researchers found that a lower baseline endoscopy score was linked to a lower risk of relapse.

While histologic activity, as reflected in the Geboes Score, was not associated with clinical relapse, the presence of basal plasmacytosis independently doubled the risk of relapse.

“Our findings do not support the use of histology as a target for treatment in patients with ulcerative colitis who already achieved clinical and endoscopic remission,” say Talat Bessissow, MD, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, and colleagues.

They add that the results “support the use of the Mayo endoscopic subscore of zero as the optimal target for endoscopic remission.”

Further prospective data are needed to “define the role of histology activity and basal plasmacytosis in the management of ulcerative colitis,” the authors write.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Uncertain role of histology

Dr. Bessissow told this news organization that “some studies have shown that histologic healing is associated with better long-term outcomes and less relapse, but this topic remains controversial because other studies have shown the opposite.”

“Our study does not support histology as a treatment target,” he continued, adding that therapy should not be changed solely on the basis of histology.

Dr. Bessissow clarified that although histology was not associated with less relapse over 1 year of follow-up, the role of histology on other, longer-term outcomes, such as surgery and colorectal cancer, still needs to be studied.

The natural history of UC is characterized by frequent relapse, the authors write, but “treating symptoms alone is not sufficient to prevent long-term complications.”

This led to a shift toward using endoscopic healing as a therapeutic goal, a move that was aided by the advent of novel medical therapies, including biologic agents. Crucially, endoscopic healing is associated with improved long-term outcomes, as well as improved quality of life.

The authors continue, however, that a “significant proportion” of patients experience relapse despite achieving endoscopic healing, which “could be explained in part by the fact that up to 40% of patients in endoscopic healing will have ongoing active histologic disease.”

However, in studies in which histologic activity was an endpoint, results have conflicted, and questions remain as to which parameters to include when assessing histologic activity.
 

Measuring the predictive values of endoscopy and histology

To investigate further, the researchers conducted a prospective observational study of consecutive adult patients with confirmed UC who presented to an endoscopy unit for colonoscopy for disease assessment or surveillance.

To qualify for the study, the patients’ conditions had to have been in clinical remission for at least 3 months prior to the colonoscopy. They were excluded if they had undergone prior surgical resection, had experienced disease remission for a period of over 10 years, or had used oral or rectal steroids within 90 days, among other criteria.

During an initial colonoscopy, two biopsies were performed, with specimens taken from the rectosigmoid and, when possible, from the right and left colon. Blood and stool samples were taken, and demographic and clinical data were collected.

The study enrolled 253 patients. Almost half (47.4%) were younger than 50 years, and 46.3% were women. They were followed for 12 months, during which 19% developed clinical relapse, defined as a partial Mayo endoscopic score (MES) of greater than 2.

When compared with patients with an MES of 0, the team found that patients with an MES of 1 or greater than or equal to 2 were at higher risk of relapse, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.65 and 2.57, respectively.

Interestingly, a lower baseline MES also was associated with a lower risk of relapse, and patients with proctitis were more likely to experience relapse than those with pancolitis.
 

No impact of histology on relapse risk

Further analysis revealed that there was no association between clinical relapse and age, sex, disease extent, and C-reactive protein, hemoglobin, and albumin levels. However, there was a significant association between relapse and the occurrence of at least one relapse in the 2 years prior to enrollment.

While the mean baseline fecal calprotectin (FC) level was numerically higher in patients who experienced relapse, compared with those who did not (306.9 mcg/g vs. 213.7 mcg/g), the difference was not significant.

FC of greater than 100 mcg/g was, however, significantly associated with relapse, at an odds ratio of 2.26, although the association was no longer significant when using the False Discovery Rate test.

Active histology was no more common among those who experienced relapse than among those who did not. But with regard to histologic factors, the team found that the presence of basal plasmacytosis was associated with clinical relapse, at an adjusted odds ratio of 2.07.

On the other hand, a Geboes Score of greater than or equal to 3.1, indicating the presence of epithelial neutrophils with or without crypt destruction or erosions, was not significantly associated with the risk of relapse, nor with the time to clinical relapse.
 

Clinical implications

Approached for comment, Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said that this is “the largest prospective study assessing histologic activity or remission to predict future disease relapse in ulcerative colitis.”

He told this news organization that what the findings mean for clinical practice is that “patients who achieve an endoscopic and clinical remission are at a low likelihood of clinical relapse,” and added that “these should be the ‘treat-to-target’ endpoints.”

“Patients who have biopsy evidence, [such as] histologic activity based on the Geboes Score, do not require an escalation of therapy or a change in inflammatory bowel disease therapy,” Dr. Regueiro said.

He noted, however, that one primary question remains: Aside from surveillance of dysplasia, is there a role for biopsy in cases of UC in which the Mayo score is 0?

“In my practice, I still take biopsies from a previously involved colitis segment, even if Mayo 0,” he said.

“If there is histologic activity, I would not increase or optimize the current medications, but I also would not deescalate,” Dr. Regueiro added. “I would keep the patient on a regular surveillance colonoscopy regimen, too.”

No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Bessissow has relationships with AbbVie, Alimentiv (formerly Robarts), Amgen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Ferring, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Pentax, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, and Viatris. Other authors have disclosed numerous financial relationships. Dr. Regueiro has disclosed no such relationships.

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

Among biologic agents, vedolizumab (Entyvio) and ustekinumab (Stelara) are associated with lower rates of infection-related hospitalizations than anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents in older patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but only if older patients also have comorbidities, U.S. researchers have found.

The researchers examined U.S. health insurance claims for three cohorts – patients with IBD who were treated with anti-TNF agents, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab – and found no overall difference in infection rates or infection-related hospitalizations between the groups.

But in patients with a greater burden of comorbidity, the monoclonal antibodies vedolizumab and ustekinumab were associated with lower rates of infection-related hospitalizations, compared with anti-TNF agents, with 22% less for vedolizumab and 34% less for ustekinumab.

In the “first pharmacoepidemiologic study comparing all approved classes of biologic agents to treat IBD focused on older adults,” the authors say they “demonstrate that comorbidity is a mediator of infections requiring hospitalizations.”

“These data can help counsel older adults who are about to initiate a biologic agent in clinical practice,” they write.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Co-lead author Bharati Kochar, MD, MS, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that the real question, when we’re seeing an older patient, is which medications are safer.

“Not surprisingly, we found that there was no overall difference in the three classes of medications,” she said, adding that “if you take your healthy older adults without any serious comorbidities, anti-TNF agents are not different in terms of a safety profile.”

With the more selective biologics like vedolizumab and ustekinumab seeming to confer a lower risk for serious infections in patients with comorbidities, Dr. Kochar said the hope is that their study will help doctors feel more confident in prescribing and encourage thinking about the patient in a broader manner beyond chronological age.
 

Real-world study on older adults with IBD

The authors note that the number of older adults with IBD is rising rapidly. It is estimated that almost 1 million individuals aged 60 years and older in the United States are living with the disease.

They add that there has been a rapid proliferation of treatment options for both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, but the likelihood of achieving remission may vary by mechanism of immunosuppression.

Older adults have a higher baseline risk for infections than younger adults, regardless of treatment type, the authors underline; yet, older adults with IBD are disproportionately under-represented in clinical trials of IBD therapies.

Recognizing the need for real-world studies focused on older adults, Dr. Kochar and her colleagues gathered claims data from a commercial U.S. health insurance plan totaling nearly 86 million individuals between 2008 and 2019.

They identified patients with IBD aged 60 years or older (average age, 67 years) who had at least one claim for vedolizumab, ustekinumab, or anti-TNF agents, including adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, or certolizumab pegol.

The cohorts included 2,369 patients treated with anti-TNF agents, 972 who were started on vedolizumab and 352 who were given ustekinumab.

Patients were excluded if they received vedolizumab or ustekinumab during the first 6 months of treatment and were then switched to anti-TNF therapy.

The on-treatment period was defined as starting with the index treatment date and ending with the date of treatment discontinuation. Treatment was required to last more than 90 days.

The overall incidence rates for any infection were similar across the three treatment groups, at 3,606 per 1,000 person-years in the anti-TNF group, 3,748 per 1,000 person-years in patients given vedolizumab, and 3,139 per 1,000 person-years in those treated with ustekinumab.

There were also no significant differences in the rate of infection-related hospitalizations, at a hazard ratio for vedolizumab versus anti-TNF agents of 0.94, and for ustekinumab, again versus anti-TNF agents, of 0.92.

However, the authors found that there was a “significant interaction” between comorbidities and treatment in terms of infection-related hospitalizations.

Among IBD patients older than 60 with a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score of greater than 1, treatment with vedolizumab and ustekinumab was associated with a significantly lower rate of infection-related hospitalizations versus anti-TNF agents, at hazard ratios of 0.78 and 0.66, respectively.

In contrast, the rates of hospitalization were similar between the treatment groups among patients without significant comorbidity.

Interestingly, patients with ulcerative colitis treated with vedolizumab also had a lower rate of infection versus those given anti-TNF agents, at a hazard ratio of 0.96, while no such difference was seen in patients with Crohn’s disease.
 

Results will help refine clinical practice

Approached for comment, Dana J. Lukin, MD, PhD, clinical director of translational research at the Jill Roberts Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease, New York, said the study is limited by the lack of granular data on disease activity.

Moreover, he told this news organization that since it is not a randomized controlled trial, the selection of medications in the claims database may have factored in some of the intangible contraindications to anti-TNF agents.

“It makes sense that comorbidity confers the biggest risk for hospitalization from infections,” Dr. Lukin said, adding that “what is interesting is that there is no difference overall in infection rates between any of the medication classes.”

He said the study therefore “rebuffs the traditional thinking” that, among older adults, anti-TNF agents will be associated with a higher risk of infections per se, “because really it’s specifically among those patients who have more comorbidities.”

Most importantly, Dr. Lukin said that the findings will help to refine clinical practice, as clinicians are specifically tasked with treating the inflammatory bowel disease but are not necessarily focused on comorbidities, which patients accrue more and more as they age.

Dr. Lukin continued that, for patients with comorbid conditions, “we should carefully consider using a non–anti-TNF agent.”

“We should also not be afraid to continue to use anti-TNF agents” in those without comorbidities, he added, as they are “very effective in patients who might need them for their disease-related characteristics.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, and the Chleck Family Foundation.

Dr. Lukin declares relationships with Takeda, Abbvie, and Janssen. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Among biologic agents, vedolizumab (Entyvio) and ustekinumab (Stelara) are associated with lower rates of infection-related hospitalizations than anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents in older patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but only if older patients also have comorbidities, U.S. researchers have found.

The researchers examined U.S. health insurance claims for three cohorts – patients with IBD who were treated with anti-TNF agents, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab – and found no overall difference in infection rates or infection-related hospitalizations between the groups.

But in patients with a greater burden of comorbidity, the monoclonal antibodies vedolizumab and ustekinumab were associated with lower rates of infection-related hospitalizations, compared with anti-TNF agents, with 22% less for vedolizumab and 34% less for ustekinumab.

In the “first pharmacoepidemiologic study comparing all approved classes of biologic agents to treat IBD focused on older adults,” the authors say they “demonstrate that comorbidity is a mediator of infections requiring hospitalizations.”

“These data can help counsel older adults who are about to initiate a biologic agent in clinical practice,” they write.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Co-lead author Bharati Kochar, MD, MS, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that the real question, when we’re seeing an older patient, is which medications are safer.

“Not surprisingly, we found that there was no overall difference in the three classes of medications,” she said, adding that “if you take your healthy older adults without any serious comorbidities, anti-TNF agents are not different in terms of a safety profile.”

With the more selective biologics like vedolizumab and ustekinumab seeming to confer a lower risk for serious infections in patients with comorbidities, Dr. Kochar said the hope is that their study will help doctors feel more confident in prescribing and encourage thinking about the patient in a broader manner beyond chronological age.
 

Real-world study on older adults with IBD

The authors note that the number of older adults with IBD is rising rapidly. It is estimated that almost 1 million individuals aged 60 years and older in the United States are living with the disease.

They add that there has been a rapid proliferation of treatment options for both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, but the likelihood of achieving remission may vary by mechanism of immunosuppression.

Older adults have a higher baseline risk for infections than younger adults, regardless of treatment type, the authors underline; yet, older adults with IBD are disproportionately under-represented in clinical trials of IBD therapies.

Recognizing the need for real-world studies focused on older adults, Dr. Kochar and her colleagues gathered claims data from a commercial U.S. health insurance plan totaling nearly 86 million individuals between 2008 and 2019.

They identified patients with IBD aged 60 years or older (average age, 67 years) who had at least one claim for vedolizumab, ustekinumab, or anti-TNF agents, including adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, or certolizumab pegol.

The cohorts included 2,369 patients treated with anti-TNF agents, 972 who were started on vedolizumab and 352 who were given ustekinumab.

Patients were excluded if they received vedolizumab or ustekinumab during the first 6 months of treatment and were then switched to anti-TNF therapy.

The on-treatment period was defined as starting with the index treatment date and ending with the date of treatment discontinuation. Treatment was required to last more than 90 days.

The overall incidence rates for any infection were similar across the three treatment groups, at 3,606 per 1,000 person-years in the anti-TNF group, 3,748 per 1,000 person-years in patients given vedolizumab, and 3,139 per 1,000 person-years in those treated with ustekinumab.

There were also no significant differences in the rate of infection-related hospitalizations, at a hazard ratio for vedolizumab versus anti-TNF agents of 0.94, and for ustekinumab, again versus anti-TNF agents, of 0.92.

However, the authors found that there was a “significant interaction” between comorbidities and treatment in terms of infection-related hospitalizations.

Among IBD patients older than 60 with a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score of greater than 1, treatment with vedolizumab and ustekinumab was associated with a significantly lower rate of infection-related hospitalizations versus anti-TNF agents, at hazard ratios of 0.78 and 0.66, respectively.

In contrast, the rates of hospitalization were similar between the treatment groups among patients without significant comorbidity.

Interestingly, patients with ulcerative colitis treated with vedolizumab also had a lower rate of infection versus those given anti-TNF agents, at a hazard ratio of 0.96, while no such difference was seen in patients with Crohn’s disease.
 

Results will help refine clinical practice

Approached for comment, Dana J. Lukin, MD, PhD, clinical director of translational research at the Jill Roberts Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease, New York, said the study is limited by the lack of granular data on disease activity.

Moreover, he told this news organization that since it is not a randomized controlled trial, the selection of medications in the claims database may have factored in some of the intangible contraindications to anti-TNF agents.

“It makes sense that comorbidity confers the biggest risk for hospitalization from infections,” Dr. Lukin said, adding that “what is interesting is that there is no difference overall in infection rates between any of the medication classes.”

He said the study therefore “rebuffs the traditional thinking” that, among older adults, anti-TNF agents will be associated with a higher risk of infections per se, “because really it’s specifically among those patients who have more comorbidities.”

Most importantly, Dr. Lukin said that the findings will help to refine clinical practice, as clinicians are specifically tasked with treating the inflammatory bowel disease but are not necessarily focused on comorbidities, which patients accrue more and more as they age.

Dr. Lukin continued that, for patients with comorbid conditions, “we should carefully consider using a non–anti-TNF agent.”

“We should also not be afraid to continue to use anti-TNF agents” in those without comorbidities, he added, as they are “very effective in patients who might need them for their disease-related characteristics.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, and the Chleck Family Foundation.

Dr. Lukin declares relationships with Takeda, Abbvie, and Janssen. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Among biologic agents, vedolizumab (Entyvio) and ustekinumab (Stelara) are associated with lower rates of infection-related hospitalizations than anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents in older patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but only if older patients also have comorbidities, U.S. researchers have found.

The researchers examined U.S. health insurance claims for three cohorts – patients with IBD who were treated with anti-TNF agents, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab – and found no overall difference in infection rates or infection-related hospitalizations between the groups.

But in patients with a greater burden of comorbidity, the monoclonal antibodies vedolizumab and ustekinumab were associated with lower rates of infection-related hospitalizations, compared with anti-TNF agents, with 22% less for vedolizumab and 34% less for ustekinumab.

In the “first pharmacoepidemiologic study comparing all approved classes of biologic agents to treat IBD focused on older adults,” the authors say they “demonstrate that comorbidity is a mediator of infections requiring hospitalizations.”

“These data can help counsel older adults who are about to initiate a biologic agent in clinical practice,” they write.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Co-lead author Bharati Kochar, MD, MS, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that the real question, when we’re seeing an older patient, is which medications are safer.

“Not surprisingly, we found that there was no overall difference in the three classes of medications,” she said, adding that “if you take your healthy older adults without any serious comorbidities, anti-TNF agents are not different in terms of a safety profile.”

With the more selective biologics like vedolizumab and ustekinumab seeming to confer a lower risk for serious infections in patients with comorbidities, Dr. Kochar said the hope is that their study will help doctors feel more confident in prescribing and encourage thinking about the patient in a broader manner beyond chronological age.
 

Real-world study on older adults with IBD

The authors note that the number of older adults with IBD is rising rapidly. It is estimated that almost 1 million individuals aged 60 years and older in the United States are living with the disease.

They add that there has been a rapid proliferation of treatment options for both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, but the likelihood of achieving remission may vary by mechanism of immunosuppression.

Older adults have a higher baseline risk for infections than younger adults, regardless of treatment type, the authors underline; yet, older adults with IBD are disproportionately under-represented in clinical trials of IBD therapies.

Recognizing the need for real-world studies focused on older adults, Dr. Kochar and her colleagues gathered claims data from a commercial U.S. health insurance plan totaling nearly 86 million individuals between 2008 and 2019.

They identified patients with IBD aged 60 years or older (average age, 67 years) who had at least one claim for vedolizumab, ustekinumab, or anti-TNF agents, including adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, or certolizumab pegol.

The cohorts included 2,369 patients treated with anti-TNF agents, 972 who were started on vedolizumab and 352 who were given ustekinumab.

Patients were excluded if they received vedolizumab or ustekinumab during the first 6 months of treatment and were then switched to anti-TNF therapy.

The on-treatment period was defined as starting with the index treatment date and ending with the date of treatment discontinuation. Treatment was required to last more than 90 days.

The overall incidence rates for any infection were similar across the three treatment groups, at 3,606 per 1,000 person-years in the anti-TNF group, 3,748 per 1,000 person-years in patients given vedolizumab, and 3,139 per 1,000 person-years in those treated with ustekinumab.

There were also no significant differences in the rate of infection-related hospitalizations, at a hazard ratio for vedolizumab versus anti-TNF agents of 0.94, and for ustekinumab, again versus anti-TNF agents, of 0.92.

However, the authors found that there was a “significant interaction” between comorbidities and treatment in terms of infection-related hospitalizations.

Among IBD patients older than 60 with a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score of greater than 1, treatment with vedolizumab and ustekinumab was associated with a significantly lower rate of infection-related hospitalizations versus anti-TNF agents, at hazard ratios of 0.78 and 0.66, respectively.

In contrast, the rates of hospitalization were similar between the treatment groups among patients without significant comorbidity.

Interestingly, patients with ulcerative colitis treated with vedolizumab also had a lower rate of infection versus those given anti-TNF agents, at a hazard ratio of 0.96, while no such difference was seen in patients with Crohn’s disease.
 

Results will help refine clinical practice

Approached for comment, Dana J. Lukin, MD, PhD, clinical director of translational research at the Jill Roberts Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease, New York, said the study is limited by the lack of granular data on disease activity.

Moreover, he told this news organization that since it is not a randomized controlled trial, the selection of medications in the claims database may have factored in some of the intangible contraindications to anti-TNF agents.

“It makes sense that comorbidity confers the biggest risk for hospitalization from infections,” Dr. Lukin said, adding that “what is interesting is that there is no difference overall in infection rates between any of the medication classes.”

He said the study therefore “rebuffs the traditional thinking” that, among older adults, anti-TNF agents will be associated with a higher risk of infections per se, “because really it’s specifically among those patients who have more comorbidities.”

Most importantly, Dr. Lukin said that the findings will help to refine clinical practice, as clinicians are specifically tasked with treating the inflammatory bowel disease but are not necessarily focused on comorbidities, which patients accrue more and more as they age.

Dr. Lukin continued that, for patients with comorbid conditions, “we should carefully consider using a non–anti-TNF agent.”

“We should also not be afraid to continue to use anti-TNF agents” in those without comorbidities, he added, as they are “very effective in patients who might need them for their disease-related characteristics.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, and the Chleck Family Foundation.

Dr. Lukin declares relationships with Takeda, Abbvie, and Janssen. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

A new geographic analysis of U.S. death rates from young-onset colorectal cancer found distinctive regional patterns that varied by age.

The so-called hot and cold spots of mortality from young-onset CRC differed slightly for people younger than 50 and those younger than 35, report the researchers, who say such studies may lead to better understanding of the underlying factors as well as to targeted interventions.

The authors suggest that deaths in the youngest young-onset CRC individuals “may be driven by a distinct set of factors, compared with deaths among older young-onset CRC and average-onset CRC patients.”

They add that “unmeasured factors ... may drive anomalous young-onset CRC mortality rates, either independently or in conjunction with demographic [and] modifiable variables accounted for here.”

The research was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Incidence, mortality rates on the rise

The incidence and mortality rates of young-onset CRC have been increasing for decades, the authors write, but it has only recently begun to attract public health attention.

Risk factors and prognostic indicators, such as smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption, diabetes, sex, race, and socioeconomic factors, have been implicated in the development of the condition.

Geospatial distribution of young-onset CRC adds an “important [layer] for understanding the underlying drivers of mortality and allocating public health resources,” the authors write.

It is “too soon” to draw conclusions about the cause of the hot and cold spots, cautioned senior author Stephanie L. Schmit, PhD, vice chair of the Genomic Medicine Institute at the Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic.

Speaking to this news organization, she said, “Additional factors like proximity to primary care, gastroenterology, and cancer care facilities or novel environmental exposures may contribute to hot spots.”

On the other hand, “lifestyle factors like diet and exercise might contribute to some extent to cold spots,” she added.

While Dr. Schmit said it would be “challenging” to replicate the findings nationally, “further analyses at more granular geographic levels would be incredibly helpful.”
 

Exploring the geographical distribution

To explore the geographical distribution of young-onset CRC mortality, the researchers gathered 20 years of data on more than 1 million CRC deaths from 3,036 U.S. counties. With aggregated county-level information from 1999 to 2019, they derived mortality rates from CDC WONDER underlying cause of death data.

Over the study period, there were 69,976 deaths from CRC among individuals diagnosed before age 50, including 7,325 persons diagnosed younger than 35. Most CRC deaths (1,033,541) occurred in people diagnosed at age 50 and older.

The researchers calculated an average county-level young-onset CRC mortality rate of 1.78 deaths per 100,000 population, compared with a CRC mortality rate of 56.82 per 100,000 population among individuals 50 and older.

Overall, for individuals younger than 50 at diagnosis, the researchers found two hot spots – in the Southeast (relative risk, 1.24) and in the Great Lakes region (RR, 1.10). They identified cold spots in lower Wisconsin (RR, 0.87), the Northeast (RR, 0.92), southwest Texas (RR, 0.90), and Western counties more broadly, including Alaska (RR, 0.82).

Further analysis of those diagnosed when younger than 35 revealed two significant young-onset CRC mortality hot spots – in the Northeast (RR, 1.25) and the upper Midwest (RR, 1.11). In this youngest group, the team also found three significant cold spots – in the Southwest (RR, 0.74), in California (RR, 0.78), and in the Mountain West (RR, 0.82).

Among those aged 35-49 years at diagnosis, researchers found three hot spots – two in the Southeast (RR,1.20 and 1.16) and in the Great Lakes region (RR, 1.12). Several cold spots emerged from the mortality data on young-onset CRC in this age group – in the Pacific/Mountain West (RR, 0.90), in California (RR, 0.82), southern Texas (RR, 0.89), and the Southwest more broadly (RR, 0.86).

“Though cold spots were similar across strata, young-onset CRC hot spots shifted southward in the 35-49 age stratum in comparison to the less than 35 group,” the team notes.

They acknowledge several limitations to the study, including its “ecological nature” and the lack of adjustment for stage at diagnosis.

In comments to this news organization, Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the approach used by the researchers was “very interesting.”

Dr. Chan said that this is “one of the first studies that has given us insight into whether there is potential geographic variation in the incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer.”

This, he continued, is “very helpful in terms of thinking about potential risk factors for early-onset cancer and giving us more information about where we might want to focus our efforts in terms of prevention.”

Dr. Chan added that another interesting aspect of the study was that “the patterns might be different, depending on how you define early-onset cancer,” whether as “very-early onset,” defined as onset in those younger than 35, or the “less stringent definition” of 35-49 years.

He said that, “within the group that we’re calling very-early onset, there may be enriched factors,” compared with people who are “a little bit older.”

The research was supported by a National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health grant to Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Schmit reports no relevant financial relationships. Other authors have relationships with Exelixis, Tempus, Olympus, Anthos, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Nektar Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi, and WebMD/Medscape. Dr. Chan reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new geographic analysis of U.S. death rates from young-onset colorectal cancer found distinctive regional patterns that varied by age.

The so-called hot and cold spots of mortality from young-onset CRC differed slightly for people younger than 50 and those younger than 35, report the researchers, who say such studies may lead to better understanding of the underlying factors as well as to targeted interventions.

The authors suggest that deaths in the youngest young-onset CRC individuals “may be driven by a distinct set of factors, compared with deaths among older young-onset CRC and average-onset CRC patients.”

They add that “unmeasured factors ... may drive anomalous young-onset CRC mortality rates, either independently or in conjunction with demographic [and] modifiable variables accounted for here.”

The research was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Incidence, mortality rates on the rise

The incidence and mortality rates of young-onset CRC have been increasing for decades, the authors write, but it has only recently begun to attract public health attention.

Risk factors and prognostic indicators, such as smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption, diabetes, sex, race, and socioeconomic factors, have been implicated in the development of the condition.

Geospatial distribution of young-onset CRC adds an “important [layer] for understanding the underlying drivers of mortality and allocating public health resources,” the authors write.

It is “too soon” to draw conclusions about the cause of the hot and cold spots, cautioned senior author Stephanie L. Schmit, PhD, vice chair of the Genomic Medicine Institute at the Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic.

Speaking to this news organization, she said, “Additional factors like proximity to primary care, gastroenterology, and cancer care facilities or novel environmental exposures may contribute to hot spots.”

On the other hand, “lifestyle factors like diet and exercise might contribute to some extent to cold spots,” she added.

While Dr. Schmit said it would be “challenging” to replicate the findings nationally, “further analyses at more granular geographic levels would be incredibly helpful.”
 

Exploring the geographical distribution

To explore the geographical distribution of young-onset CRC mortality, the researchers gathered 20 years of data on more than 1 million CRC deaths from 3,036 U.S. counties. With aggregated county-level information from 1999 to 2019, they derived mortality rates from CDC WONDER underlying cause of death data.

Over the study period, there were 69,976 deaths from CRC among individuals diagnosed before age 50, including 7,325 persons diagnosed younger than 35. Most CRC deaths (1,033,541) occurred in people diagnosed at age 50 and older.

The researchers calculated an average county-level young-onset CRC mortality rate of 1.78 deaths per 100,000 population, compared with a CRC mortality rate of 56.82 per 100,000 population among individuals 50 and older.

Overall, for individuals younger than 50 at diagnosis, the researchers found two hot spots – in the Southeast (relative risk, 1.24) and in the Great Lakes region (RR, 1.10). They identified cold spots in lower Wisconsin (RR, 0.87), the Northeast (RR, 0.92), southwest Texas (RR, 0.90), and Western counties more broadly, including Alaska (RR, 0.82).

Further analysis of those diagnosed when younger than 35 revealed two significant young-onset CRC mortality hot spots – in the Northeast (RR, 1.25) and the upper Midwest (RR, 1.11). In this youngest group, the team also found three significant cold spots – in the Southwest (RR, 0.74), in California (RR, 0.78), and in the Mountain West (RR, 0.82).

Among those aged 35-49 years at diagnosis, researchers found three hot spots – two in the Southeast (RR,1.20 and 1.16) and in the Great Lakes region (RR, 1.12). Several cold spots emerged from the mortality data on young-onset CRC in this age group – in the Pacific/Mountain West (RR, 0.90), in California (RR, 0.82), southern Texas (RR, 0.89), and the Southwest more broadly (RR, 0.86).

“Though cold spots were similar across strata, young-onset CRC hot spots shifted southward in the 35-49 age stratum in comparison to the less than 35 group,” the team notes.

They acknowledge several limitations to the study, including its “ecological nature” and the lack of adjustment for stage at diagnosis.

In comments to this news organization, Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the approach used by the researchers was “very interesting.”

Dr. Chan said that this is “one of the first studies that has given us insight into whether there is potential geographic variation in the incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer.”

This, he continued, is “very helpful in terms of thinking about potential risk factors for early-onset cancer and giving us more information about where we might want to focus our efforts in terms of prevention.”

Dr. Chan added that another interesting aspect of the study was that “the patterns might be different, depending on how you define early-onset cancer,” whether as “very-early onset,” defined as onset in those younger than 35, or the “less stringent definition” of 35-49 years.

He said that, “within the group that we’re calling very-early onset, there may be enriched factors,” compared with people who are “a little bit older.”

The research was supported by a National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health grant to Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Schmit reports no relevant financial relationships. Other authors have relationships with Exelixis, Tempus, Olympus, Anthos, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Nektar Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi, and WebMD/Medscape. Dr. Chan reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new geographic analysis of U.S. death rates from young-onset colorectal cancer found distinctive regional patterns that varied by age.

The so-called hot and cold spots of mortality from young-onset CRC differed slightly for people younger than 50 and those younger than 35, report the researchers, who say such studies may lead to better understanding of the underlying factors as well as to targeted interventions.

The authors suggest that deaths in the youngest young-onset CRC individuals “may be driven by a distinct set of factors, compared with deaths among older young-onset CRC and average-onset CRC patients.”

They add that “unmeasured factors ... may drive anomalous young-onset CRC mortality rates, either independently or in conjunction with demographic [and] modifiable variables accounted for here.”

The research was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Incidence, mortality rates on the rise

The incidence and mortality rates of young-onset CRC have been increasing for decades, the authors write, but it has only recently begun to attract public health attention.

Risk factors and prognostic indicators, such as smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption, diabetes, sex, race, and socioeconomic factors, have been implicated in the development of the condition.

Geospatial distribution of young-onset CRC adds an “important [layer] for understanding the underlying drivers of mortality and allocating public health resources,” the authors write.

It is “too soon” to draw conclusions about the cause of the hot and cold spots, cautioned senior author Stephanie L. Schmit, PhD, vice chair of the Genomic Medicine Institute at the Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic.

Speaking to this news organization, she said, “Additional factors like proximity to primary care, gastroenterology, and cancer care facilities or novel environmental exposures may contribute to hot spots.”

On the other hand, “lifestyle factors like diet and exercise might contribute to some extent to cold spots,” she added.

While Dr. Schmit said it would be “challenging” to replicate the findings nationally, “further analyses at more granular geographic levels would be incredibly helpful.”
 

Exploring the geographical distribution

To explore the geographical distribution of young-onset CRC mortality, the researchers gathered 20 years of data on more than 1 million CRC deaths from 3,036 U.S. counties. With aggregated county-level information from 1999 to 2019, they derived mortality rates from CDC WONDER underlying cause of death data.

Over the study period, there were 69,976 deaths from CRC among individuals diagnosed before age 50, including 7,325 persons diagnosed younger than 35. Most CRC deaths (1,033,541) occurred in people diagnosed at age 50 and older.

The researchers calculated an average county-level young-onset CRC mortality rate of 1.78 deaths per 100,000 population, compared with a CRC mortality rate of 56.82 per 100,000 population among individuals 50 and older.

Overall, for individuals younger than 50 at diagnosis, the researchers found two hot spots – in the Southeast (relative risk, 1.24) and in the Great Lakes region (RR, 1.10). They identified cold spots in lower Wisconsin (RR, 0.87), the Northeast (RR, 0.92), southwest Texas (RR, 0.90), and Western counties more broadly, including Alaska (RR, 0.82).

Further analysis of those diagnosed when younger than 35 revealed two significant young-onset CRC mortality hot spots – in the Northeast (RR, 1.25) and the upper Midwest (RR, 1.11). In this youngest group, the team also found three significant cold spots – in the Southwest (RR, 0.74), in California (RR, 0.78), and in the Mountain West (RR, 0.82).

Among those aged 35-49 years at diagnosis, researchers found three hot spots – two in the Southeast (RR,1.20 and 1.16) and in the Great Lakes region (RR, 1.12). Several cold spots emerged from the mortality data on young-onset CRC in this age group – in the Pacific/Mountain West (RR, 0.90), in California (RR, 0.82), southern Texas (RR, 0.89), and the Southwest more broadly (RR, 0.86).

“Though cold spots were similar across strata, young-onset CRC hot spots shifted southward in the 35-49 age stratum in comparison to the less than 35 group,” the team notes.

They acknowledge several limitations to the study, including its “ecological nature” and the lack of adjustment for stage at diagnosis.

In comments to this news organization, Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the approach used by the researchers was “very interesting.”

Dr. Chan said that this is “one of the first studies that has given us insight into whether there is potential geographic variation in the incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer.”

This, he continued, is “very helpful in terms of thinking about potential risk factors for early-onset cancer and giving us more information about where we might want to focus our efforts in terms of prevention.”

Dr. Chan added that another interesting aspect of the study was that “the patterns might be different, depending on how you define early-onset cancer,” whether as “very-early onset,” defined as onset in those younger than 35, or the “less stringent definition” of 35-49 years.

He said that, “within the group that we’re calling very-early onset, there may be enriched factors,” compared with people who are “a little bit older.”

The research was supported by a National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health grant to Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Schmit reports no relevant financial relationships. Other authors have relationships with Exelixis, Tempus, Olympus, Anthos, Bayer, BMS, Janssen, Nektar Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi, and WebMD/Medscape. Dr. Chan reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

When anti–tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) treatment fails to achieve remission for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), tofacitinib (Xeljanz) appears more effect sooner than vedolizumab (Entyvio), suggests a Dutch registry study.

Data on nearly 150 patients with UC who had already undergone treatment with anti-TNF drugs showed that combined clinical and biochemical remission was about five times more likely with tofacitinib versus vedolizumab within 12 weeks of starting therapy.

However, the differences tailed off over subsequent weeks, such that there was no significant difference in combined remission rates at 52 weeks. There were also no notable differences in safety between the two drugs.

“These results may help in guiding clinical decisionmaking after anti-TNF failure in patients with UC,” the authors write.

The research was published online by Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Real-world evidence

“This study offers more real-world evidence than a standard randomized controlled trial, since there was no randomization between the two study groups and no strict inclusion and exclusion criteria,” co–senior authors Tessa Straatmijer, MD, PhD candidate, and Marjolijn Duijvestein, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

They continued: “It is known that tofacitinib is more rapid of action compared to vedolizumab. We therefore expected that the odds ratio of remission rates between the two groups would be higher at weeks 12 and 24, compared to week 52.”

“We will continue with collecting data in our prospective cohort up to 10 years after initiating tofacitinib or vedolizumab,” Dr. Straatmijer and Dr. Duijvestein added. “Hopefully we can provide long-term outcomes after a couple of years.”

The authors highlight that for a “considerable proportion” of patients with UC, their condition does not respond to anti-TNF drugs, they experience adverse effects, or the response diminishes over time. Alternatives, such as vedolizumab and tofacitinib, are typically “prescribed after failure of the anti-TNF,” owing to their price and clinician experience.

While vedolizumab (an α4β7 integrin blocker) and tofacitinib (a Janus kinase inhibitor) have different mechanisms of action, head-to-head randomized controlled trials comparing their efficacy among patients with UC whose condition is refractory to anti-TNF are “lacking,” they add. “However, to guide physician decisionmaking on the most suitable drug choice after anti-TNF failure, effectiveness data comparing tofacitinib with vedolizumab is pivotal.”

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of the next therapeutic options, the team examined data from the Dutch Initiative on Crohn and Colitis registry.

They identified nearly 300 adult patients with clinical or biochemical disease activity who had initiated treatment with vedolizumab or tofacitinib. They excluded patients without prior anti-TNF treatment, those who had previously been treated with vedolizumab or tofacitinib, and those who did not have clinical and biochemical or endoscopic disease activity at baseline. The final analysis included 83 patients given vedolizumab and 65 treated with tofacitinib.

Patients given tofacitinib received 10 mg twice daily for the first 8 weeks, followed by maintenance treatment of 5 mg twice daily, with optional dose optimization in case of insufficient response. Vedolizumab was administered intravenously in line with the label; 300 mg was administered at weeks 0, 2, and 6, followed by 300 mg every 8 weeks, with a shortened infusion interval in cases of inadequate response.

There were few differences between the two groups at baseline, although patients given vedolizumab had been treated longer than those in the tofacitinib group (12 years vs. 7 years). Vedolizumab patients were also more likely to be receiving concomitant oral prednisone at baseline (50.6% vs. 30.8%).
 

Early difference fades

Corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 12 was observed in 27.7% of patients in the vedolizumab group, rising to 38.6% at week 24 and 37.3% at week 52. Among those given tofacitinib, the rates of clinical remission were 56.9% at week 12, 60.0% at week 24, and 55.4% at week 52.

Propensity score-weight analysis revealed that tofacitinib patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission at weeks 12, 24, and 52, compared with those given vedolizumab, at odds ratio of 6.33, 3.02, and 1.86, respectively.

Biochemical remission rates among patients treated with vedolizumab were 25.3% at week 12, 28.9% at week 24, and 22.9% at week 52. For the tofacitinib group, the rates were 40.0%, 36.9%, and 27.7%, respectively. Biochemical remission was defined by C-reactive protein or fecal calprotectin levels.

The likelihood of biochemical remission was again greater with tofacitinib than with vedolizumab, at an odds ratio of 3.27 at week 12, 1.87 at week 24, and 1.81 at week 52.

Combined clinical and biochemical remission was more likely among patients given tofacitinib versus vedolizumab at week 12, at an odds ratio of 5.05, and at week 24, at an odds ratio of 2.11. However, at week 52, the difference was no longer significant, at an odds ratio of 1.17.

The authors note that there was no difference in the rate of infection between the two treatment groups, and the rate of severe adverse events was similar. However, three patients receiving tofacitinib experienced herpes simplex infections, compared with none of those given vedolizumab.

But, compared with the tofacitinib group, patients taking vedolizumab were more likely to discontinue treatment before 52 weeks, primarily because of a lack of response to treatment.

“The present study underlines that both vedolizumab and tofacitinib are relatively safe treatment options in patients with UC in a 12-month period,” the team writes.
 

‘Interesting’ efficacy data

Approached for comment, Alan C. Moss, MD, a professor of gastroenterology at Boston University School of Medicine, said that the findings are “interesting” for clinicians.

“We have so many treatment options right now, picking one over the other, particularly in patients like this who fail anti-TNF, is very important,” he told this news organization.

While he noted that registry data such as these are usually powered for “one outcome” (either efficacy or safety), “the immediate conclusions that come to mind are that certainly the efficacy of the two drugs in this patient population looks impressive.

“What we do note, though, is over time, as you get longer into the study, they start to become closer in terms of overall remission,” which Dr. Moss said fits with the current understanding that vedolizumab “takes longer to work.”

The take-away lesson from the study is that the short-term efficacy of tofacitinib is “superior,” Dr. Moss said, but, over the medium to long term, vedolizumab “may turn out to be more equivalent.”

Dr. Moss also pointed out that approximately 40% of patients given tofacitinib in the study began with the higher 10-mg twice-daily dose, “which is not the FDA-approved maintenance dose,” and over time about a quarter stayed on the higher dose.

“What that tells us is that, yes, it works faster if you’re using the higher dose, and over time, a certain proportion of these patients needed a higher dose to get these results,” he said.

Consequently, Dr. Moss said that the two treatment groups were not “equivalent” in terms of the doses given relative to normal maintenance dose.

The Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Fellowship is sponsored by AbbVie, Pfizer, Takeda, Celgene, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Cablon Medical, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Mundipharma, Dr. Falk Pharma, Sandoz, and Tramedico. Dr. Duijvestein has relationships with Echo Pharma, Robarts Clinical Trials, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda, Tillotts Pharma, and Dr. Falk Pharma. Other authors have numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Moss has relationships with Pfizer and Janssen.

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

When anti–tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) treatment fails to achieve remission for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), tofacitinib (Xeljanz) appears more effect sooner than vedolizumab (Entyvio), suggests a Dutch registry study.

Data on nearly 150 patients with UC who had already undergone treatment with anti-TNF drugs showed that combined clinical and biochemical remission was about five times more likely with tofacitinib versus vedolizumab within 12 weeks of starting therapy.

However, the differences tailed off over subsequent weeks, such that there was no significant difference in combined remission rates at 52 weeks. There were also no notable differences in safety between the two drugs.

“These results may help in guiding clinical decisionmaking after anti-TNF failure in patients with UC,” the authors write.

The research was published online by Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Real-world evidence

“This study offers more real-world evidence than a standard randomized controlled trial, since there was no randomization between the two study groups and no strict inclusion and exclusion criteria,” co–senior authors Tessa Straatmijer, MD, PhD candidate, and Marjolijn Duijvestein, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

They continued: “It is known that tofacitinib is more rapid of action compared to vedolizumab. We therefore expected that the odds ratio of remission rates between the two groups would be higher at weeks 12 and 24, compared to week 52.”

“We will continue with collecting data in our prospective cohort up to 10 years after initiating tofacitinib or vedolizumab,” Dr. Straatmijer and Dr. Duijvestein added. “Hopefully we can provide long-term outcomes after a couple of years.”

The authors highlight that for a “considerable proportion” of patients with UC, their condition does not respond to anti-TNF drugs, they experience adverse effects, or the response diminishes over time. Alternatives, such as vedolizumab and tofacitinib, are typically “prescribed after failure of the anti-TNF,” owing to their price and clinician experience.

While vedolizumab (an α4β7 integrin blocker) and tofacitinib (a Janus kinase inhibitor) have different mechanisms of action, head-to-head randomized controlled trials comparing their efficacy among patients with UC whose condition is refractory to anti-TNF are “lacking,” they add. “However, to guide physician decisionmaking on the most suitable drug choice after anti-TNF failure, effectiveness data comparing tofacitinib with vedolizumab is pivotal.”

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of the next therapeutic options, the team examined data from the Dutch Initiative on Crohn and Colitis registry.

They identified nearly 300 adult patients with clinical or biochemical disease activity who had initiated treatment with vedolizumab or tofacitinib. They excluded patients without prior anti-TNF treatment, those who had previously been treated with vedolizumab or tofacitinib, and those who did not have clinical and biochemical or endoscopic disease activity at baseline. The final analysis included 83 patients given vedolizumab and 65 treated with tofacitinib.

Patients given tofacitinib received 10 mg twice daily for the first 8 weeks, followed by maintenance treatment of 5 mg twice daily, with optional dose optimization in case of insufficient response. Vedolizumab was administered intravenously in line with the label; 300 mg was administered at weeks 0, 2, and 6, followed by 300 mg every 8 weeks, with a shortened infusion interval in cases of inadequate response.

There were few differences between the two groups at baseline, although patients given vedolizumab had been treated longer than those in the tofacitinib group (12 years vs. 7 years). Vedolizumab patients were also more likely to be receiving concomitant oral prednisone at baseline (50.6% vs. 30.8%).
 

Early difference fades

Corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 12 was observed in 27.7% of patients in the vedolizumab group, rising to 38.6% at week 24 and 37.3% at week 52. Among those given tofacitinib, the rates of clinical remission were 56.9% at week 12, 60.0% at week 24, and 55.4% at week 52.

Propensity score-weight analysis revealed that tofacitinib patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission at weeks 12, 24, and 52, compared with those given vedolizumab, at odds ratio of 6.33, 3.02, and 1.86, respectively.

Biochemical remission rates among patients treated with vedolizumab were 25.3% at week 12, 28.9% at week 24, and 22.9% at week 52. For the tofacitinib group, the rates were 40.0%, 36.9%, and 27.7%, respectively. Biochemical remission was defined by C-reactive protein or fecal calprotectin levels.

The likelihood of biochemical remission was again greater with tofacitinib than with vedolizumab, at an odds ratio of 3.27 at week 12, 1.87 at week 24, and 1.81 at week 52.

Combined clinical and biochemical remission was more likely among patients given tofacitinib versus vedolizumab at week 12, at an odds ratio of 5.05, and at week 24, at an odds ratio of 2.11. However, at week 52, the difference was no longer significant, at an odds ratio of 1.17.

The authors note that there was no difference in the rate of infection between the two treatment groups, and the rate of severe adverse events was similar. However, three patients receiving tofacitinib experienced herpes simplex infections, compared with none of those given vedolizumab.

But, compared with the tofacitinib group, patients taking vedolizumab were more likely to discontinue treatment before 52 weeks, primarily because of a lack of response to treatment.

“The present study underlines that both vedolizumab and tofacitinib are relatively safe treatment options in patients with UC in a 12-month period,” the team writes.
 

‘Interesting’ efficacy data

Approached for comment, Alan C. Moss, MD, a professor of gastroenterology at Boston University School of Medicine, said that the findings are “interesting” for clinicians.

“We have so many treatment options right now, picking one over the other, particularly in patients like this who fail anti-TNF, is very important,” he told this news organization.

While he noted that registry data such as these are usually powered for “one outcome” (either efficacy or safety), “the immediate conclusions that come to mind are that certainly the efficacy of the two drugs in this patient population looks impressive.

“What we do note, though, is over time, as you get longer into the study, they start to become closer in terms of overall remission,” which Dr. Moss said fits with the current understanding that vedolizumab “takes longer to work.”

The take-away lesson from the study is that the short-term efficacy of tofacitinib is “superior,” Dr. Moss said, but, over the medium to long term, vedolizumab “may turn out to be more equivalent.”

Dr. Moss also pointed out that approximately 40% of patients given tofacitinib in the study began with the higher 10-mg twice-daily dose, “which is not the FDA-approved maintenance dose,” and over time about a quarter stayed on the higher dose.

“What that tells us is that, yes, it works faster if you’re using the higher dose, and over time, a certain proportion of these patients needed a higher dose to get these results,” he said.

Consequently, Dr. Moss said that the two treatment groups were not “equivalent” in terms of the doses given relative to normal maintenance dose.

The Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Fellowship is sponsored by AbbVie, Pfizer, Takeda, Celgene, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Cablon Medical, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Mundipharma, Dr. Falk Pharma, Sandoz, and Tramedico. Dr. Duijvestein has relationships with Echo Pharma, Robarts Clinical Trials, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda, Tillotts Pharma, and Dr. Falk Pharma. Other authors have numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Moss has relationships with Pfizer and Janssen.

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

When anti–tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) treatment fails to achieve remission for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), tofacitinib (Xeljanz) appears more effect sooner than vedolizumab (Entyvio), suggests a Dutch registry study.

Data on nearly 150 patients with UC who had already undergone treatment with anti-TNF drugs showed that combined clinical and biochemical remission was about five times more likely with tofacitinib versus vedolizumab within 12 weeks of starting therapy.

However, the differences tailed off over subsequent weeks, such that there was no significant difference in combined remission rates at 52 weeks. There were also no notable differences in safety between the two drugs.

“These results may help in guiding clinical decisionmaking after anti-TNF failure in patients with UC,” the authors write.

The research was published online by Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Real-world evidence

“This study offers more real-world evidence than a standard randomized controlled trial, since there was no randomization between the two study groups and no strict inclusion and exclusion criteria,” co–senior authors Tessa Straatmijer, MD, PhD candidate, and Marjolijn Duijvestein, MD, Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

They continued: “It is known that tofacitinib is more rapid of action compared to vedolizumab. We therefore expected that the odds ratio of remission rates between the two groups would be higher at weeks 12 and 24, compared to week 52.”

“We will continue with collecting data in our prospective cohort up to 10 years after initiating tofacitinib or vedolizumab,” Dr. Straatmijer and Dr. Duijvestein added. “Hopefully we can provide long-term outcomes after a couple of years.”

The authors highlight that for a “considerable proportion” of patients with UC, their condition does not respond to anti-TNF drugs, they experience adverse effects, or the response diminishes over time. Alternatives, such as vedolizumab and tofacitinib, are typically “prescribed after failure of the anti-TNF,” owing to their price and clinician experience.

While vedolizumab (an α4β7 integrin blocker) and tofacitinib (a Janus kinase inhibitor) have different mechanisms of action, head-to-head randomized controlled trials comparing their efficacy among patients with UC whose condition is refractory to anti-TNF are “lacking,” they add. “However, to guide physician decisionmaking on the most suitable drug choice after anti-TNF failure, effectiveness data comparing tofacitinib with vedolizumab is pivotal.”

To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of the next therapeutic options, the team examined data from the Dutch Initiative on Crohn and Colitis registry.

They identified nearly 300 adult patients with clinical or biochemical disease activity who had initiated treatment with vedolizumab or tofacitinib. They excluded patients without prior anti-TNF treatment, those who had previously been treated with vedolizumab or tofacitinib, and those who did not have clinical and biochemical or endoscopic disease activity at baseline. The final analysis included 83 patients given vedolizumab and 65 treated with tofacitinib.

Patients given tofacitinib received 10 mg twice daily for the first 8 weeks, followed by maintenance treatment of 5 mg twice daily, with optional dose optimization in case of insufficient response. Vedolizumab was administered intravenously in line with the label; 300 mg was administered at weeks 0, 2, and 6, followed by 300 mg every 8 weeks, with a shortened infusion interval in cases of inadequate response.

There were few differences between the two groups at baseline, although patients given vedolizumab had been treated longer than those in the tofacitinib group (12 years vs. 7 years). Vedolizumab patients were also more likely to be receiving concomitant oral prednisone at baseline (50.6% vs. 30.8%).
 

Early difference fades

Corticosteroid-free clinical remission at week 12 was observed in 27.7% of patients in the vedolizumab group, rising to 38.6% at week 24 and 37.3% at week 52. Among those given tofacitinib, the rates of clinical remission were 56.9% at week 12, 60.0% at week 24, and 55.4% at week 52.

Propensity score-weight analysis revealed that tofacitinib patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission at weeks 12, 24, and 52, compared with those given vedolizumab, at odds ratio of 6.33, 3.02, and 1.86, respectively.

Biochemical remission rates among patients treated with vedolizumab were 25.3% at week 12, 28.9% at week 24, and 22.9% at week 52. For the tofacitinib group, the rates were 40.0%, 36.9%, and 27.7%, respectively. Biochemical remission was defined by C-reactive protein or fecal calprotectin levels.

The likelihood of biochemical remission was again greater with tofacitinib than with vedolizumab, at an odds ratio of 3.27 at week 12, 1.87 at week 24, and 1.81 at week 52.

Combined clinical and biochemical remission was more likely among patients given tofacitinib versus vedolizumab at week 12, at an odds ratio of 5.05, and at week 24, at an odds ratio of 2.11. However, at week 52, the difference was no longer significant, at an odds ratio of 1.17.

The authors note that there was no difference in the rate of infection between the two treatment groups, and the rate of severe adverse events was similar. However, three patients receiving tofacitinib experienced herpes simplex infections, compared with none of those given vedolizumab.

But, compared with the tofacitinib group, patients taking vedolizumab were more likely to discontinue treatment before 52 weeks, primarily because of a lack of response to treatment.

“The present study underlines that both vedolizumab and tofacitinib are relatively safe treatment options in patients with UC in a 12-month period,” the team writes.
 

‘Interesting’ efficacy data

Approached for comment, Alan C. Moss, MD, a professor of gastroenterology at Boston University School of Medicine, said that the findings are “interesting” for clinicians.

“We have so many treatment options right now, picking one over the other, particularly in patients like this who fail anti-TNF, is very important,” he told this news organization.

While he noted that registry data such as these are usually powered for “one outcome” (either efficacy or safety), “the immediate conclusions that come to mind are that certainly the efficacy of the two drugs in this patient population looks impressive.

“What we do note, though, is over time, as you get longer into the study, they start to become closer in terms of overall remission,” which Dr. Moss said fits with the current understanding that vedolizumab “takes longer to work.”

The take-away lesson from the study is that the short-term efficacy of tofacitinib is “superior,” Dr. Moss said, but, over the medium to long term, vedolizumab “may turn out to be more equivalent.”

Dr. Moss also pointed out that approximately 40% of patients given tofacitinib in the study began with the higher 10-mg twice-daily dose, “which is not the FDA-approved maintenance dose,” and over time about a quarter stayed on the higher dose.

“What that tells us is that, yes, it works faster if you’re using the higher dose, and over time, a certain proportion of these patients needed a higher dose to get these results,” he said.

Consequently, Dr. Moss said that the two treatment groups were not “equivalent” in terms of the doses given relative to normal maintenance dose.

The Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Fellowship is sponsored by AbbVie, Pfizer, Takeda, Celgene, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Cablon Medical, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Mundipharma, Dr. Falk Pharma, Sandoz, and Tramedico. Dr. Duijvestein has relationships with Echo Pharma, Robarts Clinical Trials, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda, Tillotts Pharma, and Dr. Falk Pharma. Other authors have numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Moss has relationships with Pfizer and Janssen.

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

GLASGOW, Scotland – The wound-healing benefits seen with a topical agent containing the bark derivative oleogel-S10 (Filsuvez) for patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) continue to accrue with continued use, suggests data from an open-label extension of EASE, the phase 3 safety and efficacy study of the treatment.

Over 200 patients from the trial, including 105 who began treatment with a control gel, continued taking oleogel-S10 after 90 days. The current interim analysis at 12 months indicates there was a 55% reduction in the proportion of the body affected, compared with baseline.

Moreover, reductions in skin activity scores seen in the double-blind phase of the trial were maintained during the open-label extension. About 6% of patients experienced adverse events that led to withdrawal from the study.

The results show that oleogel-S10 was associated with “accelerated wound healing,” said study presenter Tracey Cunningham, MD, chief medical officer, Amryt Pharmaceuticals DAC, Dublin, which is developing the topical agent. “There were no new safety signals with this longer exposure to oleogel-S10, and patients had sustained improvement in wound burden,” she added.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 6.

In April, European Medicines Agency recommended approval of oleogel-S10 for the treatment of partial-thickness skin wounds associated with dystrophic and junctional EB for patients aged 6 months and older.

However, just a month earlier, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declined to approve the topical agent for use in EB, even after it extended its review by 3 months to include additional analyses of data previously submitted by the company.

In the post-presentation discussion, Dr. Cunningham said that the FDA had “not been satisfied at this point with the information that we have given them,” adding, “We don’t agree with the decision, and we will be appealing.”

Raman K. Madan, MD, a dermatologist at Northwell Health, Huntington, New York, who was not involved in the study, said that the reductions in wound healing seen in the study are “meaningful” and that the numbers represent a “big breakthrough.”

He told this news organization that there are “very few products on the market” for EB and that having an option for patients “would be amazing.”

“The big issue here would be cost and coverage for patients,” he said. If approved, “hopefully” it will be affordable, he added.

Dr. Madan noted that from his perspective, the majority of the reactions to the topical gel were “mild,” and there are “a lot of confounding factors” underlying the number of serious adverse events. “These patients with epidermolysis are prone to some of these issues regardless of treatment,” he said.

During her presentation, Dr. Cunningham noted that EB is a rare, debilitating condition that is characterized by varying degrees of skin fragility, blisters, and impaired wound healing that in turn lead to serious complications that affect quality of life.

While wound management is a “fundamental priority” for patients living with EB, she said, there is a “high, unmet” clinical need.

To those ends, EASE was the largest randomized controlled phase 3 efficacy and safety study in EB. In the study, 252 patients were allocated to receive oleogel-S10 or control gel plus standard-of-care nonadhesive wound dressing.

The double-blind phase of the trial met its primary endpoint: A higher proportion of patients who were given oleogel-S10 achieved first complete closure of the EB target wound by day 45, compared with patients who were given control gel, at 41.3% versus 28.9%. This equated to a relative risk of wound closure by day 45 of 1.44, or an odds ratio of 1.84 (P = .013).

However, as reported at the time by this news organization, the difference in time to wound healing by day 90 between the two patient groups was not statistically significant (P = .302), with 50.5% of oleogel-S10 patients achieving wound closure, versus 43.9% of those in the control group.

Dr. Cunningham discussed the open-label extension, which involved 205 patients from the double-blind phase (mean age, of 16.3 years) treated with oleogel-S10 or control gel plus standard-of-care nonadhesive wound dressing for 24 months.

In presenting the results of the first 12 months of the open-label extension, she said that oleogel-S10 led to “consistent” reductions in the body surface area percentage (BSAP) affected by EB. The overall reduction from baseline was 55% after receiving treatment for 15 months.

Between day 90 and month 12 of the open-label extension, the absolute BSAP was reduced from 7.4% to 5.4% for patients who had received oleogel-S10 from the start of the study. For those who started in the control group and then switched to the oleogel-S10 arm during the open-label extension, the reduction was from 8.3% to 6.4%.

Dr. Cunningham pointed out that a 1% reduction in BSAP equates approximately to the palmar surface of the hand.

Scores on the Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index (EBDASI) Skin activity subscale indicated that the reductions achieved in the double-blind phase of the trial were maintained.

Among patients who received oleogel-S10 from the start of the trial, EBDASI Skin scores were reduced from 19.6 at baseline to 13.5 at 12 months’ follow-up in the open-label extension. The reduction was from 19.6 to 13.5 for those who began the trial taking control gel.

Dr. Cunningham showed that adverse events of any grade were seen in 72.0% of patients who began taking oleogel-S10 at the start of the trial and in 69.5% of those who began the trial taking control gel.

Serious adverse events were recorded in 23.0% and 20.0% of patients, respectively, while 6.0% of those who initially received oleogel-S10 and 6.7% of those initially assigned to control gel experienced adverse events that led to study withdrawal during the open-label phase.

The most frequently reported adverse events in the open-label extension were wound complications, seen in 39.5% of patients; anemia, seen in 14.1%; wound infection, seen in 9.3%; pyrexia, seen in 8.3%; and pruritus, seen in 5.9%. No more details regarding adverse events were provided.

The study was funded by Amryt Pharmaceuticals DAC. Dr. Cunningham is an employee of Amryt Pharmaceuticals. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

GLASGOW, Scotland – The wound-healing benefits seen with a topical agent containing the bark derivative oleogel-S10 (Filsuvez) for patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) continue to accrue with continued use, suggests data from an open-label extension of EASE, the phase 3 safety and efficacy study of the treatment.

Over 200 patients from the trial, including 105 who began treatment with a control gel, continued taking oleogel-S10 after 90 days. The current interim analysis at 12 months indicates there was a 55% reduction in the proportion of the body affected, compared with baseline.

Moreover, reductions in skin activity scores seen in the double-blind phase of the trial were maintained during the open-label extension. About 6% of patients experienced adverse events that led to withdrawal from the study.

The results show that oleogel-S10 was associated with “accelerated wound healing,” said study presenter Tracey Cunningham, MD, chief medical officer, Amryt Pharmaceuticals DAC, Dublin, which is developing the topical agent. “There were no new safety signals with this longer exposure to oleogel-S10, and patients had sustained improvement in wound burden,” she added.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 6.

In April, European Medicines Agency recommended approval of oleogel-S10 for the treatment of partial-thickness skin wounds associated with dystrophic and junctional EB for patients aged 6 months and older.

However, just a month earlier, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declined to approve the topical agent for use in EB, even after it extended its review by 3 months to include additional analyses of data previously submitted by the company.

In the post-presentation discussion, Dr. Cunningham said that the FDA had “not been satisfied at this point with the information that we have given them,” adding, “We don’t agree with the decision, and we will be appealing.”

Raman K. Madan, MD, a dermatologist at Northwell Health, Huntington, New York, who was not involved in the study, said that the reductions in wound healing seen in the study are “meaningful” and that the numbers represent a “big breakthrough.”

He told this news organization that there are “very few products on the market” for EB and that having an option for patients “would be amazing.”

“The big issue here would be cost and coverage for patients,” he said. If approved, “hopefully” it will be affordable, he added.

Dr. Madan noted that from his perspective, the majority of the reactions to the topical gel were “mild,” and there are “a lot of confounding factors” underlying the number of serious adverse events. “These patients with epidermolysis are prone to some of these issues regardless of treatment,” he said.

During her presentation, Dr. Cunningham noted that EB is a rare, debilitating condition that is characterized by varying degrees of skin fragility, blisters, and impaired wound healing that in turn lead to serious complications that affect quality of life.

While wound management is a “fundamental priority” for patients living with EB, she said, there is a “high, unmet” clinical need.

To those ends, EASE was the largest randomized controlled phase 3 efficacy and safety study in EB. In the study, 252 patients were allocated to receive oleogel-S10 or control gel plus standard-of-care nonadhesive wound dressing.

The double-blind phase of the trial met its primary endpoint: A higher proportion of patients who were given oleogel-S10 achieved first complete closure of the EB target wound by day 45, compared with patients who were given control gel, at 41.3% versus 28.9%. This equated to a relative risk of wound closure by day 45 of 1.44, or an odds ratio of 1.84 (P = .013).

However, as reported at the time by this news organization, the difference in time to wound healing by day 90 between the two patient groups was not statistically significant (P = .302), with 50.5% of oleogel-S10 patients achieving wound closure, versus 43.9% of those in the control group.

Dr. Cunningham discussed the open-label extension, which involved 205 patients from the double-blind phase (mean age, of 16.3 years) treated with oleogel-S10 or control gel plus standard-of-care nonadhesive wound dressing for 24 months.

In presenting the results of the first 12 months of the open-label extension, she said that oleogel-S10 led to “consistent” reductions in the body surface area percentage (BSAP) affected by EB. The overall reduction from baseline was 55% after receiving treatment for 15 months.

Between day 90 and month 12 of the open-label extension, the absolute BSAP was reduced from 7.4% to 5.4% for patients who had received oleogel-S10 from the start of the study. For those who started in the control group and then switched to the oleogel-S10 arm during the open-label extension, the reduction was from 8.3% to 6.4%.

Dr. Cunningham pointed out that a 1% reduction in BSAP equates approximately to the palmar surface of the hand.

Scores on the Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index (EBDASI) Skin activity subscale indicated that the reductions achieved in the double-blind phase of the trial were maintained.

Among patients who received oleogel-S10 from the start of the trial, EBDASI Skin scores were reduced from 19.6 at baseline to 13.5 at 12 months’ follow-up in the open-label extension. The reduction was from 19.6 to 13.5 for those who began the trial taking control gel.

Dr. Cunningham showed that adverse events of any grade were seen in 72.0% of patients who began taking oleogel-S10 at the start of the trial and in 69.5% of those who began the trial taking control gel.

Serious adverse events were recorded in 23.0% and 20.0% of patients, respectively, while 6.0% of those who initially received oleogel-S10 and 6.7% of those initially assigned to control gel experienced adverse events that led to study withdrawal during the open-label phase.

The most frequently reported adverse events in the open-label extension were wound complications, seen in 39.5% of patients; anemia, seen in 14.1%; wound infection, seen in 9.3%; pyrexia, seen in 8.3%; and pruritus, seen in 5.9%. No more details regarding adverse events were provided.

The study was funded by Amryt Pharmaceuticals DAC. Dr. Cunningham is an employee of Amryt Pharmaceuticals. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

GLASGOW, Scotland – The wound-healing benefits seen with a topical agent containing the bark derivative oleogel-S10 (Filsuvez) for patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) continue to accrue with continued use, suggests data from an open-label extension of EASE, the phase 3 safety and efficacy study of the treatment.

Over 200 patients from the trial, including 105 who began treatment with a control gel, continued taking oleogel-S10 after 90 days. The current interim analysis at 12 months indicates there was a 55% reduction in the proportion of the body affected, compared with baseline.

Moreover, reductions in skin activity scores seen in the double-blind phase of the trial were maintained during the open-label extension. About 6% of patients experienced adverse events that led to withdrawal from the study.

The results show that oleogel-S10 was associated with “accelerated wound healing,” said study presenter Tracey Cunningham, MD, chief medical officer, Amryt Pharmaceuticals DAC, Dublin, which is developing the topical agent. “There were no new safety signals with this longer exposure to oleogel-S10, and patients had sustained improvement in wound burden,” she added.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 6.

In April, European Medicines Agency recommended approval of oleogel-S10 for the treatment of partial-thickness skin wounds associated with dystrophic and junctional EB for patients aged 6 months and older.

However, just a month earlier, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declined to approve the topical agent for use in EB, even after it extended its review by 3 months to include additional analyses of data previously submitted by the company.

In the post-presentation discussion, Dr. Cunningham said that the FDA had “not been satisfied at this point with the information that we have given them,” adding, “We don’t agree with the decision, and we will be appealing.”

Raman K. Madan, MD, a dermatologist at Northwell Health, Huntington, New York, who was not involved in the study, said that the reductions in wound healing seen in the study are “meaningful” and that the numbers represent a “big breakthrough.”

He told this news organization that there are “very few products on the market” for EB and that having an option for patients “would be amazing.”

“The big issue here would be cost and coverage for patients,” he said. If approved, “hopefully” it will be affordable, he added.

Dr. Madan noted that from his perspective, the majority of the reactions to the topical gel were “mild,” and there are “a lot of confounding factors” underlying the number of serious adverse events. “These patients with epidermolysis are prone to some of these issues regardless of treatment,” he said.

During her presentation, Dr. Cunningham noted that EB is a rare, debilitating condition that is characterized by varying degrees of skin fragility, blisters, and impaired wound healing that in turn lead to serious complications that affect quality of life.

While wound management is a “fundamental priority” for patients living with EB, she said, there is a “high, unmet” clinical need.

To those ends, EASE was the largest randomized controlled phase 3 efficacy and safety study in EB. In the study, 252 patients were allocated to receive oleogel-S10 or control gel plus standard-of-care nonadhesive wound dressing.

The double-blind phase of the trial met its primary endpoint: A higher proportion of patients who were given oleogel-S10 achieved first complete closure of the EB target wound by day 45, compared with patients who were given control gel, at 41.3% versus 28.9%. This equated to a relative risk of wound closure by day 45 of 1.44, or an odds ratio of 1.84 (P = .013).

However, as reported at the time by this news organization, the difference in time to wound healing by day 90 between the two patient groups was not statistically significant (P = .302), with 50.5% of oleogel-S10 patients achieving wound closure, versus 43.9% of those in the control group.

Dr. Cunningham discussed the open-label extension, which involved 205 patients from the double-blind phase (mean age, of 16.3 years) treated with oleogel-S10 or control gel plus standard-of-care nonadhesive wound dressing for 24 months.

In presenting the results of the first 12 months of the open-label extension, she said that oleogel-S10 led to “consistent” reductions in the body surface area percentage (BSAP) affected by EB. The overall reduction from baseline was 55% after receiving treatment for 15 months.

Between day 90 and month 12 of the open-label extension, the absolute BSAP was reduced from 7.4% to 5.4% for patients who had received oleogel-S10 from the start of the study. For those who started in the control group and then switched to the oleogel-S10 arm during the open-label extension, the reduction was from 8.3% to 6.4%.

Dr. Cunningham pointed out that a 1% reduction in BSAP equates approximately to the palmar surface of the hand.

Scores on the Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index (EBDASI) Skin activity subscale indicated that the reductions achieved in the double-blind phase of the trial were maintained.

Among patients who received oleogel-S10 from the start of the trial, EBDASI Skin scores were reduced from 19.6 at baseline to 13.5 at 12 months’ follow-up in the open-label extension. The reduction was from 19.6 to 13.5 for those who began the trial taking control gel.

Dr. Cunningham showed that adverse events of any grade were seen in 72.0% of patients who began taking oleogel-S10 at the start of the trial and in 69.5% of those who began the trial taking control gel.

Serious adverse events were recorded in 23.0% and 20.0% of patients, respectively, while 6.0% of those who initially received oleogel-S10 and 6.7% of those initially assigned to control gel experienced adverse events that led to study withdrawal during the open-label phase.

The most frequently reported adverse events in the open-label extension were wound complications, seen in 39.5% of patients; anemia, seen in 14.1%; wound infection, seen in 9.3%; pyrexia, seen in 8.3%; and pruritus, seen in 5.9%. No more details regarding adverse events were provided.

The study was funded by Amryt Pharmaceuticals DAC. Dr. Cunningham is an employee of Amryt Pharmaceuticals. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

GLASGOW, Scotland – There are wide variations across Europe in how the different forms of phototherapy are used in the treatment of atopic eczema for both adults and children, reveals a region-wide survey, which points to the need for management guidelines.

Over 140 phototherapy practitioners from 27 European countries responded to the survey. Of the practitioners surveyed, 96% used narrow-band ultraviolet B (NB-UVB), and about 50% prescribed psoralen and ultraviolet A (PUVA) for adults. Fewer than 10% did so for children.

There was considerable variation in prescribing practices, “especially when it comes to dosing and treatment duration,” said study presenter Mia Steyn, MD, dermatology registrar, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’s Hospital, London.

These results, she said, demonstrate that “an optimal treatment modality either is not known or agreed upon” and that studies are required to determine treatment efficacy, cost, and safety “in a range of skin types.”

Dr. Steyn said that what is needed first is a set of consensus treatment guidelines, “hopefully leading to a randomized controlled trial” that would compare the various treatment options.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 7.

Session co-chair Adam Fityan, MD, a consultant dermatologist at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, U.K., commented that the study was “fascinating” and “really helpful.”

Dr. Fityan, who was not involved with the survey, told this news organization that, “clearly, what we’ve seen is that there is a huge variation in the way everyone uses the different modalities of phototherapy.”

“Having that sort of knowledge will hopefully help us to think a bit more clearly about the regimens and protocols that we use and to maybe find the evidence that everyone needs to have the most effective protocol.”

The data from the study are also useful on an individual level, Dr. Fityan continued, as “you have no idea what anyone is doing” and whether “you are an outlier.”

Dr. Steyn said that phototherapy is commonly used for the treatment of atopic eczema, but the evidence for its efficacy, its impact on quality on life, its cost-effectiveness, and short- and long-term safety is “weak,” particularly in relation to real-life use.

Electronic survey

In lieu of a well-designed randomized controlled trial to answer these questions, the researchers set up a task force to assess how phototherapy is currently being used to treat atopic eczema across the United Kingdom and Europe so as to guide further research.

An electronic survey was devised, and 144 members of phototherapy groups from 27 European countries submitted their responses during 2020. Most responses came from the Netherlands (20), Italy (16), the United Kingdom (14), France (11), and Germany (10).

The results showed that NB-UVB was the most widely used modality of phototherapy, chosen by 96% of respondents. In addition, 17% of respondents said they also prescribed home-based NB-UVB, which was available in eight of the 27 countries.

When asked how they used NB-UVB, the majority (68%) of respondents said they had an age cutoff for use in children, which was set at an average age of 9 years and older, although the range was age 2 years to 16 years.

NBUVB was used as a second-line therapy instead of systemic treatments in up to 93% of adults and in 69% of children. It was used concomitantly with systemic treatment in up to 58% of adults and 11% of children, according to the survey responses.

For about 70% of respondents, the use of NB-UVB was determined by assessing the Fitzpatrick skin type, although almost 40% relied on clinical experience.
 

Frequency of treatment

NB-UVB was prescribed three times a week by 59% of respondents; 31% of respondents prescribed it twice a week; 7%, five times per week; and 2%, four times a week. The typical number of treatments was 21-30 for 53% of respondents, 0-20 treatments for 24%, and 31-40 treatments for 20%.

The dose was typically increased in 10% increments, although there were wide variations in how the treatment was stepped up. Dose was increased after each treatment by almost 50% of respondents, after every two treatments by almost 25%, and after every three treatments by approximately 15%.

For the majority (53%) of respondents, response to NBUVB was assessed after 7-15 treatments, while 43% waited until after 16-30 treatments. Success was defined as a 75% reduction in eczema from baseline by 56% of respondents, while 54% looked to patient satisfaction, and 47% relied on quality of life to determine success of treatment.

Maintenance NB-UVB was never used by 54% of respondents, but 44% said they used it occasionally, and 83% said they did not follow a weaning schedule at the end of treatment.

The most commonly reported adverse effects of NB-UVB were significant erythema, hyperpigmentation, and eczema flare, while the most commonly cited absolute contraindications included a history of melanoma, a history of squamous cell carcinoma, the use of photosensitizing medications, and claustrophobia.
 

Use of PUVA, UVA1

The next most commonly used phototherapy for atopic eczema was PUVA. Although it was available to 83% of respondents, only 52% of respondents had personally prescribed the treatment for adults, and only 7% prescribed it for children.

Of the respondents, 71% said they would switch from NB-UVB to PUVA if desired treatment outcomes were not achieved with the former, and 44% said they would “sometimes consider” PUVA as second-line therapy instead of systemic treatments. Only 13% said they would use it concomitantly with systemic treatment.

Ultraviolet A1 (UVA1) phototherapy was not widely available, with 66% of respondents declaring that they did not have access to this option and just 29% saying they prescribed it.

But when it was used, UVA1 was cited as being used often in adults by 24% of respondents, while 33% used it was used sometimes, and 43% said it was used rarely. It was used for children by 26% of respondents. In addition, 29% said they favored using UVA1 for chronic atopic eczema, and 33% favored using it for acute eczema while 38% had no preference over whether to use it for chronic versus acute atopic eczema.

Similarly to NB-UVB, there were wide variations in the use of PUVA and UVA1 by respondents in terms of dosing schedules, duration of treatment, and how response to treatment was measured.

No funding for the study has been reported. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

GLASGOW, Scotland – There are wide variations across Europe in how the different forms of phototherapy are used in the treatment of atopic eczema for both adults and children, reveals a region-wide survey, which points to the need for management guidelines.

Over 140 phototherapy practitioners from 27 European countries responded to the survey. Of the practitioners surveyed, 96% used narrow-band ultraviolet B (NB-UVB), and about 50% prescribed psoralen and ultraviolet A (PUVA) for adults. Fewer than 10% did so for children.

There was considerable variation in prescribing practices, “especially when it comes to dosing and treatment duration,” said study presenter Mia Steyn, MD, dermatology registrar, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’s Hospital, London.

These results, she said, demonstrate that “an optimal treatment modality either is not known or agreed upon” and that studies are required to determine treatment efficacy, cost, and safety “in a range of skin types.”

Dr. Steyn said that what is needed first is a set of consensus treatment guidelines, “hopefully leading to a randomized controlled trial” that would compare the various treatment options.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 7.

Session co-chair Adam Fityan, MD, a consultant dermatologist at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, U.K., commented that the study was “fascinating” and “really helpful.”

Dr. Fityan, who was not involved with the survey, told this news organization that, “clearly, what we’ve seen is that there is a huge variation in the way everyone uses the different modalities of phototherapy.”

“Having that sort of knowledge will hopefully help us to think a bit more clearly about the regimens and protocols that we use and to maybe find the evidence that everyone needs to have the most effective protocol.”

The data from the study are also useful on an individual level, Dr. Fityan continued, as “you have no idea what anyone is doing” and whether “you are an outlier.”

Dr. Steyn said that phototherapy is commonly used for the treatment of atopic eczema, but the evidence for its efficacy, its impact on quality on life, its cost-effectiveness, and short- and long-term safety is “weak,” particularly in relation to real-life use.

Electronic survey

In lieu of a well-designed randomized controlled trial to answer these questions, the researchers set up a task force to assess how phototherapy is currently being used to treat atopic eczema across the United Kingdom and Europe so as to guide further research.

An electronic survey was devised, and 144 members of phototherapy groups from 27 European countries submitted their responses during 2020. Most responses came from the Netherlands (20), Italy (16), the United Kingdom (14), France (11), and Germany (10).

The results showed that NB-UVB was the most widely used modality of phototherapy, chosen by 96% of respondents. In addition, 17% of respondents said they also prescribed home-based NB-UVB, which was available in eight of the 27 countries.

When asked how they used NB-UVB, the majority (68%) of respondents said they had an age cutoff for use in children, which was set at an average age of 9 years and older, although the range was age 2 years to 16 years.

NBUVB was used as a second-line therapy instead of systemic treatments in up to 93% of adults and in 69% of children. It was used concomitantly with systemic treatment in up to 58% of adults and 11% of children, according to the survey responses.

For about 70% of respondents, the use of NB-UVB was determined by assessing the Fitzpatrick skin type, although almost 40% relied on clinical experience.
 

Frequency of treatment

NB-UVB was prescribed three times a week by 59% of respondents; 31% of respondents prescribed it twice a week; 7%, five times per week; and 2%, four times a week. The typical number of treatments was 21-30 for 53% of respondents, 0-20 treatments for 24%, and 31-40 treatments for 20%.

The dose was typically increased in 10% increments, although there were wide variations in how the treatment was stepped up. Dose was increased after each treatment by almost 50% of respondents, after every two treatments by almost 25%, and after every three treatments by approximately 15%.

For the majority (53%) of respondents, response to NBUVB was assessed after 7-15 treatments, while 43% waited until after 16-30 treatments. Success was defined as a 75% reduction in eczema from baseline by 56% of respondents, while 54% looked to patient satisfaction, and 47% relied on quality of life to determine success of treatment.

Maintenance NB-UVB was never used by 54% of respondents, but 44% said they used it occasionally, and 83% said they did not follow a weaning schedule at the end of treatment.

The most commonly reported adverse effects of NB-UVB were significant erythema, hyperpigmentation, and eczema flare, while the most commonly cited absolute contraindications included a history of melanoma, a history of squamous cell carcinoma, the use of photosensitizing medications, and claustrophobia.
 

Use of PUVA, UVA1

The next most commonly used phototherapy for atopic eczema was PUVA. Although it was available to 83% of respondents, only 52% of respondents had personally prescribed the treatment for adults, and only 7% prescribed it for children.

Of the respondents, 71% said they would switch from NB-UVB to PUVA if desired treatment outcomes were not achieved with the former, and 44% said they would “sometimes consider” PUVA as second-line therapy instead of systemic treatments. Only 13% said they would use it concomitantly with systemic treatment.

Ultraviolet A1 (UVA1) phototherapy was not widely available, with 66% of respondents declaring that they did not have access to this option and just 29% saying they prescribed it.

But when it was used, UVA1 was cited as being used often in adults by 24% of respondents, while 33% used it was used sometimes, and 43% said it was used rarely. It was used for children by 26% of respondents. In addition, 29% said they favored using UVA1 for chronic atopic eczema, and 33% favored using it for acute eczema while 38% had no preference over whether to use it for chronic versus acute atopic eczema.

Similarly to NB-UVB, there were wide variations in the use of PUVA and UVA1 by respondents in terms of dosing schedules, duration of treatment, and how response to treatment was measured.

No funding for the study has been reported. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

GLASGOW, Scotland – There are wide variations across Europe in how the different forms of phototherapy are used in the treatment of atopic eczema for both adults and children, reveals a region-wide survey, which points to the need for management guidelines.

Over 140 phototherapy practitioners from 27 European countries responded to the survey. Of the practitioners surveyed, 96% used narrow-band ultraviolet B (NB-UVB), and about 50% prescribed psoralen and ultraviolet A (PUVA) for adults. Fewer than 10% did so for children.

There was considerable variation in prescribing practices, “especially when it comes to dosing and treatment duration,” said study presenter Mia Steyn, MD, dermatology registrar, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’s Hospital, London.

These results, she said, demonstrate that “an optimal treatment modality either is not known or agreed upon” and that studies are required to determine treatment efficacy, cost, and safety “in a range of skin types.”

Dr. Steyn said that what is needed first is a set of consensus treatment guidelines, “hopefully leading to a randomized controlled trial” that would compare the various treatment options.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 7.

Session co-chair Adam Fityan, MD, a consultant dermatologist at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, U.K., commented that the study was “fascinating” and “really helpful.”

Dr. Fityan, who was not involved with the survey, told this news organization that, “clearly, what we’ve seen is that there is a huge variation in the way everyone uses the different modalities of phototherapy.”

“Having that sort of knowledge will hopefully help us to think a bit more clearly about the regimens and protocols that we use and to maybe find the evidence that everyone needs to have the most effective protocol.”

The data from the study are also useful on an individual level, Dr. Fityan continued, as “you have no idea what anyone is doing” and whether “you are an outlier.”

Dr. Steyn said that phototherapy is commonly used for the treatment of atopic eczema, but the evidence for its efficacy, its impact on quality on life, its cost-effectiveness, and short- and long-term safety is “weak,” particularly in relation to real-life use.

Electronic survey

In lieu of a well-designed randomized controlled trial to answer these questions, the researchers set up a task force to assess how phototherapy is currently being used to treat atopic eczema across the United Kingdom and Europe so as to guide further research.

An electronic survey was devised, and 144 members of phototherapy groups from 27 European countries submitted their responses during 2020. Most responses came from the Netherlands (20), Italy (16), the United Kingdom (14), France (11), and Germany (10).

The results showed that NB-UVB was the most widely used modality of phototherapy, chosen by 96% of respondents. In addition, 17% of respondents said they also prescribed home-based NB-UVB, which was available in eight of the 27 countries.

When asked how they used NB-UVB, the majority (68%) of respondents said they had an age cutoff for use in children, which was set at an average age of 9 years and older, although the range was age 2 years to 16 years.

NBUVB was used as a second-line therapy instead of systemic treatments in up to 93% of adults and in 69% of children. It was used concomitantly with systemic treatment in up to 58% of adults and 11% of children, according to the survey responses.

For about 70% of respondents, the use of NB-UVB was determined by assessing the Fitzpatrick skin type, although almost 40% relied on clinical experience.
 

Frequency of treatment

NB-UVB was prescribed three times a week by 59% of respondents; 31% of respondents prescribed it twice a week; 7%, five times per week; and 2%, four times a week. The typical number of treatments was 21-30 for 53% of respondents, 0-20 treatments for 24%, and 31-40 treatments for 20%.

The dose was typically increased in 10% increments, although there were wide variations in how the treatment was stepped up. Dose was increased after each treatment by almost 50% of respondents, after every two treatments by almost 25%, and after every three treatments by approximately 15%.

For the majority (53%) of respondents, response to NBUVB was assessed after 7-15 treatments, while 43% waited until after 16-30 treatments. Success was defined as a 75% reduction in eczema from baseline by 56% of respondents, while 54% looked to patient satisfaction, and 47% relied on quality of life to determine success of treatment.

Maintenance NB-UVB was never used by 54% of respondents, but 44% said they used it occasionally, and 83% said they did not follow a weaning schedule at the end of treatment.

The most commonly reported adverse effects of NB-UVB were significant erythema, hyperpigmentation, and eczema flare, while the most commonly cited absolute contraindications included a history of melanoma, a history of squamous cell carcinoma, the use of photosensitizing medications, and claustrophobia.
 

Use of PUVA, UVA1

The next most commonly used phototherapy for atopic eczema was PUVA. Although it was available to 83% of respondents, only 52% of respondents had personally prescribed the treatment for adults, and only 7% prescribed it for children.

Of the respondents, 71% said they would switch from NB-UVB to PUVA if desired treatment outcomes were not achieved with the former, and 44% said they would “sometimes consider” PUVA as second-line therapy instead of systemic treatments. Only 13% said they would use it concomitantly with systemic treatment.

Ultraviolet A1 (UVA1) phototherapy was not widely available, with 66% of respondents declaring that they did not have access to this option and just 29% saying they prescribed it.

But when it was used, UVA1 was cited as being used often in adults by 24% of respondents, while 33% used it was used sometimes, and 43% said it was used rarely. It was used for children by 26% of respondents. In addition, 29% said they favored using UVA1 for chronic atopic eczema, and 33% favored using it for acute eczema while 38% had no preference over whether to use it for chronic versus acute atopic eczema.

Similarly to NB-UVB, there were wide variations in the use of PUVA and UVA1 by respondents in terms of dosing schedules, duration of treatment, and how response to treatment was measured.

No funding for the study has been reported. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

GLASGOW – Individuals given COVID-19 vaccination may experience a wide range of dermatologic reactions, some of which may be life-threatening, reveals a prospective Indian study that suggests histopathological assessment is key to understanding the cause.

Studying more than 130 patients who presented with vaccine-related dermatologic reactions, the researchers found that the most common acute adverse events were acute urticaria, generalized pruritus, and maculopapular rash.

Dermal hypersensitivity reactions occurred within 3 days of vaccination, which suggests the culprit is an immediate type 1 hypersensitivity reaction, said study presenter Alpana Mohta, MD, department of dermatology, Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India. Most of the patients had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, she said.

The most common delayed events were pityriasis rosea and lichen planus, which occurred within 3-4 weeks of vaccination and could be a result of delayed hypersensitivity or a T cell–mediated skin reaction caused by “molecular mimicry with a viral epitope,” Dr. Mohta said.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 5.

Dr. Mohta said that, given the “surge” in the number of people who have been vaccinated, it is “imperative as dermatologists” to maintain a “very high index of suspicion to differentiate reactions caused by vaccination” from other causes, and a proper assessment should be performed in “every patient” who presents with a possible reaction.

She also emphasized that “since so many clinical [COVID-19] variants are being encountered,” histopathological assessment could “help in better understanding the underlying pathophysiology” of every reaction.

Dr. Mohta began her presentation by explaining that India is running one of the “world’s largest vaccination drives” for COVID-19, with almost 90% of adults fully vaccinated.

She added that studies have indicated that the incidence of cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination ranges from 1.0% to 1.9% and that dermatologists have encountered a “plethora” of related reactions.

Dr. Mohta emphasized that the “myriad presentations” of these reactions means that correlating clinical and pathological findings is “key” to understanding the underlying pathophysiology.

She and her colleagues therefore conducted a prospective, hospital-based study of patients who self-reported mucocutaneous adverse reactions from April to December 2021, within 4 weeks of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

They gathered information on the patients’ signs and symptoms, as well as the date of vaccine administration and the type of vaccine given, alongside a detailed medical history, including previous allergies, prior COVID-19 infection, and any comorbidities.

The patients also underwent a clinical examination and laboratory investigations, and their cases were assessed by two senior dermatologists to determine whether the association between the adverse event and COVID-19 vaccination was likely causal.

Dr. Mohta said that 132 adult patients, with an average age of 38.2 years, were identified as having vaccine-related reactions.

This included 84 (63.6%) patients with a mild reaction, defined as resolving with symptomatic treatment; 43 (32.6%) patients with a moderate reaction, defined as extensive and lasting for more than 4 weeks; and five (3.8%) patients with severe reactions, defined as systemic and potentially life-threatening.

The mild group included 21 patients with acute urticaria, with a mean onset of 1.2 days following vaccination, as well as 20 cases of maculopapular rash, with a mean onset of 2.4 days; 18 cases of pityriasis rosea, with a mean onset of 17.4 days; and nine cases of eruptive pseudoangioma, with a mean onset of 3.5 days.

There were 16 cases of lichen planus in the moderate group, with a mean onset of 22.7 days after COVID-19 vaccination; nine cases of herpes zoster, with a mean onset of 15.3 days; and one case of pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA), among others.

The severe group included two cases of erythroderma, with a mean onset of 9 days after vaccination; one case of drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), with a mean onset of 20 days; and one case each of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) and bullous pemphigoid, with mean onsets of 15 days and 14 days, respectively.

Turning to the histopathological results, Dr. Mohta explained that only 57 patients from their cohort agreed to have a skin biopsy.

Results of those skin biopsies showed that 21 (36.8%) patients had vaccine-related eruption of papules and plaques, predominantly spongiotic dermatitis. This correlated with the clinical diagnoses of pityriasis rosea, maculopapular and papulosquamous rash, and DRESS.

Lichenoid and interface dermatitis were seen in 13 (22.8%) patients, which correlated with the clinical diagnoses of lichen planus, PLEVA, and SCLE. Eleven (19.3%) patients had a dermal hypersensitivity reaction, equated to the clinical diagnoses of urticaria, and eruptive pseudoangioma.

Dr. Mohta acknowledged that the study was limited by the inability to calculate the “true prevalence of vaccine-associated reactions,” and because immunohistochemistry was not performed.

Session chair Saleem Taibjee, MD, department of dermatology, Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Dorchester, United Kingdom, congratulated Dr. Mohta on her “very interesting” presentation, highlighting their “extensive experience in such a large cohort of patients.”

He asked what type of COVID-19 vaccines the patients had received, and whether Dr. Mohta could provide any “insights into which patients you can safely give the vaccine again to, and those [to whom] you may avoid giving further doses.”

Dr. Mohta said that the majority of the patients in the study received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, as that was the one most commonly used in India at the time, with around 30 patients receiving the Indian Covishield version of the AstraZeneca vaccine. (The two-dose AstraZeneca vaccine, which is cheaper to manufacture and easier to store at typical refrigerated temperatures than mRNA-based vaccines, has been authorized by the World Health Organization, the European Medicines Agency, and over 50 countries but has not been authorized in the United States.)

She added that none of the patients in the study with mild-to-moderate skin reactions were advised against receiving further doses” but that those with severe reactions “were advised not to take any further doses.”

Consequently, in the case of mild reactions, “further doses are not a contraindication,” Dr. Mohta said, but patients with more severe reactions should be considered on a “case by case basis.”

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

GLASGOW – Individuals given COVID-19 vaccination may experience a wide range of dermatologic reactions, some of which may be life-threatening, reveals a prospective Indian study that suggests histopathological assessment is key to understanding the cause.

Studying more than 130 patients who presented with vaccine-related dermatologic reactions, the researchers found that the most common acute adverse events were acute urticaria, generalized pruritus, and maculopapular rash.

Dermal hypersensitivity reactions occurred within 3 days of vaccination, which suggests the culprit is an immediate type 1 hypersensitivity reaction, said study presenter Alpana Mohta, MD, department of dermatology, Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India. Most of the patients had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, she said.

The most common delayed events were pityriasis rosea and lichen planus, which occurred within 3-4 weeks of vaccination and could be a result of delayed hypersensitivity or a T cell–mediated skin reaction caused by “molecular mimicry with a viral epitope,” Dr. Mohta said.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 5.

Dr. Mohta said that, given the “surge” in the number of people who have been vaccinated, it is “imperative as dermatologists” to maintain a “very high index of suspicion to differentiate reactions caused by vaccination” from other causes, and a proper assessment should be performed in “every patient” who presents with a possible reaction.

She also emphasized that “since so many clinical [COVID-19] variants are being encountered,” histopathological assessment could “help in better understanding the underlying pathophysiology” of every reaction.

Dr. Mohta began her presentation by explaining that India is running one of the “world’s largest vaccination drives” for COVID-19, with almost 90% of adults fully vaccinated.

She added that studies have indicated that the incidence of cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination ranges from 1.0% to 1.9% and that dermatologists have encountered a “plethora” of related reactions.

Dr. Mohta emphasized that the “myriad presentations” of these reactions means that correlating clinical and pathological findings is “key” to understanding the underlying pathophysiology.

She and her colleagues therefore conducted a prospective, hospital-based study of patients who self-reported mucocutaneous adverse reactions from April to December 2021, within 4 weeks of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

They gathered information on the patients’ signs and symptoms, as well as the date of vaccine administration and the type of vaccine given, alongside a detailed medical history, including previous allergies, prior COVID-19 infection, and any comorbidities.

The patients also underwent a clinical examination and laboratory investigations, and their cases were assessed by two senior dermatologists to determine whether the association between the adverse event and COVID-19 vaccination was likely causal.

Dr. Mohta said that 132 adult patients, with an average age of 38.2 years, were identified as having vaccine-related reactions.

This included 84 (63.6%) patients with a mild reaction, defined as resolving with symptomatic treatment; 43 (32.6%) patients with a moderate reaction, defined as extensive and lasting for more than 4 weeks; and five (3.8%) patients with severe reactions, defined as systemic and potentially life-threatening.

The mild group included 21 patients with acute urticaria, with a mean onset of 1.2 days following vaccination, as well as 20 cases of maculopapular rash, with a mean onset of 2.4 days; 18 cases of pityriasis rosea, with a mean onset of 17.4 days; and nine cases of eruptive pseudoangioma, with a mean onset of 3.5 days.

There were 16 cases of lichen planus in the moderate group, with a mean onset of 22.7 days after COVID-19 vaccination; nine cases of herpes zoster, with a mean onset of 15.3 days; and one case of pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA), among others.

The severe group included two cases of erythroderma, with a mean onset of 9 days after vaccination; one case of drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), with a mean onset of 20 days; and one case each of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) and bullous pemphigoid, with mean onsets of 15 days and 14 days, respectively.

Turning to the histopathological results, Dr. Mohta explained that only 57 patients from their cohort agreed to have a skin biopsy.

Results of those skin biopsies showed that 21 (36.8%) patients had vaccine-related eruption of papules and plaques, predominantly spongiotic dermatitis. This correlated with the clinical diagnoses of pityriasis rosea, maculopapular and papulosquamous rash, and DRESS.

Lichenoid and interface dermatitis were seen in 13 (22.8%) patients, which correlated with the clinical diagnoses of lichen planus, PLEVA, and SCLE. Eleven (19.3%) patients had a dermal hypersensitivity reaction, equated to the clinical diagnoses of urticaria, and eruptive pseudoangioma.

Dr. Mohta acknowledged that the study was limited by the inability to calculate the “true prevalence of vaccine-associated reactions,” and because immunohistochemistry was not performed.

Session chair Saleem Taibjee, MD, department of dermatology, Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Dorchester, United Kingdom, congratulated Dr. Mohta on her “very interesting” presentation, highlighting their “extensive experience in such a large cohort of patients.”

He asked what type of COVID-19 vaccines the patients had received, and whether Dr. Mohta could provide any “insights into which patients you can safely give the vaccine again to, and those [to whom] you may avoid giving further doses.”

Dr. Mohta said that the majority of the patients in the study received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, as that was the one most commonly used in India at the time, with around 30 patients receiving the Indian Covishield version of the AstraZeneca vaccine. (The two-dose AstraZeneca vaccine, which is cheaper to manufacture and easier to store at typical refrigerated temperatures than mRNA-based vaccines, has been authorized by the World Health Organization, the European Medicines Agency, and over 50 countries but has not been authorized in the United States.)

She added that none of the patients in the study with mild-to-moderate skin reactions were advised against receiving further doses” but that those with severe reactions “were advised not to take any further doses.”

Consequently, in the case of mild reactions, “further doses are not a contraindication,” Dr. Mohta said, but patients with more severe reactions should be considered on a “case by case basis.”

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

GLASGOW – Individuals given COVID-19 vaccination may experience a wide range of dermatologic reactions, some of which may be life-threatening, reveals a prospective Indian study that suggests histopathological assessment is key to understanding the cause.

Studying more than 130 patients who presented with vaccine-related dermatologic reactions, the researchers found that the most common acute adverse events were acute urticaria, generalized pruritus, and maculopapular rash.

Dermal hypersensitivity reactions occurred within 3 days of vaccination, which suggests the culprit is an immediate type 1 hypersensitivity reaction, said study presenter Alpana Mohta, MD, department of dermatology, Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India. Most of the patients had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, she said.

The most common delayed events were pityriasis rosea and lichen planus, which occurred within 3-4 weeks of vaccination and could be a result of delayed hypersensitivity or a T cell–mediated skin reaction caused by “molecular mimicry with a viral epitope,” Dr. Mohta said.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 5.

Dr. Mohta said that, given the “surge” in the number of people who have been vaccinated, it is “imperative as dermatologists” to maintain a “very high index of suspicion to differentiate reactions caused by vaccination” from other causes, and a proper assessment should be performed in “every patient” who presents with a possible reaction.

She also emphasized that “since so many clinical [COVID-19] variants are being encountered,” histopathological assessment could “help in better understanding the underlying pathophysiology” of every reaction.

Dr. Mohta began her presentation by explaining that India is running one of the “world’s largest vaccination drives” for COVID-19, with almost 90% of adults fully vaccinated.

She added that studies have indicated that the incidence of cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination ranges from 1.0% to 1.9% and that dermatologists have encountered a “plethora” of related reactions.

Dr. Mohta emphasized that the “myriad presentations” of these reactions means that correlating clinical and pathological findings is “key” to understanding the underlying pathophysiology.

She and her colleagues therefore conducted a prospective, hospital-based study of patients who self-reported mucocutaneous adverse reactions from April to December 2021, within 4 weeks of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

They gathered information on the patients’ signs and symptoms, as well as the date of vaccine administration and the type of vaccine given, alongside a detailed medical history, including previous allergies, prior COVID-19 infection, and any comorbidities.

The patients also underwent a clinical examination and laboratory investigations, and their cases were assessed by two senior dermatologists to determine whether the association between the adverse event and COVID-19 vaccination was likely causal.

Dr. Mohta said that 132 adult patients, with an average age of 38.2 years, were identified as having vaccine-related reactions.

This included 84 (63.6%) patients with a mild reaction, defined as resolving with symptomatic treatment; 43 (32.6%) patients with a moderate reaction, defined as extensive and lasting for more than 4 weeks; and five (3.8%) patients with severe reactions, defined as systemic and potentially life-threatening.

The mild group included 21 patients with acute urticaria, with a mean onset of 1.2 days following vaccination, as well as 20 cases of maculopapular rash, with a mean onset of 2.4 days; 18 cases of pityriasis rosea, with a mean onset of 17.4 days; and nine cases of eruptive pseudoangioma, with a mean onset of 3.5 days.

There were 16 cases of lichen planus in the moderate group, with a mean onset of 22.7 days after COVID-19 vaccination; nine cases of herpes zoster, with a mean onset of 15.3 days; and one case of pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA), among others.

The severe group included two cases of erythroderma, with a mean onset of 9 days after vaccination; one case of drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), with a mean onset of 20 days; and one case each of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) and bullous pemphigoid, with mean onsets of 15 days and 14 days, respectively.

Turning to the histopathological results, Dr. Mohta explained that only 57 patients from their cohort agreed to have a skin biopsy.

Results of those skin biopsies showed that 21 (36.8%) patients had vaccine-related eruption of papules and plaques, predominantly spongiotic dermatitis. This correlated with the clinical diagnoses of pityriasis rosea, maculopapular and papulosquamous rash, and DRESS.

Lichenoid and interface dermatitis were seen in 13 (22.8%) patients, which correlated with the clinical diagnoses of lichen planus, PLEVA, and SCLE. Eleven (19.3%) patients had a dermal hypersensitivity reaction, equated to the clinical diagnoses of urticaria, and eruptive pseudoangioma.

Dr. Mohta acknowledged that the study was limited by the inability to calculate the “true prevalence of vaccine-associated reactions,” and because immunohistochemistry was not performed.

Session chair Saleem Taibjee, MD, department of dermatology, Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Dorchester, United Kingdom, congratulated Dr. Mohta on her “very interesting” presentation, highlighting their “extensive experience in such a large cohort of patients.”

He asked what type of COVID-19 vaccines the patients had received, and whether Dr. Mohta could provide any “insights into which patients you can safely give the vaccine again to, and those [to whom] you may avoid giving further doses.”

Dr. Mohta said that the majority of the patients in the study received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, as that was the one most commonly used in India at the time, with around 30 patients receiving the Indian Covishield version of the AstraZeneca vaccine. (The two-dose AstraZeneca vaccine, which is cheaper to manufacture and easier to store at typical refrigerated temperatures than mRNA-based vaccines, has been authorized by the World Health Organization, the European Medicines Agency, and over 50 countries but has not been authorized in the United States.)

She added that none of the patients in the study with mild-to-moderate skin reactions were advised against receiving further doses” but that those with severe reactions “were advised not to take any further doses.”

Consequently, in the case of mild reactions, “further doses are not a contraindication,” Dr. Mohta said, but patients with more severe reactions should be considered on a “case by case basis.”

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

GLASGOW – Dermatologists do not feel confident in independently prescribing antipsychotic medications for patients with delusional infestation, shows a U.K. survey that also indicated there is a clear demand for training in prescribing these drugs.

Delusional infestation is a rare disorder characterized by an individual’s belief that his or her skin, body, or immediate environment is infested by small, living pathogens, despite a lack of any medical evidence. Most of these patients require antipsychotic medication to alleviate symptoms.

The survey of almost 80 dermatologists found that almost 90% had not prescribed antipsychotics in the previous month for patients with psychodermatology conditions and that the most common barrier to prescribing was lack of experience with the drugs.

This was reflected in only 10% of survey respondents who said they were “happy to” prescribe antipsychotics without consulting either dermatology or psychiatric colleagues, and less than half having attended a related course.

Yet the research, presented at the annual meeting of the British Association of Dermatologists, indicated that more than 75% of respondents would attend such a course to increase their confidence.

This finding, said study presenter Ling Li, MD, Churchill Hospital, Oxford (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, shows that there is a “clear demand for training, particularly among all the registrars [residents] who we surveyed.”

Dr. Li noted that the UK’s Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board’s latest curriculum for dermatology training highlights psychocutaneous medicine as a key area, and “that will include antipsychotic medication.”

The BAD also recently published guidelines for the management of adults with delusional infestation, which includes a recommendation to conduct a survey on attitudes toward antipsychotic prescribing for the condition among U.K. dermatologists.

Heeding that call, Dr. Li and colleagues sent an email containing a 10-question online survey to members of the BAD and the British Society for Medical Dermatology. Questions covered familiarity with antipsychotics and frequency of prescribing, confidence around antipsychotics, and current training and future needs. Responses were received between February through April 2021.

Among the 79 respondents, 51 (65%) were consultants and 20 (25%) were dermatology registrars, with the remainder dermatology clinical fellows, foundation doctors, or other doctors. A total of 31 respondents had an average of more than 50 visits with patients per week, 18 had an average of 41-50 patient visits, and 13 had an average of 31-40 visits per week; the remainder had an average of 11-30 visits per week.

Most of the respondents (39) said they had seen 2-5 patients with psychodermatology conditions in the last 6 months, while 17 said they had seen 1 patient, 13 said they had seen more than 10 patients, and 6 said they had seen 6-10 patients (4 had seen none and 1 could not remember).

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotics for psychodermatology patients in the past 6 months were risperidone (Risperdal; prescribed by five respondents), followed by olanzapine (Zyprexa; by four respondents). Seventy respondents had not prescribed any antipsychotics.

Asked about how confident they felt about prescribing antipsychotic medication for patients with delusional infestation, 8 (10%) said they were happy to prescribe independently, while 42 (54%) said they were not at all confident. Another 10 (13%) respondents said they would be happy to prescribe the medications after liaising with a dermatology colleague, while 17 (22%) said they would prefer to consult with the psychiatry team.

The most common barrier to prescribing antipsychotic medications was a lack of experience with the drugs, cited by 66 respondents, followed by concerns over drug monitoring, cited by 43 respondents.

In addition, 42 respondents highlighted concerns over adverse effects, 36 cited lack of experience in psychodermatology clinics, and 19 cited lack of experience in discussing psychodermatologic conditions with patients. Other barriers mentioned by the respondents included difficulties with patient acceptance of a psychiatric medication prescribed by a dermatologist.

An audience member went further, saying that clinicians have been told not to “confront” such patients and that the temptation is therefore to cloak the discussion of antipsychotics in nonthreatening language so that it is more acceptable to the patient.

However, under the U.K. system, a letter with the results of the consultation, including information that an antipsychotic has been prescribed, must be sent to the patient’s family doctor along with a copy that goes to the patient. “The situation is almost impossible,” the audience member said, adding that there “must be some arrangement where in certain circumstances dermatologists could be allowed not to write to the patient” or alternatively, “write an entirely different letter” to the family doctor.

Session cochair Susannah Baron, MD, a consultant dermatologist at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, said that, in these situations, it is “really helpful to talk about doses” with patients.

She explained that she uses the analogy of aspirin, which has different effects depending on the dose given, giving pain relief at high doses but primarily an antiplatelet effect at low doses.

In the case of an antipsychotic, it is helpful to explain to the patient that “you don’t think they’re psychotic, and you’re prescribing it in a very low dose, because what it can do is help with their symptoms,” Dr. Baron added. “You have to be very open because if you’re not, they go to the pharmacy, and the pharmacist says: ‘Why are you on an antipsychotic?’ ”

Further results from the survey revealed that 56 (71%) respondents did not have access to a specialist psychodermatology clinic, whereas 36 (46%) had not yet attended a psychodermatology course.

Despite these responses, 60 (77%) respondents said they would be interested in attending a training course for prescribing antipsychotics, which included all 20 of the registrars who took part in the survey. a psychodermatologist at Frimley Health Foundation Trust, Windsor, England, and lead author of the BAD guidelines, commented from the audience that the survey results were “sort of what we expected.”

She explained that the intention of the authors when developing the guidelines “was to be able to help our junior colleagues and our peers to be able to feel competent to discuss antipsychotics with patients with delusional infestation and also initiate management.”

Dr. Ahmed added: “Why we’re encouraging our colleagues to prescribe antipsychotics is the longer you leave this type of psychotic illness untreated, the worse the prognosis.”

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

GLASGOW – Dermatologists do not feel confident in independently prescribing antipsychotic medications for patients with delusional infestation, shows a U.K. survey that also indicated there is a clear demand for training in prescribing these drugs.

Delusional infestation is a rare disorder characterized by an individual’s belief that his or her skin, body, or immediate environment is infested by small, living pathogens, despite a lack of any medical evidence. Most of these patients require antipsychotic medication to alleviate symptoms.

The survey of almost 80 dermatologists found that almost 90% had not prescribed antipsychotics in the previous month for patients with psychodermatology conditions and that the most common barrier to prescribing was lack of experience with the drugs.

This was reflected in only 10% of survey respondents who said they were “happy to” prescribe antipsychotics without consulting either dermatology or psychiatric colleagues, and less than half having attended a related course.

Yet the research, presented at the annual meeting of the British Association of Dermatologists, indicated that more than 75% of respondents would attend such a course to increase their confidence.

This finding, said study presenter Ling Li, MD, Churchill Hospital, Oxford (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, shows that there is a “clear demand for training, particularly among all the registrars [residents] who we surveyed.”

Dr. Li noted that the UK’s Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board’s latest curriculum for dermatology training highlights psychocutaneous medicine as a key area, and “that will include antipsychotic medication.”

The BAD also recently published guidelines for the management of adults with delusional infestation, which includes a recommendation to conduct a survey on attitudes toward antipsychotic prescribing for the condition among U.K. dermatologists.

Heeding that call, Dr. Li and colleagues sent an email containing a 10-question online survey to members of the BAD and the British Society for Medical Dermatology. Questions covered familiarity with antipsychotics and frequency of prescribing, confidence around antipsychotics, and current training and future needs. Responses were received between February through April 2021.

Among the 79 respondents, 51 (65%) were consultants and 20 (25%) were dermatology registrars, with the remainder dermatology clinical fellows, foundation doctors, or other doctors. A total of 31 respondents had an average of more than 50 visits with patients per week, 18 had an average of 41-50 patient visits, and 13 had an average of 31-40 visits per week; the remainder had an average of 11-30 visits per week.

Most of the respondents (39) said they had seen 2-5 patients with psychodermatology conditions in the last 6 months, while 17 said they had seen 1 patient, 13 said they had seen more than 10 patients, and 6 said they had seen 6-10 patients (4 had seen none and 1 could not remember).

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotics for psychodermatology patients in the past 6 months were risperidone (Risperdal; prescribed by five respondents), followed by olanzapine (Zyprexa; by four respondents). Seventy respondents had not prescribed any antipsychotics.

Asked about how confident they felt about prescribing antipsychotic medication for patients with delusional infestation, 8 (10%) said they were happy to prescribe independently, while 42 (54%) said they were not at all confident. Another 10 (13%) respondents said they would be happy to prescribe the medications after liaising with a dermatology colleague, while 17 (22%) said they would prefer to consult with the psychiatry team.

The most common barrier to prescribing antipsychotic medications was a lack of experience with the drugs, cited by 66 respondents, followed by concerns over drug monitoring, cited by 43 respondents.

In addition, 42 respondents highlighted concerns over adverse effects, 36 cited lack of experience in psychodermatology clinics, and 19 cited lack of experience in discussing psychodermatologic conditions with patients. Other barriers mentioned by the respondents included difficulties with patient acceptance of a psychiatric medication prescribed by a dermatologist.

An audience member went further, saying that clinicians have been told not to “confront” such patients and that the temptation is therefore to cloak the discussion of antipsychotics in nonthreatening language so that it is more acceptable to the patient.

However, under the U.K. system, a letter with the results of the consultation, including information that an antipsychotic has been prescribed, must be sent to the patient’s family doctor along with a copy that goes to the patient. “The situation is almost impossible,” the audience member said, adding that there “must be some arrangement where in certain circumstances dermatologists could be allowed not to write to the patient” or alternatively, “write an entirely different letter” to the family doctor.

Session cochair Susannah Baron, MD, a consultant dermatologist at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, said that, in these situations, it is “really helpful to talk about doses” with patients.

She explained that she uses the analogy of aspirin, which has different effects depending on the dose given, giving pain relief at high doses but primarily an antiplatelet effect at low doses.

In the case of an antipsychotic, it is helpful to explain to the patient that “you don’t think they’re psychotic, and you’re prescribing it in a very low dose, because what it can do is help with their symptoms,” Dr. Baron added. “You have to be very open because if you’re not, they go to the pharmacy, and the pharmacist says: ‘Why are you on an antipsychotic?’ ”

Further results from the survey revealed that 56 (71%) respondents did not have access to a specialist psychodermatology clinic, whereas 36 (46%) had not yet attended a psychodermatology course.

Despite these responses, 60 (77%) respondents said they would be interested in attending a training course for prescribing antipsychotics, which included all 20 of the registrars who took part in the survey. a psychodermatologist at Frimley Health Foundation Trust, Windsor, England, and lead author of the BAD guidelines, commented from the audience that the survey results were “sort of what we expected.”

She explained that the intention of the authors when developing the guidelines “was to be able to help our junior colleagues and our peers to be able to feel competent to discuss antipsychotics with patients with delusional infestation and also initiate management.”

Dr. Ahmed added: “Why we’re encouraging our colleagues to prescribe antipsychotics is the longer you leave this type of psychotic illness untreated, the worse the prognosis.”

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

GLASGOW – Dermatologists do not feel confident in independently prescribing antipsychotic medications for patients with delusional infestation, shows a U.K. survey that also indicated there is a clear demand for training in prescribing these drugs.

Delusional infestation is a rare disorder characterized by an individual’s belief that his or her skin, body, or immediate environment is infested by small, living pathogens, despite a lack of any medical evidence. Most of these patients require antipsychotic medication to alleviate symptoms.

The survey of almost 80 dermatologists found that almost 90% had not prescribed antipsychotics in the previous month for patients with psychodermatology conditions and that the most common barrier to prescribing was lack of experience with the drugs.

This was reflected in only 10% of survey respondents who said they were “happy to” prescribe antipsychotics without consulting either dermatology or psychiatric colleagues, and less than half having attended a related course.

Yet the research, presented at the annual meeting of the British Association of Dermatologists, indicated that more than 75% of respondents would attend such a course to increase their confidence.

This finding, said study presenter Ling Li, MD, Churchill Hospital, Oxford (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, shows that there is a “clear demand for training, particularly among all the registrars [residents] who we surveyed.”

Dr. Li noted that the UK’s Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board’s latest curriculum for dermatology training highlights psychocutaneous medicine as a key area, and “that will include antipsychotic medication.”

The BAD also recently published guidelines for the management of adults with delusional infestation, which includes a recommendation to conduct a survey on attitudes toward antipsychotic prescribing for the condition among U.K. dermatologists.

Heeding that call, Dr. Li and colleagues sent an email containing a 10-question online survey to members of the BAD and the British Society for Medical Dermatology. Questions covered familiarity with antipsychotics and frequency of prescribing, confidence around antipsychotics, and current training and future needs. Responses were received between February through April 2021.

Among the 79 respondents, 51 (65%) were consultants and 20 (25%) were dermatology registrars, with the remainder dermatology clinical fellows, foundation doctors, or other doctors. A total of 31 respondents had an average of more than 50 visits with patients per week, 18 had an average of 41-50 patient visits, and 13 had an average of 31-40 visits per week; the remainder had an average of 11-30 visits per week.

Most of the respondents (39) said they had seen 2-5 patients with psychodermatology conditions in the last 6 months, while 17 said they had seen 1 patient, 13 said they had seen more than 10 patients, and 6 said they had seen 6-10 patients (4 had seen none and 1 could not remember).

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotics for psychodermatology patients in the past 6 months were risperidone (Risperdal; prescribed by five respondents), followed by olanzapine (Zyprexa; by four respondents). Seventy respondents had not prescribed any antipsychotics.

Asked about how confident they felt about prescribing antipsychotic medication for patients with delusional infestation, 8 (10%) said they were happy to prescribe independently, while 42 (54%) said they were not at all confident. Another 10 (13%) respondents said they would be happy to prescribe the medications after liaising with a dermatology colleague, while 17 (22%) said they would prefer to consult with the psychiatry team.

The most common barrier to prescribing antipsychotic medications was a lack of experience with the drugs, cited by 66 respondents, followed by concerns over drug monitoring, cited by 43 respondents.

In addition, 42 respondents highlighted concerns over adverse effects, 36 cited lack of experience in psychodermatology clinics, and 19 cited lack of experience in discussing psychodermatologic conditions with patients. Other barriers mentioned by the respondents included difficulties with patient acceptance of a psychiatric medication prescribed by a dermatologist.

An audience member went further, saying that clinicians have been told not to “confront” such patients and that the temptation is therefore to cloak the discussion of antipsychotics in nonthreatening language so that it is more acceptable to the patient.

However, under the U.K. system, a letter with the results of the consultation, including information that an antipsychotic has been prescribed, must be sent to the patient’s family doctor along with a copy that goes to the patient. “The situation is almost impossible,” the audience member said, adding that there “must be some arrangement where in certain circumstances dermatologists could be allowed not to write to the patient” or alternatively, “write an entirely different letter” to the family doctor.

Session cochair Susannah Baron, MD, a consultant dermatologist at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, said that, in these situations, it is “really helpful to talk about doses” with patients.

She explained that she uses the analogy of aspirin, which has different effects depending on the dose given, giving pain relief at high doses but primarily an antiplatelet effect at low doses.

In the case of an antipsychotic, it is helpful to explain to the patient that “you don’t think they’re psychotic, and you’re prescribing it in a very low dose, because what it can do is help with their symptoms,” Dr. Baron added. “You have to be very open because if you’re not, they go to the pharmacy, and the pharmacist says: ‘Why are you on an antipsychotic?’ ”

Further results from the survey revealed that 56 (71%) respondents did not have access to a specialist psychodermatology clinic, whereas 36 (46%) had not yet attended a psychodermatology course.

Despite these responses, 60 (77%) respondents said they would be interested in attending a training course for prescribing antipsychotics, which included all 20 of the registrars who took part in the survey. a psychodermatologist at Frimley Health Foundation Trust, Windsor, England, and lead author of the BAD guidelines, commented from the audience that the survey results were “sort of what we expected.”

She explained that the intention of the authors when developing the guidelines “was to be able to help our junior colleagues and our peers to be able to feel competent to discuss antipsychotics with patients with delusional infestation and also initiate management.”

Dr. Ahmed added: “Why we’re encouraging our colleagues to prescribe antipsychotics is the longer you leave this type of psychotic illness untreated, the worse the prognosis.”

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Patients with both inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and obesity starting on new biologic therapies do not face an increased risk for hospitalization, IBD-related surgery, or serious infection, reveals a multicenter U.S. study published online in American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“Our findings were a bit surprising, since prior studies had suggested higher clinical disease activity and risk of flare and lower rates of endoscopic remission in obese patients treated with biologics,” Siddharth Singh, MD, MS, director of the IBD Center at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization.

“However, in this study we focused on harder outcomes, including risk of hospitalization and surgery, and did not observe any detrimental effect,” he said.

Based on the findings, Dr. Singh believes that biologics are “completely safe and effective to use in obese patients.”

He clarified, however, that “examining the overall body of evidence, I still think obesity results in more rapid clearance of biologics, which negatively impacts the likelihood of achieving symptomatic and endoscopic remission.”

“Hence, there should be a low threshold to monitor and optimize biologic drug concentrations in obese patients. I preferentially use biologics that are dosed based on body weight in patients with class II or III obesity,” he said.
 

Research findings

Dr. Singh and colleagues write that, given that between 15% and 45% of patients with IBD are obese and a further 20%-40% are overweight, obesity is an “increasingly important consideration” in its management.

It is believed that obesity, largely via visceral adiposity, has a negative impact on IBD via increased production of adipokines, chemokines, and cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha and interleukin-6, thus affecting treatment response as well as increasing the risk for complications and infections.

However, studies of the association between obesity and poorer treatment response, both large and small, have yielded conflicting results, potentially owing to methodological limitations.

To investigate further, Dr. Singh and colleagues gathered electronic health record data from five health systems in California on adults with IBD who were new users of TNF-alpha antagonists, or the monoclonal antibodies vedolizumab or ustekinumab, between Jan. 1, 2010, and June 30, 2017.

World Health Organization definitions were used to classify the patients as having normal BMI, overweight, or obesity, and the risk for all-cause hospitalization, IBD-related surgery, or serious infection was compared between the groups.

The team reviewed the cases of 3,038 patients with IBD, of whom 31.1% had ulcerative colitis. Among the participants, 28.2% were classified as overweight and 13.7% as obese. TNF-alpha antagonists were used by 76.3% of patients.

Patients with obesity were significantly older, were more likely to be of Hispanic ethnicity, had a higher burden of comorbidities, and were more likely to have elevated C-reactive protein levels at baseline.

However, there were no significant differences between obese and nonobese patients in terms of IBD type, class of biologic prescribed, prior surgery, or prior biologic exposure.

Within 1 year of starting a new biologic therapy, 22.9% of patients required hospitalization, whereas 3.3% required surgery and 5.8% were hospitalized with a serious infection.

Cox proportional hazard analyses showed that obesity was not associated with an increased risk for hospitalization versus normal body mass index (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.13), nor was it associated with IBD-related surgery (aHR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.31-1.22) or serious infection (aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.73-1.71).

The results were similar when the patients were stratified by IBD type and index biologic therapy, the researchers write.

When analyzed as a continuous variable, BMI was associated with a lower risk for hospitalization (aHR, 0.98 per 1 kg/m2; P = .044) but not with IBD-related surgery or serious infection.
 

Reassuring results for the standard of care

Discussing their findings, the authors note that “the discrepancy among studies potentially reflects the shortcomings of overall obesity measured using BMI to capture clinically meaningful adiposity.”

“A small but growing body of literature suggests visceral adipose tissue is a potentially superior prognostic measure of adiposity and better predicts adverse outcomes in IBD.”

Dr. Singh said that it would be “very interesting” to examine the relationship between visceral adiposity, as inferred from waist circumference, and IBD outcomes.

Approached for comment, Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, Clifford Joseph Barborka Professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said, “At the present time, there are no new clinical implications based on this study.”

He said in an interview that it “does not require any change in the current standard of care but rather attempts to reassure that the standard of care does not change for obese patients.”

“With that being said, the standard of care may require dosing adjustments for patients based on weight, as is already the case for infliximab/ustekinumab, and monitoring to treat to target in obese patients as well as in normal or underweight patients,” Dr. Hanauer concluded.

The study was supported by the ACG Junior Faculty Development Award and the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation Career Development Award to Dr. Singh. Dr. Singh is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and reports relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, and Pfizer. The other authors report numerous financial relationships. Dr. Hanauer reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with both inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and obesity starting on new biologic therapies do not face an increased risk for hospitalization, IBD-related surgery, or serious infection, reveals a multicenter U.S. study published online in American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“Our findings were a bit surprising, since prior studies had suggested higher clinical disease activity and risk of flare and lower rates of endoscopic remission in obese patients treated with biologics,” Siddharth Singh, MD, MS, director of the IBD Center at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization.

“However, in this study we focused on harder outcomes, including risk of hospitalization and surgery, and did not observe any detrimental effect,” he said.

Based on the findings, Dr. Singh believes that biologics are “completely safe and effective to use in obese patients.”

He clarified, however, that “examining the overall body of evidence, I still think obesity results in more rapid clearance of biologics, which negatively impacts the likelihood of achieving symptomatic and endoscopic remission.”

“Hence, there should be a low threshold to monitor and optimize biologic drug concentrations in obese patients. I preferentially use biologics that are dosed based on body weight in patients with class II or III obesity,” he said.
 

Research findings

Dr. Singh and colleagues write that, given that between 15% and 45% of patients with IBD are obese and a further 20%-40% are overweight, obesity is an “increasingly important consideration” in its management.

It is believed that obesity, largely via visceral adiposity, has a negative impact on IBD via increased production of adipokines, chemokines, and cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha and interleukin-6, thus affecting treatment response as well as increasing the risk for complications and infections.

However, studies of the association between obesity and poorer treatment response, both large and small, have yielded conflicting results, potentially owing to methodological limitations.

To investigate further, Dr. Singh and colleagues gathered electronic health record data from five health systems in California on adults with IBD who were new users of TNF-alpha antagonists, or the monoclonal antibodies vedolizumab or ustekinumab, between Jan. 1, 2010, and June 30, 2017.

World Health Organization definitions were used to classify the patients as having normal BMI, overweight, or obesity, and the risk for all-cause hospitalization, IBD-related surgery, or serious infection was compared between the groups.

The team reviewed the cases of 3,038 patients with IBD, of whom 31.1% had ulcerative colitis. Among the participants, 28.2% were classified as overweight and 13.7% as obese. TNF-alpha antagonists were used by 76.3% of patients.

Patients with obesity were significantly older, were more likely to be of Hispanic ethnicity, had a higher burden of comorbidities, and were more likely to have elevated C-reactive protein levels at baseline.

However, there were no significant differences between obese and nonobese patients in terms of IBD type, class of biologic prescribed, prior surgery, or prior biologic exposure.

Within 1 year of starting a new biologic therapy, 22.9% of patients required hospitalization, whereas 3.3% required surgery and 5.8% were hospitalized with a serious infection.

Cox proportional hazard analyses showed that obesity was not associated with an increased risk for hospitalization versus normal body mass index (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.13), nor was it associated with IBD-related surgery (aHR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.31-1.22) or serious infection (aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.73-1.71).

The results were similar when the patients were stratified by IBD type and index biologic therapy, the researchers write.

When analyzed as a continuous variable, BMI was associated with a lower risk for hospitalization (aHR, 0.98 per 1 kg/m2; P = .044) but not with IBD-related surgery or serious infection.
 

Reassuring results for the standard of care

Discussing their findings, the authors note that “the discrepancy among studies potentially reflects the shortcomings of overall obesity measured using BMI to capture clinically meaningful adiposity.”

“A small but growing body of literature suggests visceral adipose tissue is a potentially superior prognostic measure of adiposity and better predicts adverse outcomes in IBD.”

Dr. Singh said that it would be “very interesting” to examine the relationship between visceral adiposity, as inferred from waist circumference, and IBD outcomes.

Approached for comment, Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, Clifford Joseph Barborka Professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said, “At the present time, there are no new clinical implications based on this study.”

He said in an interview that it “does not require any change in the current standard of care but rather attempts to reassure that the standard of care does not change for obese patients.”

“With that being said, the standard of care may require dosing adjustments for patients based on weight, as is already the case for infliximab/ustekinumab, and monitoring to treat to target in obese patients as well as in normal or underweight patients,” Dr. Hanauer concluded.

The study was supported by the ACG Junior Faculty Development Award and the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation Career Development Award to Dr. Singh. Dr. Singh is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and reports relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, and Pfizer. The other authors report numerous financial relationships. Dr. Hanauer reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with both inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and obesity starting on new biologic therapies do not face an increased risk for hospitalization, IBD-related surgery, or serious infection, reveals a multicenter U.S. study published online in American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“Our findings were a bit surprising, since prior studies had suggested higher clinical disease activity and risk of flare and lower rates of endoscopic remission in obese patients treated with biologics,” Siddharth Singh, MD, MS, director of the IBD Center at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization.

“However, in this study we focused on harder outcomes, including risk of hospitalization and surgery, and did not observe any detrimental effect,” he said.

Based on the findings, Dr. Singh believes that biologics are “completely safe and effective to use in obese patients.”

He clarified, however, that “examining the overall body of evidence, I still think obesity results in more rapid clearance of biologics, which negatively impacts the likelihood of achieving symptomatic and endoscopic remission.”

“Hence, there should be a low threshold to monitor and optimize biologic drug concentrations in obese patients. I preferentially use biologics that are dosed based on body weight in patients with class II or III obesity,” he said.
 

Research findings

Dr. Singh and colleagues write that, given that between 15% and 45% of patients with IBD are obese and a further 20%-40% are overweight, obesity is an “increasingly important consideration” in its management.

It is believed that obesity, largely via visceral adiposity, has a negative impact on IBD via increased production of adipokines, chemokines, and cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha and interleukin-6, thus affecting treatment response as well as increasing the risk for complications and infections.

However, studies of the association between obesity and poorer treatment response, both large and small, have yielded conflicting results, potentially owing to methodological limitations.

To investigate further, Dr. Singh and colleagues gathered electronic health record data from five health systems in California on adults with IBD who were new users of TNF-alpha antagonists, or the monoclonal antibodies vedolizumab or ustekinumab, between Jan. 1, 2010, and June 30, 2017.

World Health Organization definitions were used to classify the patients as having normal BMI, overweight, or obesity, and the risk for all-cause hospitalization, IBD-related surgery, or serious infection was compared between the groups.

The team reviewed the cases of 3,038 patients with IBD, of whom 31.1% had ulcerative colitis. Among the participants, 28.2% were classified as overweight and 13.7% as obese. TNF-alpha antagonists were used by 76.3% of patients.

Patients with obesity were significantly older, were more likely to be of Hispanic ethnicity, had a higher burden of comorbidities, and were more likely to have elevated C-reactive protein levels at baseline.

However, there were no significant differences between obese and nonobese patients in terms of IBD type, class of biologic prescribed, prior surgery, or prior biologic exposure.

Within 1 year of starting a new biologic therapy, 22.9% of patients required hospitalization, whereas 3.3% required surgery and 5.8% were hospitalized with a serious infection.

Cox proportional hazard analyses showed that obesity was not associated with an increased risk for hospitalization versus normal body mass index (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.13), nor was it associated with IBD-related surgery (aHR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.31-1.22) or serious infection (aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.73-1.71).

The results were similar when the patients were stratified by IBD type and index biologic therapy, the researchers write.

When analyzed as a continuous variable, BMI was associated with a lower risk for hospitalization (aHR, 0.98 per 1 kg/m2; P = .044) but not with IBD-related surgery or serious infection.
 

Reassuring results for the standard of care

Discussing their findings, the authors note that “the discrepancy among studies potentially reflects the shortcomings of overall obesity measured using BMI to capture clinically meaningful adiposity.”

“A small but growing body of literature suggests visceral adipose tissue is a potentially superior prognostic measure of adiposity and better predicts adverse outcomes in IBD.”

Dr. Singh said that it would be “very interesting” to examine the relationship between visceral adiposity, as inferred from waist circumference, and IBD outcomes.

Approached for comment, Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, Clifford Joseph Barborka Professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said, “At the present time, there are no new clinical implications based on this study.”

He said in an interview that it “does not require any change in the current standard of care but rather attempts to reassure that the standard of care does not change for obese patients.”

“With that being said, the standard of care may require dosing adjustments for patients based on weight, as is already the case for infliximab/ustekinumab, and monitoring to treat to target in obese patients as well as in normal or underweight patients,” Dr. Hanauer concluded.

The study was supported by the ACG Junior Faculty Development Award and the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation Career Development Award to Dr. Singh. Dr. Singh is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and reports relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, and Pfizer. The other authors report numerous financial relationships. Dr. Hanauer reports no relevant financial relationships.

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