User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Patient Navigators for Serious Illnesses Can Now Bill Under New Medicare Codes
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a move that acknowledges the gauntlet the US health system poses for people facing serious and fatal illnesses, Medicare will pay for a new class of workers to help patients manage treatments for conditions like cancer and heart failure.
The 2024 Medicare physician fee schedule includes new billing codes, including G0023, to pay for 60 minutes a month of care coordination by certified or trained auxiliary personnel working under the direction of a clinician.
A diagnosis of cancer or another serious illness takes a toll beyond the physical effects of the disease. Patients often scramble to make adjustments in family and work schedules to manage treatment, said Samyukta Mullangi, MD, MBA, medical director of oncology at Thyme Care, a Nashville, Tennessee–based firm that provides navigation and coordination services to oncology practices and insurers.
“It just really does create a bit of a pressure cooker for patients,” Dr. Mullangi told this news organization.
Medicare has for many years paid for medical professionals to help patients cope with the complexities of disease, such as chronic care management (CCM) provided by physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.
The new principal illness navigation (PIN) payments are intended to pay for work that to date typically has been done by people without medical degrees, including those involved in peer support networks and community health programs. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) expects these navigators will undergo training and work under the supervision of clinicians.
The new navigators may coordinate care transitions between medical settings, follow up with patients after emergency department (ED) visits, or communicate with skilled nursing facilities regarding the psychosocial needs and functional deficits of a patient, among other functions.
CMS expects the new navigators may:
- Conduct assessments to understand a patient’s life story, strengths, needs, goals, preferences, and desired outcomes, including understanding cultural and linguistic factors.
- Provide support to accomplish the clinician’s treatment plan.
- Coordinate the receipt of needed services from healthcare facilities, home- and community-based service providers, and caregivers.
Peers as Navigators
The new navigators can be former patients who have undergone similar treatments for serious diseases, CMS said. This approach sets the new program apart from other care management services Medicare already covers, program officials wrote in the 2024 physician fee schedule.
“For some conditions, patients are best able to engage with the healthcare system and access care if they have assistance from a single, dedicated individual who has ‘lived experience,’ ” according to the rule.
The agency has taken a broad initial approach in defining what kinds of illnesses a patient may have to qualify for services. Patients must have a serious condition that is expected to last at least 3 months, such as cancer, heart failure, or substance use disorder.
But those without a definitive diagnosis may also qualify to receive navigator services.
In the rule, CMS cited a case in which a CT scan identified a suspicious mass in a patient’s colon. A clinician might decide this person would benefit from navigation services due to the potential risks for an undiagnosed illness.
“Regardless of the definitive diagnosis of the mass, presence of a colonic mass for that patient may be a serious high-risk condition that could, for example, cause obstruction and lead the patient to present to the emergency department, as well as be potentially indicative of an underlying life-threatening illness such as colon cancer,” CMS wrote in the rule.
Navigators often start their work when cancer patients are screened and guide them through initial diagnosis, potential surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy, said Sharon Gentry, MSN, RN, a former nurse navigator who is now the editor in chief of the Journal of the Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators.
The navigators are meant to be a trusted and continual presence for patients, who otherwise might be left to start anew in finding help at each phase of care.
The navigators “see the whole picture. They see the whole journey the patient takes, from pre-diagnosis all the way through diagnosis care out through survival,” Ms. Gentry said.
Gaining a special Medicare payment for these kinds of services will elevate this work, she said.
Many newer drugs can target specific mechanisms and proteins of cancer. Often, oncology treatment involves testing to find out if mutations are allowing the cancer cells to evade a patient’s immune system.
Checking these biomarkers takes time, however. Patients sometimes become frustrated because they are anxious to begin treatment. Patients may receive inaccurate information from friends or family who went through treatment previously. Navigators can provide knowledge on the current state of care for a patient’s disease, helping them better manage anxieties.
“You have to explain to them that things have changed since the guy you drink coffee with was diagnosed with cancer, and there may be a drug that could target that,” Ms. Gentry said.
Potential Challenges
Initial uptake of the new PIN codes may be slow going, however, as clinicians and health systems may already use well-established codes. These include CCM and principal care management services, which may pay higher rates, Mullangi said.
“There might be sensitivity around not wanting to cannibalize existing programs with a new program,” Dr. Mullangi said.
In addition, many patients will have a copay for the services of principal illness navigators, Dr. Mullangi said.
While many patients have additional insurance that would cover the service, not all do. People with traditional Medicare coverage can sometimes pay 20% of the cost of some medical services.
“I think that may give patients pause, particularly if they’re already feeling the financial burden of a cancer treatment journey,” Dr. Mullangi said.
Pay rates for PIN services involve calculations of regional price differences, which are posted publicly by CMS, and potential added fees for services provided by hospital-affiliated organizations.
Consider payments for code G0023, covering 60 minutes of principal navigation services provided in a single month.
A set reimbursement for patients cared for in independent medical practices exists, with variation for local costs. Medicare’s non-facility price for G0023 would be $102.41 in some parts of Silicon Valley in California, including San Jose. In Arkansas, where costs are lower, reimbursement would be $73.14 for this same service.
Patients who get services covered by code G0023 in independent medical practices would have monthly copays of about $15-$20, depending on where they live.
The tab for patients tends to be higher for these same services if delivered through a medical practice owned by a hospital, as this would trigger the addition of facility fees to the payments made to cover the services. Facility fees are difficult for the public to ascertain before getting a treatment or service.
Dr. Mullangi and Ms. Gentry reported no relevant financial disclosures outside of their employers.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How to explain physician compounding to legislators
In Ohio, new limits on drug compounding in physicians’ offices went into effect in April and have become a real hindrance to care for dermatology patients. The State of Ohio Board of Pharmacy has defined compounding as combining two or more prescription drugs and has required that physicians who perform this “compounding” must obtain a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license. Ohio is the “test state,” and these rules, unless vigorously opposed, will be coming to your state.
[polldaddy:9779752]
The rules state that “compounded” drugs used within 6 hours of preparation must be prepared in a designated clean medication area with proper hand hygiene and the use of powder-free gloves. “Compounded” drugs that are used more than 6 hours after preparation, require a designated clean room with access limited to authorized personnel, environmental control devices such as a laminar flow hood, and additional equipment and training of personnel to maintain an aseptic environment. A separate license is required for each office location.
The state pharmacy boards are eager to restrict physicians – as well as dentists and veterinarians – and to collect annual licensing fees. Additionally, according to an article from the Ohio State Medical Association, noncompliant physicians can be fined by the pharmacy board.
We are talking big money, power, and dreams of clinical relevancy (and billable activities) here.
What can dermatologists do to prevent this regulatory overreach? I encourage you to plan a visit to your state representative, where you can demonstrate how these restrictions affect you and your patients – an exercise that should be both fun and compelling. All you need to illustrate your case is a simple kit that includes a syringe (but no needles in the statehouse!), a bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine, a bottle of 8.4% bicarbonate, alcohol pads, and gloves.
First, explain to your audience that there is a skin cancer epidemic with more than 5.4 million new cases a year and that, over the past 20 years, the incidence of skin cancer has doubled and is projected to double again over the next 20 years. Further, explain that dermatologists treat more than 70% of these cases in the office setting, under local anesthesia, at a huge cost savings to the public and government (it costs an average of 12 times as much to remove these cancers in the outpatient department at the hospital). Remember, states foot most of the bill for Medicaid and Medicare gap indigent coverage.
Take the bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine and open the syringe pack (Staffers love this demonstration; everyone is fascinated with shots.). Put on your gloves, wipe the top of the lidocaine bottle with an alcohol swab, and explain that this medicine is the anesthetic preferred for skin cancer surgery. Explain how it not only numbs the skin, but also causes vasoconstriction, so that the cancer can be easily and safely removed in the office.
Then explain that, in order for the epinephrine to be stable, the solution has to be very acidic (a pH of 4.2, in fact). Explain that this makes it burn like hell unless you add 0.1 cc per cc of 8.4% bicarbonate, in which case the perceived pain on a 10-point scale will drop from 8 to 2. Then pick up the bottle of bicarbonate and explain that you will no longer be able to mix these two components anymore without a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license because your state pharmacy board considers this compounding. Your representative is likely to give you looks of astonishment, disbelief, and then a dawning realization of the absurdity of the situation.
Follow-up questions may include “Why can’t you buy buffered lidocaine with epinephrine from the compounding pharmacy?” Easy answer: because each patient needs an individual prescription, and you may not know in advance which patient will need it, and how much the patient will need, and it becomes unstable once it has been buffered. It also will cost the patient $45 per 5-cc syringe, and it will be degraded by the time the patient returns from the compounding pharmacy. Explain further that it costs you only 84 cents to make a 5-cc syringe of buffered lidocaine; that some patients may need as many as 10 syringes; and that these costs are all included in the surgery (free!) if the physician draws it up in the office.
A simple summary is – less pain, less cost – and no history of infections or complications.
It is an eye-opener when you demonstrate how ridiculous the compounding rules being imposed are for physicians and patients. I’ve used this demonstration at the state and federal legislative level, and more recently, at the Food and Drug Administration.
If you get the chance, when a state legislator is in your office, become an advocate for your patients and fellow physicians. Make sure physician offices are excluded from these definitions of com
This column was updated June 22, 2017.
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
In Ohio, new limits on drug compounding in physicians’ offices went into effect in April and have become a real hindrance to care for dermatology patients. The State of Ohio Board of Pharmacy has defined compounding as combining two or more prescription drugs and has required that physicians who perform this “compounding” must obtain a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license. Ohio is the “test state,” and these rules, unless vigorously opposed, will be coming to your state.
[polldaddy:9779752]
The rules state that “compounded” drugs used within 6 hours of preparation must be prepared in a designated clean medication area with proper hand hygiene and the use of powder-free gloves. “Compounded” drugs that are used more than 6 hours after preparation, require a designated clean room with access limited to authorized personnel, environmental control devices such as a laminar flow hood, and additional equipment and training of personnel to maintain an aseptic environment. A separate license is required for each office location.
The state pharmacy boards are eager to restrict physicians – as well as dentists and veterinarians – and to collect annual licensing fees. Additionally, according to an article from the Ohio State Medical Association, noncompliant physicians can be fined by the pharmacy board.
We are talking big money, power, and dreams of clinical relevancy (and billable activities) here.
What can dermatologists do to prevent this regulatory overreach? I encourage you to plan a visit to your state representative, where you can demonstrate how these restrictions affect you and your patients – an exercise that should be both fun and compelling. All you need to illustrate your case is a simple kit that includes a syringe (but no needles in the statehouse!), a bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine, a bottle of 8.4% bicarbonate, alcohol pads, and gloves.
First, explain to your audience that there is a skin cancer epidemic with more than 5.4 million new cases a year and that, over the past 20 years, the incidence of skin cancer has doubled and is projected to double again over the next 20 years. Further, explain that dermatologists treat more than 70% of these cases in the office setting, under local anesthesia, at a huge cost savings to the public and government (it costs an average of 12 times as much to remove these cancers in the outpatient department at the hospital). Remember, states foot most of the bill for Medicaid and Medicare gap indigent coverage.
Take the bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine and open the syringe pack (Staffers love this demonstration; everyone is fascinated with shots.). Put on your gloves, wipe the top of the lidocaine bottle with an alcohol swab, and explain that this medicine is the anesthetic preferred for skin cancer surgery. Explain how it not only numbs the skin, but also causes vasoconstriction, so that the cancer can be easily and safely removed in the office.
Then explain that, in order for the epinephrine to be stable, the solution has to be very acidic (a pH of 4.2, in fact). Explain that this makes it burn like hell unless you add 0.1 cc per cc of 8.4% bicarbonate, in which case the perceived pain on a 10-point scale will drop from 8 to 2. Then pick up the bottle of bicarbonate and explain that you will no longer be able to mix these two components anymore without a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license because your state pharmacy board considers this compounding. Your representative is likely to give you looks of astonishment, disbelief, and then a dawning realization of the absurdity of the situation.
Follow-up questions may include “Why can’t you buy buffered lidocaine with epinephrine from the compounding pharmacy?” Easy answer: because each patient needs an individual prescription, and you may not know in advance which patient will need it, and how much the patient will need, and it becomes unstable once it has been buffered. It also will cost the patient $45 per 5-cc syringe, and it will be degraded by the time the patient returns from the compounding pharmacy. Explain further that it costs you only 84 cents to make a 5-cc syringe of buffered lidocaine; that some patients may need as many as 10 syringes; and that these costs are all included in the surgery (free!) if the physician draws it up in the office.
A simple summary is – less pain, less cost – and no history of infections or complications.
It is an eye-opener when you demonstrate how ridiculous the compounding rules being imposed are for physicians and patients. I’ve used this demonstration at the state and federal legislative level, and more recently, at the Food and Drug Administration.
If you get the chance, when a state legislator is in your office, become an advocate for your patients and fellow physicians. Make sure physician offices are excluded from these definitions of com
This column was updated June 22, 2017.
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
In Ohio, new limits on drug compounding in physicians’ offices went into effect in April and have become a real hindrance to care for dermatology patients. The State of Ohio Board of Pharmacy has defined compounding as combining two or more prescription drugs and has required that physicians who perform this “compounding” must obtain a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license. Ohio is the “test state,” and these rules, unless vigorously opposed, will be coming to your state.
[polldaddy:9779752]
The rules state that “compounded” drugs used within 6 hours of preparation must be prepared in a designated clean medication area with proper hand hygiene and the use of powder-free gloves. “Compounded” drugs that are used more than 6 hours after preparation, require a designated clean room with access limited to authorized personnel, environmental control devices such as a laminar flow hood, and additional equipment and training of personnel to maintain an aseptic environment. A separate license is required for each office location.
The state pharmacy boards are eager to restrict physicians – as well as dentists and veterinarians – and to collect annual licensing fees. Additionally, according to an article from the Ohio State Medical Association, noncompliant physicians can be fined by the pharmacy board.
We are talking big money, power, and dreams of clinical relevancy (and billable activities) here.
What can dermatologists do to prevent this regulatory overreach? I encourage you to plan a visit to your state representative, where you can demonstrate how these restrictions affect you and your patients – an exercise that should be both fun and compelling. All you need to illustrate your case is a simple kit that includes a syringe (but no needles in the statehouse!), a bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine, a bottle of 8.4% bicarbonate, alcohol pads, and gloves.
First, explain to your audience that there is a skin cancer epidemic with more than 5.4 million new cases a year and that, over the past 20 years, the incidence of skin cancer has doubled and is projected to double again over the next 20 years. Further, explain that dermatologists treat more than 70% of these cases in the office setting, under local anesthesia, at a huge cost savings to the public and government (it costs an average of 12 times as much to remove these cancers in the outpatient department at the hospital). Remember, states foot most of the bill for Medicaid and Medicare gap indigent coverage.
Take the bottle of lidocaine with epinephrine and open the syringe pack (Staffers love this demonstration; everyone is fascinated with shots.). Put on your gloves, wipe the top of the lidocaine bottle with an alcohol swab, and explain that this medicine is the anesthetic preferred for skin cancer surgery. Explain how it not only numbs the skin, but also causes vasoconstriction, so that the cancer can be easily and safely removed in the office.
Then explain that, in order for the epinephrine to be stable, the solution has to be very acidic (a pH of 4.2, in fact). Explain that this makes it burn like hell unless you add 0.1 cc per cc of 8.4% bicarbonate, in which case the perceived pain on a 10-point scale will drop from 8 to 2. Then pick up the bottle of bicarbonate and explain that you will no longer be able to mix these two components anymore without a “Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs” license because your state pharmacy board considers this compounding. Your representative is likely to give you looks of astonishment, disbelief, and then a dawning realization of the absurdity of the situation.
Follow-up questions may include “Why can’t you buy buffered lidocaine with epinephrine from the compounding pharmacy?” Easy answer: because each patient needs an individual prescription, and you may not know in advance which patient will need it, and how much the patient will need, and it becomes unstable once it has been buffered. It also will cost the patient $45 per 5-cc syringe, and it will be degraded by the time the patient returns from the compounding pharmacy. Explain further that it costs you only 84 cents to make a 5-cc syringe of buffered lidocaine; that some patients may need as many as 10 syringes; and that these costs are all included in the surgery (free!) if the physician draws it up in the office.
A simple summary is – less pain, less cost – and no history of infections or complications.
It is an eye-opener when you demonstrate how ridiculous the compounding rules being imposed are for physicians and patients. I’ve used this demonstration at the state and federal legislative level, and more recently, at the Food and Drug Administration.
If you get the chance, when a state legislator is in your office, become an advocate for your patients and fellow physicians. Make sure physician offices are excluded from these definitions of com
This column was updated June 22, 2017.
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
Best Practices: Protecting Dry Vulnerable Skin with CeraVe® Healing Ointment
A supplement to Dermatology News. This advertising supplement is sponsored by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.
- Reinforcing the Skin Barrier
- NEA Seal of Acceptance
- A Preventative Approach to Dry, Cracked Skin
- CeraVe Ointment in the Clinical Setting
Faculty/Faculty Disclosure
Sheila Fallon Friedlander, MD
Professor of Clinical Dermatology & Pediatrics
Director, Pediatric Dermatology Fellowship Training Program
University of California at San Diego School of Medicine
Rady Children’s Hospital,
San Diego, California
Dr. Friedlander was compensated for her participation in the development of this article.
CeraVe is a registered trademark of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. or its affiliates.
A supplement to Dermatology News. This advertising supplement is sponsored by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.
- Reinforcing the Skin Barrier
- NEA Seal of Acceptance
- A Preventative Approach to Dry, Cracked Skin
- CeraVe Ointment in the Clinical Setting
Faculty/Faculty Disclosure
Sheila Fallon Friedlander, MD
Professor of Clinical Dermatology & Pediatrics
Director, Pediatric Dermatology Fellowship Training Program
University of California at San Diego School of Medicine
Rady Children’s Hospital,
San Diego, California
Dr. Friedlander was compensated for her participation in the development of this article.
CeraVe is a registered trademark of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. or its affiliates.
A supplement to Dermatology News. This advertising supplement is sponsored by Valeant Pharmaceuticals.
- Reinforcing the Skin Barrier
- NEA Seal of Acceptance
- A Preventative Approach to Dry, Cracked Skin
- CeraVe Ointment in the Clinical Setting
Faculty/Faculty Disclosure
Sheila Fallon Friedlander, MD
Professor of Clinical Dermatology & Pediatrics
Director, Pediatric Dermatology Fellowship Training Program
University of California at San Diego School of Medicine
Rady Children’s Hospital,
San Diego, California
Dr. Friedlander was compensated for her participation in the development of this article.
CeraVe is a registered trademark of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. or its affiliates.
Building an AI Army of Digital Twins to Fight Cancer
A patient has cancer. It’s decision time.
Clinician and patient alike face, really, the ultimate challenge when making those decisions. They have to consider the patient’s individual circumstances, available treatment options, potential side effects, relevant clinical data such as the patient’s genetic profile and cancer specifics, and more.
“That’s a lot of information to hold,” said Uzma Asghar, PhD, MRCP, a British consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital and a chief scientific officer at Concr LTD.
What if there were a way to test — quickly and accurately — all the potential paths forward?
That’s the goal of digital twins.
“What the [digital twin] model can do for the clinician is to hold all that information and process it really quickly, within a couple of minutes,” Asghar noted.
A digital twin is more than just a computer model or simulation because it copies a real-world person and relies on real-world data. Some digital twin programs also integrate new information as it becomes available. This technology holds promise for personalized medicine, drug discovery, developing screening strategies, and better understanding diseases.
How to Deliver a Twin
To create a digital twin, experts develop a computer model with data to hone its expertise in an area of medicine, such as cancer types and treatments. Then “you train the model on information it’s seen, and then introduce a patient and patient’s information,” said Asghar.
Asghar is currently working with colleagues to develop digital twins that could eventually help solve the aforementioned cancer scenario — a doctor and patient decide the best course of cancer treatment. But their applications are manifold, particularly in clinical research.
Digital twins often include a machine learning component, which would fall under the umbrella term of AI, said Asghar, but it’s not like ChatGPT or other generative AI modules many people are now familiar with.
“The difference here is the model is not there to replace the clinician or to replace clinical trials,” Asghar noted. Instead, digital twins help make decisions faster in a way that can be more affordable.
Digital Twins to Predict Cancer Outcomes
Asghar is currently involved in UK clinical trials enrolling patients with cancer to test the accuracy of digital twin programs.
At this point, these studies do not yet use digital twins to guide the course of treatment, which is something they hope to do eventually. For now, they are still at the validation phase — the digital twin program makes predictions about the treatments and then the researchers later evaluate how accurate the predictions turned out to be based on real information from the enrolled patients.
Their current model gives predictions for RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumor), treatment response, and survival. In addition to collecting data from ongoing clinical trials, they’ve used retrospective data, such as from the Cancer Tumor Atlas, to test the model.
“We’ve clinically validated it now in over 9000 patients,” said Asghar, who noted that they are constantly testing it on new patients. Their data include 30 chemotherapies and 23 cancer types, but they are focusing on four: Triple-negative breast cancer, cancer of unknown primary, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer.
“The reason for choosing those four cancer types is that they are aggressive, their response to chemotherapy isn’t as great, and the outcome for those patient populations, there’s significant room for improvement,” Asghar explained.
Currently, Asghar said, the model is around 80%-90% correct in predicting what the actual clinical outcomes turn out to be.
The final stage of their work, before it becomes widely available to clinicians, will be to integrate it into a clinical trial in which some clinicians use the model to make decisions about treatment vs some who don’t use the model. By studying patient outcomes in both groups, they will be able to determine the value of the digital twin program they created.
What Else Can a Twin Do? A Lot
While a model that helps clinicians make decisions about cancer treatments may be among the first digital twin programs that become widely available, there are many other kinds of digital twins in the works.
For example, a digital twin could be used as a benchmark for a patient to determine how their cancer might have progressed without treatment. Say a patient’s tumor grew during treatment, it might seem like the treatment failed, but a digital twin might show that if left untreated, the tumor would have grown five times as fast, said Paul Macklin, PhD, professor in the Department of Intelligent Systems Engineering at Indiana University Bloomington.
Alternatively, if the virtual patient’s tumor is around the same size as the real patient’s tumor, “that means that treatment has lost its efficacy. It’s time to do something new,” said Macklin. And a digital twin could help with not only choosing a therapy but also choosing a dosing schedule, he noted.
The models can also be updated as new treatments come out, which could help clinicians virtually explore how they might affect a patient before having that patient switch treatments.
Digital twins could also assist in decision-making based on a patient’s priorities and real-life circumstances. “Maybe your priority is not necessarily to shrink this [tumor] at all costs ... maybe your priority is some mix of that and also quality of life,” Macklin said, referring to potential side effects. Or if someone lives 3 hours from the nearest cancer center, a digital twin could help determine whether less frequent treatments could still be effective.
And while much of the activity around digital twins in biomedical research has been focused on cancer, Asghar said the technology has the potential to be applied to other diseases as well. A digital twin for cardiovascular disease could help doctors choose the best treatment. It could also integrate new information from a smartwatch or glucose monitor to make better predictions and help doctors adjust the treatment plan.
Faster, More Effective Research With Twins
Because digital twin programs can quickly analyze large datasets, they can also make real-world studies more effective and efficient.
Though digital twins would not fully replace real clinical trials, they could help run through preliminary scenarios before starting a full clinical trial, which would “save everybody some money, time and pain and risk,” said Macklin.
It’s also possible to use digital twins to design better screening strategies for early cancer detection and monitoring, said Ioannis Zervantonakis, PhD, a bioengineering professor at the University of Pittsburgh.
Zervantonakis is tapping digital twin technology for research that homes in on understanding tumors. In this case, the digital twin is a virtual representation of a real tumor, complete with its complex network of cells and the surrounding tissue.
Zervantonakis’ lab is using the technology to study cell-cell interactions in the tumor microenvironment, with a focus on human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted therapy resistance in breast cancer. The digital twin they developed will simulate tumor growth, predict drug response, analyze cellular interactions, and optimize treatment strategies.
The Long Push Forward
One big hurdle to making digital twins more widely available is that regulation for the technology is still in progress.
“We’re developing the technology, and what’s also happening is the regulatory framework is being developed in parallel. So we’re almost developing things blindly on the basis that we think this is what the regulators would want,” explained Asghar.
“It’s really important that these technologies are regulated properly, just like drugs, and that’s what we’re pushing and advocating for,” said Asghar, noting that people need to know that like drugs, a digital twin has strengths and limitations.
And while a digital twin can be a cost-saving approach in the long run, it does require funding to get a program built, and finding funds can be difficult because not everyone knows about the technology. More funding means more trials.
With more data, Asghar is hopeful that within a few years, a digital twin model could be available for clinicians to use to help inform treatment decisions. This could lead to more effective treatments and, ultimately, better patient outcomes.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A patient has cancer. It’s decision time.
Clinician and patient alike face, really, the ultimate challenge when making those decisions. They have to consider the patient’s individual circumstances, available treatment options, potential side effects, relevant clinical data such as the patient’s genetic profile and cancer specifics, and more.
“That’s a lot of information to hold,” said Uzma Asghar, PhD, MRCP, a British consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital and a chief scientific officer at Concr LTD.
What if there were a way to test — quickly and accurately — all the potential paths forward?
That’s the goal of digital twins.
“What the [digital twin] model can do for the clinician is to hold all that information and process it really quickly, within a couple of minutes,” Asghar noted.
A digital twin is more than just a computer model or simulation because it copies a real-world person and relies on real-world data. Some digital twin programs also integrate new information as it becomes available. This technology holds promise for personalized medicine, drug discovery, developing screening strategies, and better understanding diseases.
How to Deliver a Twin
To create a digital twin, experts develop a computer model with data to hone its expertise in an area of medicine, such as cancer types and treatments. Then “you train the model on information it’s seen, and then introduce a patient and patient’s information,” said Asghar.
Asghar is currently working with colleagues to develop digital twins that could eventually help solve the aforementioned cancer scenario — a doctor and patient decide the best course of cancer treatment. But their applications are manifold, particularly in clinical research.
Digital twins often include a machine learning component, which would fall under the umbrella term of AI, said Asghar, but it’s not like ChatGPT or other generative AI modules many people are now familiar with.
“The difference here is the model is not there to replace the clinician or to replace clinical trials,” Asghar noted. Instead, digital twins help make decisions faster in a way that can be more affordable.
Digital Twins to Predict Cancer Outcomes
Asghar is currently involved in UK clinical trials enrolling patients with cancer to test the accuracy of digital twin programs.
At this point, these studies do not yet use digital twins to guide the course of treatment, which is something they hope to do eventually. For now, they are still at the validation phase — the digital twin program makes predictions about the treatments and then the researchers later evaluate how accurate the predictions turned out to be based on real information from the enrolled patients.
Their current model gives predictions for RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumor), treatment response, and survival. In addition to collecting data from ongoing clinical trials, they’ve used retrospective data, such as from the Cancer Tumor Atlas, to test the model.
“We’ve clinically validated it now in over 9000 patients,” said Asghar, who noted that they are constantly testing it on new patients. Their data include 30 chemotherapies and 23 cancer types, but they are focusing on four: Triple-negative breast cancer, cancer of unknown primary, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer.
“The reason for choosing those four cancer types is that they are aggressive, their response to chemotherapy isn’t as great, and the outcome for those patient populations, there’s significant room for improvement,” Asghar explained.
Currently, Asghar said, the model is around 80%-90% correct in predicting what the actual clinical outcomes turn out to be.
The final stage of their work, before it becomes widely available to clinicians, will be to integrate it into a clinical trial in which some clinicians use the model to make decisions about treatment vs some who don’t use the model. By studying patient outcomes in both groups, they will be able to determine the value of the digital twin program they created.
What Else Can a Twin Do? A Lot
While a model that helps clinicians make decisions about cancer treatments may be among the first digital twin programs that become widely available, there are many other kinds of digital twins in the works.
For example, a digital twin could be used as a benchmark for a patient to determine how their cancer might have progressed without treatment. Say a patient’s tumor grew during treatment, it might seem like the treatment failed, but a digital twin might show that if left untreated, the tumor would have grown five times as fast, said Paul Macklin, PhD, professor in the Department of Intelligent Systems Engineering at Indiana University Bloomington.
Alternatively, if the virtual patient’s tumor is around the same size as the real patient’s tumor, “that means that treatment has lost its efficacy. It’s time to do something new,” said Macklin. And a digital twin could help with not only choosing a therapy but also choosing a dosing schedule, he noted.
The models can also be updated as new treatments come out, which could help clinicians virtually explore how they might affect a patient before having that patient switch treatments.
Digital twins could also assist in decision-making based on a patient’s priorities and real-life circumstances. “Maybe your priority is not necessarily to shrink this [tumor] at all costs ... maybe your priority is some mix of that and also quality of life,” Macklin said, referring to potential side effects. Or if someone lives 3 hours from the nearest cancer center, a digital twin could help determine whether less frequent treatments could still be effective.
And while much of the activity around digital twins in biomedical research has been focused on cancer, Asghar said the technology has the potential to be applied to other diseases as well. A digital twin for cardiovascular disease could help doctors choose the best treatment. It could also integrate new information from a smartwatch or glucose monitor to make better predictions and help doctors adjust the treatment plan.
Faster, More Effective Research With Twins
Because digital twin programs can quickly analyze large datasets, they can also make real-world studies more effective and efficient.
Though digital twins would not fully replace real clinical trials, they could help run through preliminary scenarios before starting a full clinical trial, which would “save everybody some money, time and pain and risk,” said Macklin.
It’s also possible to use digital twins to design better screening strategies for early cancer detection and monitoring, said Ioannis Zervantonakis, PhD, a bioengineering professor at the University of Pittsburgh.
Zervantonakis is tapping digital twin technology for research that homes in on understanding tumors. In this case, the digital twin is a virtual representation of a real tumor, complete with its complex network of cells and the surrounding tissue.
Zervantonakis’ lab is using the technology to study cell-cell interactions in the tumor microenvironment, with a focus on human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted therapy resistance in breast cancer. The digital twin they developed will simulate tumor growth, predict drug response, analyze cellular interactions, and optimize treatment strategies.
The Long Push Forward
One big hurdle to making digital twins more widely available is that regulation for the technology is still in progress.
“We’re developing the technology, and what’s also happening is the regulatory framework is being developed in parallel. So we’re almost developing things blindly on the basis that we think this is what the regulators would want,” explained Asghar.
“It’s really important that these technologies are regulated properly, just like drugs, and that’s what we’re pushing and advocating for,” said Asghar, noting that people need to know that like drugs, a digital twin has strengths and limitations.
And while a digital twin can be a cost-saving approach in the long run, it does require funding to get a program built, and finding funds can be difficult because not everyone knows about the technology. More funding means more trials.
With more data, Asghar is hopeful that within a few years, a digital twin model could be available for clinicians to use to help inform treatment decisions. This could lead to more effective treatments and, ultimately, better patient outcomes.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A patient has cancer. It’s decision time.
Clinician and patient alike face, really, the ultimate challenge when making those decisions. They have to consider the patient’s individual circumstances, available treatment options, potential side effects, relevant clinical data such as the patient’s genetic profile and cancer specifics, and more.
“That’s a lot of information to hold,” said Uzma Asghar, PhD, MRCP, a British consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital and a chief scientific officer at Concr LTD.
What if there were a way to test — quickly and accurately — all the potential paths forward?
That’s the goal of digital twins.
“What the [digital twin] model can do for the clinician is to hold all that information and process it really quickly, within a couple of minutes,” Asghar noted.
A digital twin is more than just a computer model or simulation because it copies a real-world person and relies on real-world data. Some digital twin programs also integrate new information as it becomes available. This technology holds promise for personalized medicine, drug discovery, developing screening strategies, and better understanding diseases.
How to Deliver a Twin
To create a digital twin, experts develop a computer model with data to hone its expertise in an area of medicine, such as cancer types and treatments. Then “you train the model on information it’s seen, and then introduce a patient and patient’s information,” said Asghar.
Asghar is currently working with colleagues to develop digital twins that could eventually help solve the aforementioned cancer scenario — a doctor and patient decide the best course of cancer treatment. But their applications are manifold, particularly in clinical research.
Digital twins often include a machine learning component, which would fall under the umbrella term of AI, said Asghar, but it’s not like ChatGPT or other generative AI modules many people are now familiar with.
“The difference here is the model is not there to replace the clinician or to replace clinical trials,” Asghar noted. Instead, digital twins help make decisions faster in a way that can be more affordable.
Digital Twins to Predict Cancer Outcomes
Asghar is currently involved in UK clinical trials enrolling patients with cancer to test the accuracy of digital twin programs.
At this point, these studies do not yet use digital twins to guide the course of treatment, which is something they hope to do eventually. For now, they are still at the validation phase — the digital twin program makes predictions about the treatments and then the researchers later evaluate how accurate the predictions turned out to be based on real information from the enrolled patients.
Their current model gives predictions for RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumor), treatment response, and survival. In addition to collecting data from ongoing clinical trials, they’ve used retrospective data, such as from the Cancer Tumor Atlas, to test the model.
“We’ve clinically validated it now in over 9000 patients,” said Asghar, who noted that they are constantly testing it on new patients. Their data include 30 chemotherapies and 23 cancer types, but they are focusing on four: Triple-negative breast cancer, cancer of unknown primary, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer.
“The reason for choosing those four cancer types is that they are aggressive, their response to chemotherapy isn’t as great, and the outcome for those patient populations, there’s significant room for improvement,” Asghar explained.
Currently, Asghar said, the model is around 80%-90% correct in predicting what the actual clinical outcomes turn out to be.
The final stage of their work, before it becomes widely available to clinicians, will be to integrate it into a clinical trial in which some clinicians use the model to make decisions about treatment vs some who don’t use the model. By studying patient outcomes in both groups, they will be able to determine the value of the digital twin program they created.
What Else Can a Twin Do? A Lot
While a model that helps clinicians make decisions about cancer treatments may be among the first digital twin programs that become widely available, there are many other kinds of digital twins in the works.
For example, a digital twin could be used as a benchmark for a patient to determine how their cancer might have progressed without treatment. Say a patient’s tumor grew during treatment, it might seem like the treatment failed, but a digital twin might show that if left untreated, the tumor would have grown five times as fast, said Paul Macklin, PhD, professor in the Department of Intelligent Systems Engineering at Indiana University Bloomington.
Alternatively, if the virtual patient’s tumor is around the same size as the real patient’s tumor, “that means that treatment has lost its efficacy. It’s time to do something new,” said Macklin. And a digital twin could help with not only choosing a therapy but also choosing a dosing schedule, he noted.
The models can also be updated as new treatments come out, which could help clinicians virtually explore how they might affect a patient before having that patient switch treatments.
Digital twins could also assist in decision-making based on a patient’s priorities and real-life circumstances. “Maybe your priority is not necessarily to shrink this [tumor] at all costs ... maybe your priority is some mix of that and also quality of life,” Macklin said, referring to potential side effects. Or if someone lives 3 hours from the nearest cancer center, a digital twin could help determine whether less frequent treatments could still be effective.
And while much of the activity around digital twins in biomedical research has been focused on cancer, Asghar said the technology has the potential to be applied to other diseases as well. A digital twin for cardiovascular disease could help doctors choose the best treatment. It could also integrate new information from a smartwatch or glucose monitor to make better predictions and help doctors adjust the treatment plan.
Faster, More Effective Research With Twins
Because digital twin programs can quickly analyze large datasets, they can also make real-world studies more effective and efficient.
Though digital twins would not fully replace real clinical trials, they could help run through preliminary scenarios before starting a full clinical trial, which would “save everybody some money, time and pain and risk,” said Macklin.
It’s also possible to use digital twins to design better screening strategies for early cancer detection and monitoring, said Ioannis Zervantonakis, PhD, a bioengineering professor at the University of Pittsburgh.
Zervantonakis is tapping digital twin technology for research that homes in on understanding tumors. In this case, the digital twin is a virtual representation of a real tumor, complete with its complex network of cells and the surrounding tissue.
Zervantonakis’ lab is using the technology to study cell-cell interactions in the tumor microenvironment, with a focus on human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted therapy resistance in breast cancer. The digital twin they developed will simulate tumor growth, predict drug response, analyze cellular interactions, and optimize treatment strategies.
The Long Push Forward
One big hurdle to making digital twins more widely available is that regulation for the technology is still in progress.
“We’re developing the technology, and what’s also happening is the regulatory framework is being developed in parallel. So we’re almost developing things blindly on the basis that we think this is what the regulators would want,” explained Asghar.
“It’s really important that these technologies are regulated properly, just like drugs, and that’s what we’re pushing and advocating for,” said Asghar, noting that people need to know that like drugs, a digital twin has strengths and limitations.
And while a digital twin can be a cost-saving approach in the long run, it does require funding to get a program built, and finding funds can be difficult because not everyone knows about the technology. More funding means more trials.
With more data, Asghar is hopeful that within a few years, a digital twin model could be available for clinicians to use to help inform treatment decisions. This could lead to more effective treatments and, ultimately, better patient outcomes.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Study Finds No Significant Effect of Low-Dose Oral Minoxidil on BP
TOPLINE:
but is associated with a slight increase in heart rate and a 5% incidence of hypotensive symptoms.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies, which involved 2387 patients with alopecia (60.7% women) who received minoxidil, a vasodilator originally developed as an antihypertensive, at doses of 5 mg or less per day.
- Outcomes included changes in mean arterial pressure, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and heart rate.
- Mean differences were calculated between pretreatment and posttreatment values.
TAKEAWAY:
- Hypotensive symptoms were reported in 5% patients, with no significant hypotensive episodes. About 1.8% patients experienced lightheadedness or syncope, 1.2% experienced dizziness, 0.9% had tachycardia, and 0.8% had palpitations.
- LDOM did not significantly alter systolic BP (mean difference, –0.13; 95% CI, –2.67 to 2.41), diastolic BP (mean difference, –1.25; 95% CI, –3.21 to 0.71), and mean arterial pressure (mean difference, –1.92; 95% CI, –4.00 to 0.17).
- LDOM led to a significant increase in heart rate (mean difference, 2.67 beats/min; 95% CI, 0.34-5.01), a difference the authors wrote would “likely not be clinically significant for most patients.”
- Hypertrichosis was the most common side effect (59.6%) and reason for stopping treatment (accounting for nearly 35% of discontinuations).
IN PRACTICE:
“LDOM appears to be a safe treatment for alopecia with no significant impact on blood pressure,” the authors wrote, noting that the study “addresses gaps in clinical knowledge involving LDOM.” Based on their results, they recommended that BP and heart rate “do not need to be closely monitored in patients without prior cardiovascular risk history.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Matthew Chen, BS, Stony Brook Dermatology in New York. It was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The studies included had small sample sizes and retrospective designs, which may limit the reliability of the findings. Additional limitations include the absence of control groups, a potential recall bias in adverse effect reporting, and variability in dosing regimens and BP monitoring.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported no external funding or conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
but is associated with a slight increase in heart rate and a 5% incidence of hypotensive symptoms.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies, which involved 2387 patients with alopecia (60.7% women) who received minoxidil, a vasodilator originally developed as an antihypertensive, at doses of 5 mg or less per day.
- Outcomes included changes in mean arterial pressure, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and heart rate.
- Mean differences were calculated between pretreatment and posttreatment values.
TAKEAWAY:
- Hypotensive symptoms were reported in 5% patients, with no significant hypotensive episodes. About 1.8% patients experienced lightheadedness or syncope, 1.2% experienced dizziness, 0.9% had tachycardia, and 0.8% had palpitations.
- LDOM did not significantly alter systolic BP (mean difference, –0.13; 95% CI, –2.67 to 2.41), diastolic BP (mean difference, –1.25; 95% CI, –3.21 to 0.71), and mean arterial pressure (mean difference, –1.92; 95% CI, –4.00 to 0.17).
- LDOM led to a significant increase in heart rate (mean difference, 2.67 beats/min; 95% CI, 0.34-5.01), a difference the authors wrote would “likely not be clinically significant for most patients.”
- Hypertrichosis was the most common side effect (59.6%) and reason for stopping treatment (accounting for nearly 35% of discontinuations).
IN PRACTICE:
“LDOM appears to be a safe treatment for alopecia with no significant impact on blood pressure,” the authors wrote, noting that the study “addresses gaps in clinical knowledge involving LDOM.” Based on their results, they recommended that BP and heart rate “do not need to be closely monitored in patients without prior cardiovascular risk history.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Matthew Chen, BS, Stony Brook Dermatology in New York. It was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The studies included had small sample sizes and retrospective designs, which may limit the reliability of the findings. Additional limitations include the absence of control groups, a potential recall bias in adverse effect reporting, and variability in dosing regimens and BP monitoring.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported no external funding or conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
but is associated with a slight increase in heart rate and a 5% incidence of hypotensive symptoms.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies, which involved 2387 patients with alopecia (60.7% women) who received minoxidil, a vasodilator originally developed as an antihypertensive, at doses of 5 mg or less per day.
- Outcomes included changes in mean arterial pressure, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and heart rate.
- Mean differences were calculated between pretreatment and posttreatment values.
TAKEAWAY:
- Hypotensive symptoms were reported in 5% patients, with no significant hypotensive episodes. About 1.8% patients experienced lightheadedness or syncope, 1.2% experienced dizziness, 0.9% had tachycardia, and 0.8% had palpitations.
- LDOM did not significantly alter systolic BP (mean difference, –0.13; 95% CI, –2.67 to 2.41), diastolic BP (mean difference, –1.25; 95% CI, –3.21 to 0.71), and mean arterial pressure (mean difference, –1.92; 95% CI, –4.00 to 0.17).
- LDOM led to a significant increase in heart rate (mean difference, 2.67 beats/min; 95% CI, 0.34-5.01), a difference the authors wrote would “likely not be clinically significant for most patients.”
- Hypertrichosis was the most common side effect (59.6%) and reason for stopping treatment (accounting for nearly 35% of discontinuations).
IN PRACTICE:
“LDOM appears to be a safe treatment for alopecia with no significant impact on blood pressure,” the authors wrote, noting that the study “addresses gaps in clinical knowledge involving LDOM.” Based on their results, they recommended that BP and heart rate “do not need to be closely monitored in patients without prior cardiovascular risk history.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Matthew Chen, BS, Stony Brook Dermatology in New York. It was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The studies included had small sample sizes and retrospective designs, which may limit the reliability of the findings. Additional limitations include the absence of control groups, a potential recall bias in adverse effect reporting, and variability in dosing regimens and BP monitoring.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported no external funding or conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Barzolvolimab Effective for CSU in Phase 2 Study
of an ongoing phase 2 study.
Moreover, in the study, barzolvolimab, an anti-KIT monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activation of and depletes mast cells, induced comparable responses in a subset of patients who had taken omalizumab, an anti–immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating CSU.
The findings were presented at the annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress. Barzolvolimab is being developed by Celldex Therapeutics.
“Barzolvolimab treatment resulted in rapid, profound, and durable improvement in UAS7 [weekly Urticaria Activity Score 7],” said presenter Martin Metz, MD, professor of dermatology, Institute of Allergology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, “with a deepening of response over 52 weeks in patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU.”
“Similar robust improvement was seen in patients previously treated with omalizumab, including refractory patients,” he added.
Because barzolvolimab was well tolerated over the course of the follow-up period, Metz said, it “has the potential to be an important new treatment option,” noting that patients are now being enrolled in global phase 3 studies of barzolvolimab.
Sustained Symptom Relief
Ana M. Giménez-Arnau, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Autonomous University and Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, told Medscape Medical News that the results are important, as they showed people who switched from placebo to the active drug also saw a long-term benefit.
What is “remarkable” about barzolvolimab, continued Giménez-Arnau, who was not involved in the study, is that it is the first drug to target the KIT receptor on mast cells and interfere with stimulating growth factors, thus making the cells that drive the development of CSU “disappear.”
The study included three different barzolvolimab regimens, with the 150-mg dose every 4 weeks and the 300-mg dose every 8 weeks achieving similar results, noted Giménez-Arnau.
For her, there are important questions to answer around the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the two regimens that remain, but she underlined that for the patient, the choice of regimen could have an impact on their quality of life.
“If we give 300 mg every 8 weeks,” she said, it appears “you can achieve disease control” while halving the frequency of subcutaneous injections.
She said that it would be “interesting to know” if 300 mg every 8 weeks is given as two 150-mg injections every 2 months or one 300-mg injection. If it is the former, Giménez Arnau said, “This is potentially an important benefit for the patient.”
Sustained Benefits at 1 Year
The study enrolled 208 patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU at sites in 10 countries, randomizing them to one of four arms: Subcutaneous injections of barzolvolimab 75 mg or 150 mg every 4 weeks, 300 mg every 8 weeks, or placebo every 4 weeks.
The mean age in each arm was between 42 and 47 years, and around 75% were women. Across the arms, 64%-76% had severe disease, as measured on the UAS7, at a mean score of 30.0-31.3. Around 20% had previously been treated with omalizumab.
Patients were treated for 16 weeks, during which time they completed daily and weekly diaries and attended six clinic visits at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. Results from the trial published earlier this year demonstrated that both the regimens (150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks) achieved clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in UAS7, the primary endpoint, vs placebo at 12 weeks.
Participants in the barzolvolimab 75 mg and placebo arms were then randomized to receive barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, and those who had been in the 150-mg and 300-mg treatment arms continued with that treatment for a further 36 weeks. (The remaining patients have been continued on a further 24-week follow-up, but the data are not yet available.)
By the 52-week follow-up, 25% of patients who started in each of the barzolvolimab arms had discontinued treatment, as well as 16% first randomized to the placebo arm.
Metz reported that the improvements in UAS7 scores, observed as early as week 1, were sustained through week 52 in patients in both the ongoing 150-mg and 300-mg arms. Patients who initially started in the placebo and the barzolvolimab 75-mg groups caught up with those who had started on the higher doses, so that by week 52, there were no significant differences in urticaria activity, hives, or itch scores between the arms.
By week 52, the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled disease, defined as a UAS7 score ≤ 6, was 73.7% in the barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4-week arm and 68.2% in the 300 mg barzolvolimab every 8-week arm.
Notably, just 12.8% of patients in the placebo arm had achieved well-controlled CSU by week 16, but after switching to barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, 63% reached that target at week 52.
“Maybe even more striking and very interesting to look at,” said Metz, was the complete control of symptoms, meaning “not one single wheal and no itch.” By week 52, 52% of those on 300 mg every 8 weeks and 71.1% of those on 150 mg every 4 weeks had a complete response, with no itch/hives (UAS7 of 0).
Importantly, complete responses with barzolvolimab were observed early and were sustained or improved to week 52, Metz said, with, again, placebo and former barzolvolimab 75 mg patients catching up with those who started on 150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks once they switched at week 16.
“This is the best data for chronic spontaneous urticaria that we have so far seen,” he said, adding that the responses were seen regardless of prior experience with omalizumab.
Changes in Hair Color, Skin Pigmentation
As for safety, during the first 16 weeks, 66% of those on active treatment and 39% on placebo experienced at least one adverse event. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events, compared with two among those who received treatment for the full 52 weeks.
The most common adverse events with active treatment were hair color changes (14% in the first 16 weeks and 26% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), neutropenia/reduced neutrophil count (9% in the first 16 weeks and 17% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), and skin hypopigmentation (1% in the first 16 weeks, 13% among those treated for the full 52 weeks, and 19% among those who switched from placebo to active treatment at 36 weeks). Urticaria was reported by 10% among patients on active treatment and 10% among those on placebo in the first 16 weeks, and by 15% of those treated for the full 52 weeks.
In the post-presentation discussion, Metz explained that the hypopigmentation appears to start around the hair follicle and is diffuse, so tends to look like vitiligo.
He suggested that the melanocytes around the hair follicle “seem to be the ones that are more stressed, maybe because of the hair follicle cycling,” adding that the effect is reversible and does not appear to be dose dependent.
The study was funded by Celldex Therapeutics. Metz declared relationships with AbbVie, ALK-Abelló, Almirall, Amgen, argenx, AstraZeneca, Astria, Attovia Therapeutics, Celldex, Celltrion, Escient Pharmaceuticals, Galen, Galderma, GSK, Incyte, Jasper, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharvaris, Regeneron, Sanofi, Teva, Third Harmonic Bio, and Vifor.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
of an ongoing phase 2 study.
Moreover, in the study, barzolvolimab, an anti-KIT monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activation of and depletes mast cells, induced comparable responses in a subset of patients who had taken omalizumab, an anti–immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating CSU.
The findings were presented at the annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress. Barzolvolimab is being developed by Celldex Therapeutics.
“Barzolvolimab treatment resulted in rapid, profound, and durable improvement in UAS7 [weekly Urticaria Activity Score 7],” said presenter Martin Metz, MD, professor of dermatology, Institute of Allergology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, “with a deepening of response over 52 weeks in patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU.”
“Similar robust improvement was seen in patients previously treated with omalizumab, including refractory patients,” he added.
Because barzolvolimab was well tolerated over the course of the follow-up period, Metz said, it “has the potential to be an important new treatment option,” noting that patients are now being enrolled in global phase 3 studies of barzolvolimab.
Sustained Symptom Relief
Ana M. Giménez-Arnau, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Autonomous University and Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, told Medscape Medical News that the results are important, as they showed people who switched from placebo to the active drug also saw a long-term benefit.
What is “remarkable” about barzolvolimab, continued Giménez-Arnau, who was not involved in the study, is that it is the first drug to target the KIT receptor on mast cells and interfere with stimulating growth factors, thus making the cells that drive the development of CSU “disappear.”
The study included three different barzolvolimab regimens, with the 150-mg dose every 4 weeks and the 300-mg dose every 8 weeks achieving similar results, noted Giménez-Arnau.
For her, there are important questions to answer around the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the two regimens that remain, but she underlined that for the patient, the choice of regimen could have an impact on their quality of life.
“If we give 300 mg every 8 weeks,” she said, it appears “you can achieve disease control” while halving the frequency of subcutaneous injections.
She said that it would be “interesting to know” if 300 mg every 8 weeks is given as two 150-mg injections every 2 months or one 300-mg injection. If it is the former, Giménez Arnau said, “This is potentially an important benefit for the patient.”
Sustained Benefits at 1 Year
The study enrolled 208 patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU at sites in 10 countries, randomizing them to one of four arms: Subcutaneous injections of barzolvolimab 75 mg or 150 mg every 4 weeks, 300 mg every 8 weeks, or placebo every 4 weeks.
The mean age in each arm was between 42 and 47 years, and around 75% were women. Across the arms, 64%-76% had severe disease, as measured on the UAS7, at a mean score of 30.0-31.3. Around 20% had previously been treated with omalizumab.
Patients were treated for 16 weeks, during which time they completed daily and weekly diaries and attended six clinic visits at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. Results from the trial published earlier this year demonstrated that both the regimens (150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks) achieved clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in UAS7, the primary endpoint, vs placebo at 12 weeks.
Participants in the barzolvolimab 75 mg and placebo arms were then randomized to receive barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, and those who had been in the 150-mg and 300-mg treatment arms continued with that treatment for a further 36 weeks. (The remaining patients have been continued on a further 24-week follow-up, but the data are not yet available.)
By the 52-week follow-up, 25% of patients who started in each of the barzolvolimab arms had discontinued treatment, as well as 16% first randomized to the placebo arm.
Metz reported that the improvements in UAS7 scores, observed as early as week 1, were sustained through week 52 in patients in both the ongoing 150-mg and 300-mg arms. Patients who initially started in the placebo and the barzolvolimab 75-mg groups caught up with those who had started on the higher doses, so that by week 52, there were no significant differences in urticaria activity, hives, or itch scores between the arms.
By week 52, the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled disease, defined as a UAS7 score ≤ 6, was 73.7% in the barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4-week arm and 68.2% in the 300 mg barzolvolimab every 8-week arm.
Notably, just 12.8% of patients in the placebo arm had achieved well-controlled CSU by week 16, but after switching to barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, 63% reached that target at week 52.
“Maybe even more striking and very interesting to look at,” said Metz, was the complete control of symptoms, meaning “not one single wheal and no itch.” By week 52, 52% of those on 300 mg every 8 weeks and 71.1% of those on 150 mg every 4 weeks had a complete response, with no itch/hives (UAS7 of 0).
Importantly, complete responses with barzolvolimab were observed early and were sustained or improved to week 52, Metz said, with, again, placebo and former barzolvolimab 75 mg patients catching up with those who started on 150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks once they switched at week 16.
“This is the best data for chronic spontaneous urticaria that we have so far seen,” he said, adding that the responses were seen regardless of prior experience with omalizumab.
Changes in Hair Color, Skin Pigmentation
As for safety, during the first 16 weeks, 66% of those on active treatment and 39% on placebo experienced at least one adverse event. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events, compared with two among those who received treatment for the full 52 weeks.
The most common adverse events with active treatment were hair color changes (14% in the first 16 weeks and 26% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), neutropenia/reduced neutrophil count (9% in the first 16 weeks and 17% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), and skin hypopigmentation (1% in the first 16 weeks, 13% among those treated for the full 52 weeks, and 19% among those who switched from placebo to active treatment at 36 weeks). Urticaria was reported by 10% among patients on active treatment and 10% among those on placebo in the first 16 weeks, and by 15% of those treated for the full 52 weeks.
In the post-presentation discussion, Metz explained that the hypopigmentation appears to start around the hair follicle and is diffuse, so tends to look like vitiligo.
He suggested that the melanocytes around the hair follicle “seem to be the ones that are more stressed, maybe because of the hair follicle cycling,” adding that the effect is reversible and does not appear to be dose dependent.
The study was funded by Celldex Therapeutics. Metz declared relationships with AbbVie, ALK-Abelló, Almirall, Amgen, argenx, AstraZeneca, Astria, Attovia Therapeutics, Celldex, Celltrion, Escient Pharmaceuticals, Galen, Galderma, GSK, Incyte, Jasper, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharvaris, Regeneron, Sanofi, Teva, Third Harmonic Bio, and Vifor.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
of an ongoing phase 2 study.
Moreover, in the study, barzolvolimab, an anti-KIT monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activation of and depletes mast cells, induced comparable responses in a subset of patients who had taken omalizumab, an anti–immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating CSU.
The findings were presented at the annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress. Barzolvolimab is being developed by Celldex Therapeutics.
“Barzolvolimab treatment resulted in rapid, profound, and durable improvement in UAS7 [weekly Urticaria Activity Score 7],” said presenter Martin Metz, MD, professor of dermatology, Institute of Allergology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, “with a deepening of response over 52 weeks in patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU.”
“Similar robust improvement was seen in patients previously treated with omalizumab, including refractory patients,” he added.
Because barzolvolimab was well tolerated over the course of the follow-up period, Metz said, it “has the potential to be an important new treatment option,” noting that patients are now being enrolled in global phase 3 studies of barzolvolimab.
Sustained Symptom Relief
Ana M. Giménez-Arnau, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Autonomous University and Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, told Medscape Medical News that the results are important, as they showed people who switched from placebo to the active drug also saw a long-term benefit.
What is “remarkable” about barzolvolimab, continued Giménez-Arnau, who was not involved in the study, is that it is the first drug to target the KIT receptor on mast cells and interfere with stimulating growth factors, thus making the cells that drive the development of CSU “disappear.”
The study included three different barzolvolimab regimens, with the 150-mg dose every 4 weeks and the 300-mg dose every 8 weeks achieving similar results, noted Giménez-Arnau.
For her, there are important questions to answer around the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the two regimens that remain, but she underlined that for the patient, the choice of regimen could have an impact on their quality of life.
“If we give 300 mg every 8 weeks,” she said, it appears “you can achieve disease control” while halving the frequency of subcutaneous injections.
She said that it would be “interesting to know” if 300 mg every 8 weeks is given as two 150-mg injections every 2 months or one 300-mg injection. If it is the former, Giménez Arnau said, “This is potentially an important benefit for the patient.”
Sustained Benefits at 1 Year
The study enrolled 208 patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU at sites in 10 countries, randomizing them to one of four arms: Subcutaneous injections of barzolvolimab 75 mg or 150 mg every 4 weeks, 300 mg every 8 weeks, or placebo every 4 weeks.
The mean age in each arm was between 42 and 47 years, and around 75% were women. Across the arms, 64%-76% had severe disease, as measured on the UAS7, at a mean score of 30.0-31.3. Around 20% had previously been treated with omalizumab.
Patients were treated for 16 weeks, during which time they completed daily and weekly diaries and attended six clinic visits at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. Results from the trial published earlier this year demonstrated that both the regimens (150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks) achieved clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in UAS7, the primary endpoint, vs placebo at 12 weeks.
Participants in the barzolvolimab 75 mg and placebo arms were then randomized to receive barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, and those who had been in the 150-mg and 300-mg treatment arms continued with that treatment for a further 36 weeks. (The remaining patients have been continued on a further 24-week follow-up, but the data are not yet available.)
By the 52-week follow-up, 25% of patients who started in each of the barzolvolimab arms had discontinued treatment, as well as 16% first randomized to the placebo arm.
Metz reported that the improvements in UAS7 scores, observed as early as week 1, were sustained through week 52 in patients in both the ongoing 150-mg and 300-mg arms. Patients who initially started in the placebo and the barzolvolimab 75-mg groups caught up with those who had started on the higher doses, so that by week 52, there were no significant differences in urticaria activity, hives, or itch scores between the arms.
By week 52, the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled disease, defined as a UAS7 score ≤ 6, was 73.7% in the barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4-week arm and 68.2% in the 300 mg barzolvolimab every 8-week arm.
Notably, just 12.8% of patients in the placebo arm had achieved well-controlled CSU by week 16, but after switching to barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, 63% reached that target at week 52.
“Maybe even more striking and very interesting to look at,” said Metz, was the complete control of symptoms, meaning “not one single wheal and no itch.” By week 52, 52% of those on 300 mg every 8 weeks and 71.1% of those on 150 mg every 4 weeks had a complete response, with no itch/hives (UAS7 of 0).
Importantly, complete responses with barzolvolimab were observed early and were sustained or improved to week 52, Metz said, with, again, placebo and former barzolvolimab 75 mg patients catching up with those who started on 150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks once they switched at week 16.
“This is the best data for chronic spontaneous urticaria that we have so far seen,” he said, adding that the responses were seen regardless of prior experience with omalizumab.
Changes in Hair Color, Skin Pigmentation
As for safety, during the first 16 weeks, 66% of those on active treatment and 39% on placebo experienced at least one adverse event. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events, compared with two among those who received treatment for the full 52 weeks.
The most common adverse events with active treatment were hair color changes (14% in the first 16 weeks and 26% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), neutropenia/reduced neutrophil count (9% in the first 16 weeks and 17% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), and skin hypopigmentation (1% in the first 16 weeks, 13% among those treated for the full 52 weeks, and 19% among those who switched from placebo to active treatment at 36 weeks). Urticaria was reported by 10% among patients on active treatment and 10% among those on placebo in the first 16 weeks, and by 15% of those treated for the full 52 weeks.
In the post-presentation discussion, Metz explained that the hypopigmentation appears to start around the hair follicle and is diffuse, so tends to look like vitiligo.
He suggested that the melanocytes around the hair follicle “seem to be the ones that are more stressed, maybe because of the hair follicle cycling,” adding that the effect is reversible and does not appear to be dose dependent.
The study was funded by Celldex Therapeutics. Metz declared relationships with AbbVie, ALK-Abelló, Almirall, Amgen, argenx, AstraZeneca, Astria, Attovia Therapeutics, Celldex, Celltrion, Escient Pharmaceuticals, Galen, Galderma, GSK, Incyte, Jasper, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharvaris, Regeneron, Sanofi, Teva, Third Harmonic Bio, and Vifor.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EADV 2024
Children With Severe Atopic Dermatitis Catch Up on Growth With Dupilumab
AMSTERDAM — , revealed a post hoc trial analysis.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The trial included a “rigorously selected … well-characterized, well-studied” population of children aged 6-11 years, said presenter Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
It showed that “severe atopic dermatitis does cause restriction of growth, as well as a higher weight, and therefore obviously a higher BMI [body mass index].”
He continued, however, that children at the lower percentiles of height receiving prompt treatment with dupilumab (Dupixent) “were able to rapidly move through the centiles over the 16 weeks of the study, and that may be the window for catch-up growth … when children are growing rapidly.”
Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, who was not involved in the study, said that she was “surprised” at the degree of growth achieved over the study period, as height is not something that jumps up “overnight.”
“On the other hand, it fits with my experience with children who’ve had the brakes on all of their life due to inflammation, whether it be height, going to school, sleeping — everything is sort of put on pause by this terrible inflammatory process,” she said.
“When you take the brakes off, they get to be who they are going to be,” Kirkorian added. “So I was surprised by the speed of it, but not by the fact that height was acquired.”
Her belief is that in the pre-dupilumab era, severe atopic dermatitis was often insufficiently controlled, so children were “smaller than you would predict from parental height,” and the treatment is “allowing them to reach their genetic potential.”
Post Hoc Analysis
In his presentation, Irvine emphasized that it has been clearly demonstrated that adolescents with moderate and severe atopic dermatitis have a significantly higher likelihood of being below the 25th percentile of height on growth reference charts.
Such children are also at a higher risk of having low bone mineral density and low serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels . While data presented at the EADV 2023 Congress showed that dupilumab significantly increased serum levels of bone ALP compared with placebo, the underlying mechanism remains unclear.
For the current analysis, Irvine and colleagues determined that the proportion of children aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis and lower stature reach a ≥ 5 centile improvement in height following 16 weeks of dupilumab treatment.
They examined data from the LIBERTY AD PEDS trial, in which patients aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis were randomized to 300 mg dupilumab every 4 weeks or placebo along with a mild or moderately potent topical corticosteroid. The study found that, overall, dupilumab was associated with significant improvements in signs, symptoms, and quality of life compared with placebo.
Height measures at baseline revealed that “more boys and more girls were below the 50th centile than you would predict for a healthy, normal control population,” Irvine said. “If we look at weight, we see the opposite,” he continued, “with a disproportionate number of boys and girls who are above the 50th centile for weight at baseline.”
Consequently, “we’re seeing these children who are shorter and heavier than the predicted healthy weight range and, as a result, obviously have higher BMI,” Irvine noted, with 67% girls and 62% boys found to have a higher BMI than normal for their age.
After 16 weeks of treatment with dupilumab, there was a much greater gain in height than that seen among those on placebo, with the most pronounced effect seen in children who had the lowest height at baseline. Indeed, among children in the lowest 25% height percentile at baseline, 30.6% on dupilumab vs 11.9% on placebo experienced an increase in height of 5 centiles or more(P < .05).
“This reflects what we see in clinical practice,” Irvine said. “Children often grow dramatically on treatment for atopic dermatitis.”
Among patients with a baseline height below the 30th percentile, 31.9% treated with dupilumab vs 11.1% treated with placebo gained at least 5 centiles in height. The figures for children below the 40th height percentile at baseline were 31.3% vs 15.5% (P < .05 for both).
Although there remained a marked difference in the proportion of children below the 50th height percentile at baseline gaining 5 centiles or more in height, at 29.0% with dupilumab versus 15.7% with placebo, it was no longer significant.
“So the effect of catch-up growth, or growth through the centiles, is most marked in those who are in the 40th centile or below,” Irvine said, indicating that the “more growth restricted kids have much more potential to catch up.”
‘Convincing’ Data
Overall, Kirkorian said in the interview, the data are “convincing” and support her view that severe atopic dermatitis is a “terrible chronic disease that we really underappreciate.” Atopic dermatitis, she added, “should get the respect that any severe chronic illness would have, whether that be arthritis, diabetes, or cardiac disease, because it is a systemic disorder that … profoundly affects quality of life, every minute of every day.”
However, “we don’t get all the referrals we should, until the child has suffered for years and years, and the family has suffered,” as there is a bias that it can be outgrown — although not everybody does — and it “doesn’t look as conspicuous as other chronic skin disorders,” such as psoriasis.
“Now with this study,” Kirkorian said, “it gives us a really compelling point to make to parents, to the community, and to insurers that not only are we affecting the quality of life from the itch standpoint [with dupilumab] but we may have long profound effects on growth and bone health.”
The research was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAI, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome. Kirkorian declared relationships with Dermavant, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Incyte.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AMSTERDAM — , revealed a post hoc trial analysis.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The trial included a “rigorously selected … well-characterized, well-studied” population of children aged 6-11 years, said presenter Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
It showed that “severe atopic dermatitis does cause restriction of growth, as well as a higher weight, and therefore obviously a higher BMI [body mass index].”
He continued, however, that children at the lower percentiles of height receiving prompt treatment with dupilumab (Dupixent) “were able to rapidly move through the centiles over the 16 weeks of the study, and that may be the window for catch-up growth … when children are growing rapidly.”
Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, who was not involved in the study, said that she was “surprised” at the degree of growth achieved over the study period, as height is not something that jumps up “overnight.”
“On the other hand, it fits with my experience with children who’ve had the brakes on all of their life due to inflammation, whether it be height, going to school, sleeping — everything is sort of put on pause by this terrible inflammatory process,” she said.
“When you take the brakes off, they get to be who they are going to be,” Kirkorian added. “So I was surprised by the speed of it, but not by the fact that height was acquired.”
Her belief is that in the pre-dupilumab era, severe atopic dermatitis was often insufficiently controlled, so children were “smaller than you would predict from parental height,” and the treatment is “allowing them to reach their genetic potential.”
Post Hoc Analysis
In his presentation, Irvine emphasized that it has been clearly demonstrated that adolescents with moderate and severe atopic dermatitis have a significantly higher likelihood of being below the 25th percentile of height on growth reference charts.
Such children are also at a higher risk of having low bone mineral density and low serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels . While data presented at the EADV 2023 Congress showed that dupilumab significantly increased serum levels of bone ALP compared with placebo, the underlying mechanism remains unclear.
For the current analysis, Irvine and colleagues determined that the proportion of children aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis and lower stature reach a ≥ 5 centile improvement in height following 16 weeks of dupilumab treatment.
They examined data from the LIBERTY AD PEDS trial, in which patients aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis were randomized to 300 mg dupilumab every 4 weeks or placebo along with a mild or moderately potent topical corticosteroid. The study found that, overall, dupilumab was associated with significant improvements in signs, symptoms, and quality of life compared with placebo.
Height measures at baseline revealed that “more boys and more girls were below the 50th centile than you would predict for a healthy, normal control population,” Irvine said. “If we look at weight, we see the opposite,” he continued, “with a disproportionate number of boys and girls who are above the 50th centile for weight at baseline.”
Consequently, “we’re seeing these children who are shorter and heavier than the predicted healthy weight range and, as a result, obviously have higher BMI,” Irvine noted, with 67% girls and 62% boys found to have a higher BMI than normal for their age.
After 16 weeks of treatment with dupilumab, there was a much greater gain in height than that seen among those on placebo, with the most pronounced effect seen in children who had the lowest height at baseline. Indeed, among children in the lowest 25% height percentile at baseline, 30.6% on dupilumab vs 11.9% on placebo experienced an increase in height of 5 centiles or more(P < .05).
“This reflects what we see in clinical practice,” Irvine said. “Children often grow dramatically on treatment for atopic dermatitis.”
Among patients with a baseline height below the 30th percentile, 31.9% treated with dupilumab vs 11.1% treated with placebo gained at least 5 centiles in height. The figures for children below the 40th height percentile at baseline were 31.3% vs 15.5% (P < .05 for both).
Although there remained a marked difference in the proportion of children below the 50th height percentile at baseline gaining 5 centiles or more in height, at 29.0% with dupilumab versus 15.7% with placebo, it was no longer significant.
“So the effect of catch-up growth, or growth through the centiles, is most marked in those who are in the 40th centile or below,” Irvine said, indicating that the “more growth restricted kids have much more potential to catch up.”
‘Convincing’ Data
Overall, Kirkorian said in the interview, the data are “convincing” and support her view that severe atopic dermatitis is a “terrible chronic disease that we really underappreciate.” Atopic dermatitis, she added, “should get the respect that any severe chronic illness would have, whether that be arthritis, diabetes, or cardiac disease, because it is a systemic disorder that … profoundly affects quality of life, every minute of every day.”
However, “we don’t get all the referrals we should, until the child has suffered for years and years, and the family has suffered,” as there is a bias that it can be outgrown — although not everybody does — and it “doesn’t look as conspicuous as other chronic skin disorders,” such as psoriasis.
“Now with this study,” Kirkorian said, “it gives us a really compelling point to make to parents, to the community, and to insurers that not only are we affecting the quality of life from the itch standpoint [with dupilumab] but we may have long profound effects on growth and bone health.”
The research was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAI, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome. Kirkorian declared relationships with Dermavant, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Incyte.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AMSTERDAM — , revealed a post hoc trial analysis.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The trial included a “rigorously selected … well-characterized, well-studied” population of children aged 6-11 years, said presenter Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
It showed that “severe atopic dermatitis does cause restriction of growth, as well as a higher weight, and therefore obviously a higher BMI [body mass index].”
He continued, however, that children at the lower percentiles of height receiving prompt treatment with dupilumab (Dupixent) “were able to rapidly move through the centiles over the 16 weeks of the study, and that may be the window for catch-up growth … when children are growing rapidly.”
Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC, who was not involved in the study, said that she was “surprised” at the degree of growth achieved over the study period, as height is not something that jumps up “overnight.”
“On the other hand, it fits with my experience with children who’ve had the brakes on all of their life due to inflammation, whether it be height, going to school, sleeping — everything is sort of put on pause by this terrible inflammatory process,” she said.
“When you take the brakes off, they get to be who they are going to be,” Kirkorian added. “So I was surprised by the speed of it, but not by the fact that height was acquired.”
Her belief is that in the pre-dupilumab era, severe atopic dermatitis was often insufficiently controlled, so children were “smaller than you would predict from parental height,” and the treatment is “allowing them to reach their genetic potential.”
Post Hoc Analysis
In his presentation, Irvine emphasized that it has been clearly demonstrated that adolescents with moderate and severe atopic dermatitis have a significantly higher likelihood of being below the 25th percentile of height on growth reference charts.
Such children are also at a higher risk of having low bone mineral density and low serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels . While data presented at the EADV 2023 Congress showed that dupilumab significantly increased serum levels of bone ALP compared with placebo, the underlying mechanism remains unclear.
For the current analysis, Irvine and colleagues determined that the proportion of children aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis and lower stature reach a ≥ 5 centile improvement in height following 16 weeks of dupilumab treatment.
They examined data from the LIBERTY AD PEDS trial, in which patients aged 6-11 years with severe atopic dermatitis were randomized to 300 mg dupilumab every 4 weeks or placebo along with a mild or moderately potent topical corticosteroid. The study found that, overall, dupilumab was associated with significant improvements in signs, symptoms, and quality of life compared with placebo.
Height measures at baseline revealed that “more boys and more girls were below the 50th centile than you would predict for a healthy, normal control population,” Irvine said. “If we look at weight, we see the opposite,” he continued, “with a disproportionate number of boys and girls who are above the 50th centile for weight at baseline.”
Consequently, “we’re seeing these children who are shorter and heavier than the predicted healthy weight range and, as a result, obviously have higher BMI,” Irvine noted, with 67% girls and 62% boys found to have a higher BMI than normal for their age.
After 16 weeks of treatment with dupilumab, there was a much greater gain in height than that seen among those on placebo, with the most pronounced effect seen in children who had the lowest height at baseline. Indeed, among children in the lowest 25% height percentile at baseline, 30.6% on dupilumab vs 11.9% on placebo experienced an increase in height of 5 centiles or more(P < .05).
“This reflects what we see in clinical practice,” Irvine said. “Children often grow dramatically on treatment for atopic dermatitis.”
Among patients with a baseline height below the 30th percentile, 31.9% treated with dupilumab vs 11.1% treated with placebo gained at least 5 centiles in height. The figures for children below the 40th height percentile at baseline were 31.3% vs 15.5% (P < .05 for both).
Although there remained a marked difference in the proportion of children below the 50th height percentile at baseline gaining 5 centiles or more in height, at 29.0% with dupilumab versus 15.7% with placebo, it was no longer significant.
“So the effect of catch-up growth, or growth through the centiles, is most marked in those who are in the 40th centile or below,” Irvine said, indicating that the “more growth restricted kids have much more potential to catch up.”
‘Convincing’ Data
Overall, Kirkorian said in the interview, the data are “convincing” and support her view that severe atopic dermatitis is a “terrible chronic disease that we really underappreciate.” Atopic dermatitis, she added, “should get the respect that any severe chronic illness would have, whether that be arthritis, diabetes, or cardiac disease, because it is a systemic disorder that … profoundly affects quality of life, every minute of every day.”
However, “we don’t get all the referrals we should, until the child has suffered for years and years, and the family has suffered,” as there is a bias that it can be outgrown — although not everybody does — and it “doesn’t look as conspicuous as other chronic skin disorders,” such as psoriasis.
“Now with this study,” Kirkorian said, “it gives us a really compelling point to make to parents, to the community, and to insurers that not only are we affecting the quality of life from the itch standpoint [with dupilumab] but we may have long profound effects on growth and bone health.”
The research was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAI, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome. Kirkorian declared relationships with Dermavant, Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Incyte.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EADV 2024
Nemolizumab Benefits for Atopic Dermatitis Maintained in Long-Term Follow-Up Study
(AD), revealed an interim analysis of the ARCADIA open-label extension study.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The results showed nemolizumab was associated with “ongoing clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep disturbance,” said study presenter Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine, University of Lü̈beck in Germany.
Moreover, “patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life ... continued to improve over 56 weeks of treatment.” In addition, Thaçi added, the “safety data support the long-term use of nemolizumab for the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
He explained that interleukin (IL) 31 is a key neuroimmune cytokine in AD, triggering itch, skin barrier disruption, and exacerbation of inflammation via its receptor. Nemolizumab inhibits IL-31 receptor binding and was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 trials to provide, along with background topical corticosteroids, clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep for up to weeks 48 of follow-up in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD.
The current open-label long-term extension study involved patients who were enrolled in both ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, as well as those from four phase 2 and 2b studies, a phase 3b study, and adolescents who had not been included in a trial but who met the criteria for the extension study. All patients, whether they started on placebo plus background topical corticosteroids in a prior study, were treated with nemolizumab 30 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks along with topical corticosteroids.
The interim analysis included all efficacy and safety data up to the cutoff of September 30, 2022, on 723 patients who had completed 56 weeks of treatment among the 1751 patients initially enrolled in the extension study.
The results showed that, regardless of whether patients were nemolizumab naive at enrollment or had previously taken the drug, there were increases in the proportion of patients with an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 and an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of at least 75 (EASI-75) over the 56 weeks of the study.
In those naive to nemolizumab, the increase in the proportion with an IGA score of 0/1 increased from 17.7% at baseline to 49.0% at 56 weeks, while the proportion with an EASI-75 increased from 24.0% to 78.7%.
The increase in the proportion of patients with an IGA score 0/1 among those who had previously received nemolizumab increased from 28.5% at baseline to 47.1% at 56 weeks. The proportion with an EASI-75 was 38.1% at baseline, rising to 73.0% at 56 weeks.
Increases in the proportion of patients with an EASI score of at least 50 and at least 90 were also seen with nemolizumab, as were increases in the proportion of patients with an improvement of at least four points on the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis Pruritus visual analogue scale and Sleep loss scores.
Similarly, the proportion of patients with a reduction in Dermatology Life Quality Index of at least four points increased over the study period.
Regarding safety, Thaçi said, there appeared to be fewer adverse events than had been previously reported with nemolizumab. “We don’t see any signs of conjunctivitis,” he continued, or significant risk of infection apart from for COVID-19, but he pointed out that the study was conducted during the pandemic, which was “a very difficult time.”
The most common treatment-related adverse events were, aside from COVID-19, nasopharyngitis in about 10%-11% of patients, upper respiratory tract infection in about 6% to almost 7%, and headache in about 5%.
Among the adverse events of special interest, newly diagnosed asthma or worsening of asthma occurred in 4.7%-4.8% of patients, while peripheral edema was seen in 0.8%-1.7%.
“Besides this, the study results are really looking very good,” he said, adding: “It means, in a long-term study, we can say today that nemolizumab has revealed the [same] safety profile that was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials.”
Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin in Ireland, who was not involved in the study, underlined that the current interim assessment does not represent the complete dataset and is based on observed cases rather than a more rigorous methodology, such as net reclassification improvement analysis.
“So it makes it a little harder to interpret when you don’t know how many people are dropping out and why they’re dropping out,” he told this news organization. “That said, those who remain on drug out to 56 weeks do experience ongoing improvement in disease control.”
Consequently, “the most reliable message you can take from this interim analysis of long-term data is that there were no new safety signals,” and nemolizumab looks “safe and well-tolerated.”
Where nemolizumab would fit into the treatment pathway for moderate to severe AD remains an open question, Irvine said, although he believes that IL-13 pathway inhibitors such as dupilumab, tralokinumab, and lebrikizumab “will remain the treatment of choice for the immediate future due to prescriber familiarity and good efficacy data.”
However, for patients who are unsuitable for IL-13 inhibitors and/or Janus kinase inhibitors such as abrocitinib and upadacitinib, nemolizumab “could be an interesting alternative.”
“That’s probably where it is going to start,” Irvine said, “and then obviously that will change over time and as the data mature and prescribers become more familiar with the drug in the real world.”
Nemolizumab (Nemluvio) is approved for treating prurigo nodularis (PN) in the United States and in Japan and is under Food and Drug Administration review for treating AD. It is also under review for PN and AD in Europe, Canada, the United Kingdom, and several other countries, according to Galderma. It is also approved for treating pruritus associated with AD in pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients in Japan.
The study was funded by Galderma. Thaçi declared relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Target RWE, and UCB. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAl, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(AD), revealed an interim analysis of the ARCADIA open-label extension study.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The results showed nemolizumab was associated with “ongoing clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep disturbance,” said study presenter Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine, University of Lü̈beck in Germany.
Moreover, “patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life ... continued to improve over 56 weeks of treatment.” In addition, Thaçi added, the “safety data support the long-term use of nemolizumab for the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
He explained that interleukin (IL) 31 is a key neuroimmune cytokine in AD, triggering itch, skin barrier disruption, and exacerbation of inflammation via its receptor. Nemolizumab inhibits IL-31 receptor binding and was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 trials to provide, along with background topical corticosteroids, clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep for up to weeks 48 of follow-up in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD.
The current open-label long-term extension study involved patients who were enrolled in both ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, as well as those from four phase 2 and 2b studies, a phase 3b study, and adolescents who had not been included in a trial but who met the criteria for the extension study. All patients, whether they started on placebo plus background topical corticosteroids in a prior study, were treated with nemolizumab 30 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks along with topical corticosteroids.
The interim analysis included all efficacy and safety data up to the cutoff of September 30, 2022, on 723 patients who had completed 56 weeks of treatment among the 1751 patients initially enrolled in the extension study.
The results showed that, regardless of whether patients were nemolizumab naive at enrollment or had previously taken the drug, there were increases in the proportion of patients with an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 and an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of at least 75 (EASI-75) over the 56 weeks of the study.
In those naive to nemolizumab, the increase in the proportion with an IGA score of 0/1 increased from 17.7% at baseline to 49.0% at 56 weeks, while the proportion with an EASI-75 increased from 24.0% to 78.7%.
The increase in the proportion of patients with an IGA score 0/1 among those who had previously received nemolizumab increased from 28.5% at baseline to 47.1% at 56 weeks. The proportion with an EASI-75 was 38.1% at baseline, rising to 73.0% at 56 weeks.
Increases in the proportion of patients with an EASI score of at least 50 and at least 90 were also seen with nemolizumab, as were increases in the proportion of patients with an improvement of at least four points on the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis Pruritus visual analogue scale and Sleep loss scores.
Similarly, the proportion of patients with a reduction in Dermatology Life Quality Index of at least four points increased over the study period.
Regarding safety, Thaçi said, there appeared to be fewer adverse events than had been previously reported with nemolizumab. “We don’t see any signs of conjunctivitis,” he continued, or significant risk of infection apart from for COVID-19, but he pointed out that the study was conducted during the pandemic, which was “a very difficult time.”
The most common treatment-related adverse events were, aside from COVID-19, nasopharyngitis in about 10%-11% of patients, upper respiratory tract infection in about 6% to almost 7%, and headache in about 5%.
Among the adverse events of special interest, newly diagnosed asthma or worsening of asthma occurred in 4.7%-4.8% of patients, while peripheral edema was seen in 0.8%-1.7%.
“Besides this, the study results are really looking very good,” he said, adding: “It means, in a long-term study, we can say today that nemolizumab has revealed the [same] safety profile that was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials.”
Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin in Ireland, who was not involved in the study, underlined that the current interim assessment does not represent the complete dataset and is based on observed cases rather than a more rigorous methodology, such as net reclassification improvement analysis.
“So it makes it a little harder to interpret when you don’t know how many people are dropping out and why they’re dropping out,” he told this news organization. “That said, those who remain on drug out to 56 weeks do experience ongoing improvement in disease control.”
Consequently, “the most reliable message you can take from this interim analysis of long-term data is that there were no new safety signals,” and nemolizumab looks “safe and well-tolerated.”
Where nemolizumab would fit into the treatment pathway for moderate to severe AD remains an open question, Irvine said, although he believes that IL-13 pathway inhibitors such as dupilumab, tralokinumab, and lebrikizumab “will remain the treatment of choice for the immediate future due to prescriber familiarity and good efficacy data.”
However, for patients who are unsuitable for IL-13 inhibitors and/or Janus kinase inhibitors such as abrocitinib and upadacitinib, nemolizumab “could be an interesting alternative.”
“That’s probably where it is going to start,” Irvine said, “and then obviously that will change over time and as the data mature and prescribers become more familiar with the drug in the real world.”
Nemolizumab (Nemluvio) is approved for treating prurigo nodularis (PN) in the United States and in Japan and is under Food and Drug Administration review for treating AD. It is also under review for PN and AD in Europe, Canada, the United Kingdom, and several other countries, according to Galderma. It is also approved for treating pruritus associated with AD in pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients in Japan.
The study was funded by Galderma. Thaçi declared relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Target RWE, and UCB. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAl, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
(AD), revealed an interim analysis of the ARCADIA open-label extension study.
The research was presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
The results showed nemolizumab was associated with “ongoing clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep disturbance,” said study presenter Diamant Thaçi, MD, PhD, of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine, University of Lü̈beck in Germany.
Moreover, “patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life ... continued to improve over 56 weeks of treatment.” In addition, Thaçi added, the “safety data support the long-term use of nemolizumab for the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
He explained that interleukin (IL) 31 is a key neuroimmune cytokine in AD, triggering itch, skin barrier disruption, and exacerbation of inflammation via its receptor. Nemolizumab inhibits IL-31 receptor binding and was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 trials to provide, along with background topical corticosteroids, clinically meaningful improvements in itch, skin lesions, and sleep for up to weeks 48 of follow-up in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD.
The current open-label long-term extension study involved patients who were enrolled in both ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, as well as those from four phase 2 and 2b studies, a phase 3b study, and adolescents who had not been included in a trial but who met the criteria for the extension study. All patients, whether they started on placebo plus background topical corticosteroids in a prior study, were treated with nemolizumab 30 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks along with topical corticosteroids.
The interim analysis included all efficacy and safety data up to the cutoff of September 30, 2022, on 723 patients who had completed 56 weeks of treatment among the 1751 patients initially enrolled in the extension study.
The results showed that, regardless of whether patients were nemolizumab naive at enrollment or had previously taken the drug, there were increases in the proportion of patients with an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 and an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of at least 75 (EASI-75) over the 56 weeks of the study.
In those naive to nemolizumab, the increase in the proportion with an IGA score of 0/1 increased from 17.7% at baseline to 49.0% at 56 weeks, while the proportion with an EASI-75 increased from 24.0% to 78.7%.
The increase in the proportion of patients with an IGA score 0/1 among those who had previously received nemolizumab increased from 28.5% at baseline to 47.1% at 56 weeks. The proportion with an EASI-75 was 38.1% at baseline, rising to 73.0% at 56 weeks.
Increases in the proportion of patients with an EASI score of at least 50 and at least 90 were also seen with nemolizumab, as were increases in the proportion of patients with an improvement of at least four points on the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis Pruritus visual analogue scale and Sleep loss scores.
Similarly, the proportion of patients with a reduction in Dermatology Life Quality Index of at least four points increased over the study period.
Regarding safety, Thaçi said, there appeared to be fewer adverse events than had been previously reported with nemolizumab. “We don’t see any signs of conjunctivitis,” he continued, or significant risk of infection apart from for COVID-19, but he pointed out that the study was conducted during the pandemic, which was “a very difficult time.”
The most common treatment-related adverse events were, aside from COVID-19, nasopharyngitis in about 10%-11% of patients, upper respiratory tract infection in about 6% to almost 7%, and headache in about 5%.
Among the adverse events of special interest, newly diagnosed asthma or worsening of asthma occurred in 4.7%-4.8% of patients, while peripheral edema was seen in 0.8%-1.7%.
“Besides this, the study results are really looking very good,” he said, adding: “It means, in a long-term study, we can say today that nemolizumab has revealed the [same] safety profile that was shown in the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials.”
Alan D. Irvine, MD, DSc, professor of dermatology, Trinity College Dublin in Ireland, who was not involved in the study, underlined that the current interim assessment does not represent the complete dataset and is based on observed cases rather than a more rigorous methodology, such as net reclassification improvement analysis.
“So it makes it a little harder to interpret when you don’t know how many people are dropping out and why they’re dropping out,” he told this news organization. “That said, those who remain on drug out to 56 weeks do experience ongoing improvement in disease control.”
Consequently, “the most reliable message you can take from this interim analysis of long-term data is that there were no new safety signals,” and nemolizumab looks “safe and well-tolerated.”
Where nemolizumab would fit into the treatment pathway for moderate to severe AD remains an open question, Irvine said, although he believes that IL-13 pathway inhibitors such as dupilumab, tralokinumab, and lebrikizumab “will remain the treatment of choice for the immediate future due to prescriber familiarity and good efficacy data.”
However, for patients who are unsuitable for IL-13 inhibitors and/or Janus kinase inhibitors such as abrocitinib and upadacitinib, nemolizumab “could be an interesting alternative.”
“That’s probably where it is going to start,” Irvine said, “and then obviously that will change over time and as the data mature and prescribers become more familiar with the drug in the real world.”
Nemolizumab (Nemluvio) is approved for treating prurigo nodularis (PN) in the United States and in Japan and is under Food and Drug Administration review for treating AD. It is also under review for PN and AD in Europe, Canada, the United Kingdom, and several other countries, according to Galderma. It is also approved for treating pruritus associated with AD in pediatric, adolescent, and adult patients in Japan.
The study was funded by Galderma. Thaçi declared relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Target RWE, and UCB. Irvine declared relationships with AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAl, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Dermavant, Eli Lily, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, UCB, DS Biopharma, and Inflazome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EADV 2024
Lichen Planus Responds to Treatment with Topical Ruxolitinib in Phase 2 Study
both when given twice daily and as needed, according to data from a phase 2 trial.
The research, presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress, involved 64 patients older than 18 years. Ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) is a topical formulation of a Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating mild to moderate atopic dermatitis and for nonsegmental vitiligo in adults and children aged 12 years or older.
Ruxolitinib cream twice daily resulted in “significant improvements in cutaneous lichen planus disease severity vs vehicle” after 16 weeks of treatment, said the study presenter, Aaron R. Mangold, MD, a dermatologist at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Further improvements were seen during another 16 weeks of additional open-label, as-needed application, he added, and the topical treatment was “generally well tolerated.”
Consequently, “ruxolitinib cream represents a promising potential treatment for cutaneous lichen planus,” Mangold concluded.
Asked to comment on the results, Adam Friedman, MD, Professor and Chair of Dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was not involved with the study, said that in keeping with the characterization of lichen planus using the four Ps — purple, polygonal, pruritic, papules — it is “Pretty common, Predictably disabling and disfiguring, and Passed over again and again in the drug development world.”
He said in an interview that this chronic inflammatory skin condition, which affects roughly 2% of the population, also “lacks consensus on work-up and management, likely in part owing to the absence of sizable clinical trial data.”
A recent survey conducted at a meeting indicated that dermatologists “heavily lean on topical therapies for the management of all severity levels,” noted Friedman, one of the survey authors. “Therefore, the phase 2 data presented at EADV is a welcome addition to the mix.”
Phase 2 Study Results
At the meeting, Mangold said that a previous proof-of-concept single-arm study in 12 patients suggested that topical ruxolitinib was highly effective in treating cutaneous lichen planus.
The current phase 2 trial enrolled 64 patients with predominantly cutaneous disease who had an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3 or 4 and an Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score of ≥ 4. Their median age was 57 years, and 71.9% were women. Nearly 63% were White, 28.1% were Black, and 6.3% were Asian. The median duration of disease was 4.9 years, and 90.6% had received prior treatment for their lichen planus.
They were randomized to receive 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or a vehicle cream twice daily for 16 weeks, and following a primary endpoint assessment, they were transferred to an open-label extension period, during which they used ruxolitinib cream as needed for another 16 weeks. There was an additional 30-day safety follow-up period.
At week 16, significantly more patients treated with the ruxolitinib cream (50.0%) vs vehicle cream (21.9%) achieved IGA treatment success (the primary endpoint), defined as an IGA score of 0 or 1 with ≥ 2-grade improvement from baseline (odds ratio, 4.04; P = .0129).
In the open-label extension, when all patients used the active cream as needed, the proportion achieving IGA treatment success increased to 60% among the patients originally treated with ruxolitinib cream and 60.9% among those who switched from the vehicle cream.
A similar pattern was seen with Itch NRS scores. At 16 weeks, 57.7% of those treated with the ruxolitinib cream and 19.2% of those given the vehicle cream achieved an Itch NRS score of ≥ 4 (P < .01), rising to 84.2% and 73.3%, respectively, during the open-label extension.
The time to achievement of an Itch NRS of ≥ 4 was also significantly shorter with the ruxolitinib cream than with the vehicle cream (median days, 17 vs 97; hazard ratio, 2.85; P = .0008).
In both treatment groups, Skin Pain NRS scores decreased by a mean of 3.0 with ruxolitinib cream and 1.3 with the vehicle cream at week 16. By the end of the open-label extension, scores dropped by 4.3 among those who continued on active treatment and by 3.5 among those who switched from vehicle to topical ruxolitinib.
There were few treatment-emergent adverse events, with just three ruxolitinib patients affected during the randomized phase of the trial. There was one grade ≥ 3 event considered unrelated to the study drug, and no serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported.
The most common adverse events during the randomized period were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and contusion, all experienced by fewer than 10% of patients, whereas sinusitis, increased blood cholesterol levels, and increased blood creatine phosphokinase were most common in the open-label extension, experienced by no more than 5% of patients.
In the interview, Friedman commented that “these data provide hope that one day soon, there will be an FDA-approved, effective, and well-tolerated approach for this condition, validating the patient and supporting the dermatologist with an evidence-based option.”
The study was funded by Incyte. Mangold declared relationships with Argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clarivate, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, Nuvig Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Soligenix, Tourmaline Bio, AbbVie, Corbus, Eli Lilly, Kyowa, Merck, miRagen Therapeutics, Palvella Therapeutics, Priovant Therapeutics, and Adelphi Values. Friedman declared a relationship with Incyte, but it is not related to this topic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
both when given twice daily and as needed, according to data from a phase 2 trial.
The research, presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress, involved 64 patients older than 18 years. Ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) is a topical formulation of a Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating mild to moderate atopic dermatitis and for nonsegmental vitiligo in adults and children aged 12 years or older.
Ruxolitinib cream twice daily resulted in “significant improvements in cutaneous lichen planus disease severity vs vehicle” after 16 weeks of treatment, said the study presenter, Aaron R. Mangold, MD, a dermatologist at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Further improvements were seen during another 16 weeks of additional open-label, as-needed application, he added, and the topical treatment was “generally well tolerated.”
Consequently, “ruxolitinib cream represents a promising potential treatment for cutaneous lichen planus,” Mangold concluded.
Asked to comment on the results, Adam Friedman, MD, Professor and Chair of Dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was not involved with the study, said that in keeping with the characterization of lichen planus using the four Ps — purple, polygonal, pruritic, papules — it is “Pretty common, Predictably disabling and disfiguring, and Passed over again and again in the drug development world.”
He said in an interview that this chronic inflammatory skin condition, which affects roughly 2% of the population, also “lacks consensus on work-up and management, likely in part owing to the absence of sizable clinical trial data.”
A recent survey conducted at a meeting indicated that dermatologists “heavily lean on topical therapies for the management of all severity levels,” noted Friedman, one of the survey authors. “Therefore, the phase 2 data presented at EADV is a welcome addition to the mix.”
Phase 2 Study Results
At the meeting, Mangold said that a previous proof-of-concept single-arm study in 12 patients suggested that topical ruxolitinib was highly effective in treating cutaneous lichen planus.
The current phase 2 trial enrolled 64 patients with predominantly cutaneous disease who had an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3 or 4 and an Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score of ≥ 4. Their median age was 57 years, and 71.9% were women. Nearly 63% were White, 28.1% were Black, and 6.3% were Asian. The median duration of disease was 4.9 years, and 90.6% had received prior treatment for their lichen planus.
They were randomized to receive 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or a vehicle cream twice daily for 16 weeks, and following a primary endpoint assessment, they were transferred to an open-label extension period, during which they used ruxolitinib cream as needed for another 16 weeks. There was an additional 30-day safety follow-up period.
At week 16, significantly more patients treated with the ruxolitinib cream (50.0%) vs vehicle cream (21.9%) achieved IGA treatment success (the primary endpoint), defined as an IGA score of 0 or 1 with ≥ 2-grade improvement from baseline (odds ratio, 4.04; P = .0129).
In the open-label extension, when all patients used the active cream as needed, the proportion achieving IGA treatment success increased to 60% among the patients originally treated with ruxolitinib cream and 60.9% among those who switched from the vehicle cream.
A similar pattern was seen with Itch NRS scores. At 16 weeks, 57.7% of those treated with the ruxolitinib cream and 19.2% of those given the vehicle cream achieved an Itch NRS score of ≥ 4 (P < .01), rising to 84.2% and 73.3%, respectively, during the open-label extension.
The time to achievement of an Itch NRS of ≥ 4 was also significantly shorter with the ruxolitinib cream than with the vehicle cream (median days, 17 vs 97; hazard ratio, 2.85; P = .0008).
In both treatment groups, Skin Pain NRS scores decreased by a mean of 3.0 with ruxolitinib cream and 1.3 with the vehicle cream at week 16. By the end of the open-label extension, scores dropped by 4.3 among those who continued on active treatment and by 3.5 among those who switched from vehicle to topical ruxolitinib.
There were few treatment-emergent adverse events, with just three ruxolitinib patients affected during the randomized phase of the trial. There was one grade ≥ 3 event considered unrelated to the study drug, and no serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported.
The most common adverse events during the randomized period were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and contusion, all experienced by fewer than 10% of patients, whereas sinusitis, increased blood cholesterol levels, and increased blood creatine phosphokinase were most common in the open-label extension, experienced by no more than 5% of patients.
In the interview, Friedman commented that “these data provide hope that one day soon, there will be an FDA-approved, effective, and well-tolerated approach for this condition, validating the patient and supporting the dermatologist with an evidence-based option.”
The study was funded by Incyte. Mangold declared relationships with Argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clarivate, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, Nuvig Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Soligenix, Tourmaline Bio, AbbVie, Corbus, Eli Lilly, Kyowa, Merck, miRagen Therapeutics, Palvella Therapeutics, Priovant Therapeutics, and Adelphi Values. Friedman declared a relationship with Incyte, but it is not related to this topic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
both when given twice daily and as needed, according to data from a phase 2 trial.
The research, presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress, involved 64 patients older than 18 years. Ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) is a topical formulation of a Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating mild to moderate atopic dermatitis and for nonsegmental vitiligo in adults and children aged 12 years or older.
Ruxolitinib cream twice daily resulted in “significant improvements in cutaneous lichen planus disease severity vs vehicle” after 16 weeks of treatment, said the study presenter, Aaron R. Mangold, MD, a dermatologist at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Further improvements were seen during another 16 weeks of additional open-label, as-needed application, he added, and the topical treatment was “generally well tolerated.”
Consequently, “ruxolitinib cream represents a promising potential treatment for cutaneous lichen planus,” Mangold concluded.
Asked to comment on the results, Adam Friedman, MD, Professor and Chair of Dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was not involved with the study, said that in keeping with the characterization of lichen planus using the four Ps — purple, polygonal, pruritic, papules — it is “Pretty common, Predictably disabling and disfiguring, and Passed over again and again in the drug development world.”
He said in an interview that this chronic inflammatory skin condition, which affects roughly 2% of the population, also “lacks consensus on work-up and management, likely in part owing to the absence of sizable clinical trial data.”
A recent survey conducted at a meeting indicated that dermatologists “heavily lean on topical therapies for the management of all severity levels,” noted Friedman, one of the survey authors. “Therefore, the phase 2 data presented at EADV is a welcome addition to the mix.”
Phase 2 Study Results
At the meeting, Mangold said that a previous proof-of-concept single-arm study in 12 patients suggested that topical ruxolitinib was highly effective in treating cutaneous lichen planus.
The current phase 2 trial enrolled 64 patients with predominantly cutaneous disease who had an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3 or 4 and an Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score of ≥ 4. Their median age was 57 years, and 71.9% were women. Nearly 63% were White, 28.1% were Black, and 6.3% were Asian. The median duration of disease was 4.9 years, and 90.6% had received prior treatment for their lichen planus.
They were randomized to receive 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or a vehicle cream twice daily for 16 weeks, and following a primary endpoint assessment, they were transferred to an open-label extension period, during which they used ruxolitinib cream as needed for another 16 weeks. There was an additional 30-day safety follow-up period.
At week 16, significantly more patients treated with the ruxolitinib cream (50.0%) vs vehicle cream (21.9%) achieved IGA treatment success (the primary endpoint), defined as an IGA score of 0 or 1 with ≥ 2-grade improvement from baseline (odds ratio, 4.04; P = .0129).
In the open-label extension, when all patients used the active cream as needed, the proportion achieving IGA treatment success increased to 60% among the patients originally treated with ruxolitinib cream and 60.9% among those who switched from the vehicle cream.
A similar pattern was seen with Itch NRS scores. At 16 weeks, 57.7% of those treated with the ruxolitinib cream and 19.2% of those given the vehicle cream achieved an Itch NRS score of ≥ 4 (P < .01), rising to 84.2% and 73.3%, respectively, during the open-label extension.
The time to achievement of an Itch NRS of ≥ 4 was also significantly shorter with the ruxolitinib cream than with the vehicle cream (median days, 17 vs 97; hazard ratio, 2.85; P = .0008).
In both treatment groups, Skin Pain NRS scores decreased by a mean of 3.0 with ruxolitinib cream and 1.3 with the vehicle cream at week 16. By the end of the open-label extension, scores dropped by 4.3 among those who continued on active treatment and by 3.5 among those who switched from vehicle to topical ruxolitinib.
There were few treatment-emergent adverse events, with just three ruxolitinib patients affected during the randomized phase of the trial. There was one grade ≥ 3 event considered unrelated to the study drug, and no serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported.
The most common adverse events during the randomized period were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and contusion, all experienced by fewer than 10% of patients, whereas sinusitis, increased blood cholesterol levels, and increased blood creatine phosphokinase were most common in the open-label extension, experienced by no more than 5% of patients.
In the interview, Friedman commented that “these data provide hope that one day soon, there will be an FDA-approved, effective, and well-tolerated approach for this condition, validating the patient and supporting the dermatologist with an evidence-based option.”
The study was funded by Incyte. Mangold declared relationships with Argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clarivate, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, Nuvig Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Soligenix, Tourmaline Bio, AbbVie, Corbus, Eli Lilly, Kyowa, Merck, miRagen Therapeutics, Palvella Therapeutics, Priovant Therapeutics, and Adelphi Values. Friedman declared a relationship with Incyte, but it is not related to this topic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EADV 2024
Study Finds No Increased MACE Risk for JAK Inhibitors in Patients With Atopic Dermatitis
, suggested the results of a large, US-based, retrospective cohort study.
This holds true even in individuals aged 50 years or older, whose age puts them at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, said Amina El Ayadi, PhD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. He presented the findings at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
Specifically, the analysis looked at treatment with the oral JAK1 inhibitors upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo), both approved for treating AD in the United States, and found that the relative risk for MACE, such as acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, stroke, or acute deep vein thrombosis, was ≤ 1.0 compared with those not treated with a JAKi.
Similarly, the relative risk for other CV safety endpoints, such as having an abnormal ECG or pericardial effusion, was also around 1.0. There was a slight increase in the relative risk for arrhythmias, peripheral edema, angina pectoris, or heart failure, but no value went > 1.6 and CIs spanned 1.0, indicating the results lack statistical significance.
Reassurance for Dermatologists?
“This suggests that oral administration of these drugs to the patient with atopic dermatitis does not increase the risk of major adverse cardiac events, and dermatologists, based on our data, can safely consider JAK inhibitors for treating moderate to severe dermatitis, even in patients with high risk for these diseases,” El Ayadi said during a late-breaking news session at the meeting.
Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Department at Miguel Servet University Hospital in Zaragoza, Spain, who was one of the chairs for the session, said that this was “very good news for us.”
Gilaberte Calzada, president of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, asked if there were any data on the duration of treatment with the two JAKis included in the analysis. El Ayadi said that this was something that would be looked at in future data analyses.
Gilaberte Calzada also observed that because the CIs were wide, with more time, “we will have more defined data.”
Analyses Overview
For the two analyses — one in the overall population of patients with AD and the other in those aged 50 years or older — electronic medical record (EMR) data from the TriNetX Research Network were used. This is a global, federated health research network that contains EMRs for more than 275 million patients from over 120 healthcare organizations, El Ayadi explained.
To perform the analyses, the research team queried the TriNetX database to find all patients diagnosed with AD via the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code L20. They then determined if patients had been treated with JAKi or not, and specifically, with upadacitinib or abrocitinib. Those who had not received any JAKi treatment were the control population.
For the first analysis, no age-specific filter was applied. The investigators identified 1674 people with AD who had been treated with the JAKis and around 1.2 million who had not. Propensity score matching, based on age at diagnosis, biologic sex, and CV comorbidities, was performed to give a total of 1674 patients who had and 1674 who had not been treated with these medications.
In the second analysis, only those aged 50 years or older were considered; 875 patients who had received JAKi treatment were identified and around 250,000 who had not. Propensity score matching based on the same variables gave two groups of 875 people who had or had not taken a JAKi.
Queried over the age cutoff used, El Ayadi noted, “We did an analysis looking at patients 65 and older. However, we came up with lower patient numbers. … We do have this data, and we did not see any significant risk.”
The study was independently supported. El Ayadi and Gilaberte Calzada reported no conflicts of interest in relation to the presented findings.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, suggested the results of a large, US-based, retrospective cohort study.
This holds true even in individuals aged 50 years or older, whose age puts them at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, said Amina El Ayadi, PhD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. He presented the findings at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
Specifically, the analysis looked at treatment with the oral JAK1 inhibitors upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo), both approved for treating AD in the United States, and found that the relative risk for MACE, such as acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, stroke, or acute deep vein thrombosis, was ≤ 1.0 compared with those not treated with a JAKi.
Similarly, the relative risk for other CV safety endpoints, such as having an abnormal ECG or pericardial effusion, was also around 1.0. There was a slight increase in the relative risk for arrhythmias, peripheral edema, angina pectoris, or heart failure, but no value went > 1.6 and CIs spanned 1.0, indicating the results lack statistical significance.
Reassurance for Dermatologists?
“This suggests that oral administration of these drugs to the patient with atopic dermatitis does not increase the risk of major adverse cardiac events, and dermatologists, based on our data, can safely consider JAK inhibitors for treating moderate to severe dermatitis, even in patients with high risk for these diseases,” El Ayadi said during a late-breaking news session at the meeting.
Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Department at Miguel Servet University Hospital in Zaragoza, Spain, who was one of the chairs for the session, said that this was “very good news for us.”
Gilaberte Calzada, president of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, asked if there were any data on the duration of treatment with the two JAKis included in the analysis. El Ayadi said that this was something that would be looked at in future data analyses.
Gilaberte Calzada also observed that because the CIs were wide, with more time, “we will have more defined data.”
Analyses Overview
For the two analyses — one in the overall population of patients with AD and the other in those aged 50 years or older — electronic medical record (EMR) data from the TriNetX Research Network were used. This is a global, federated health research network that contains EMRs for more than 275 million patients from over 120 healthcare organizations, El Ayadi explained.
To perform the analyses, the research team queried the TriNetX database to find all patients diagnosed with AD via the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code L20. They then determined if patients had been treated with JAKi or not, and specifically, with upadacitinib or abrocitinib. Those who had not received any JAKi treatment were the control population.
For the first analysis, no age-specific filter was applied. The investigators identified 1674 people with AD who had been treated with the JAKis and around 1.2 million who had not. Propensity score matching, based on age at diagnosis, biologic sex, and CV comorbidities, was performed to give a total of 1674 patients who had and 1674 who had not been treated with these medications.
In the second analysis, only those aged 50 years or older were considered; 875 patients who had received JAKi treatment were identified and around 250,000 who had not. Propensity score matching based on the same variables gave two groups of 875 people who had or had not taken a JAKi.
Queried over the age cutoff used, El Ayadi noted, “We did an analysis looking at patients 65 and older. However, we came up with lower patient numbers. … We do have this data, and we did not see any significant risk.”
The study was independently supported. El Ayadi and Gilaberte Calzada reported no conflicts of interest in relation to the presented findings.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, suggested the results of a large, US-based, retrospective cohort study.
This holds true even in individuals aged 50 years or older, whose age puts them at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, said Amina El Ayadi, PhD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. He presented the findings at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.
Specifically, the analysis looked at treatment with the oral JAK1 inhibitors upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo), both approved for treating AD in the United States, and found that the relative risk for MACE, such as acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, stroke, or acute deep vein thrombosis, was ≤ 1.0 compared with those not treated with a JAKi.
Similarly, the relative risk for other CV safety endpoints, such as having an abnormal ECG or pericardial effusion, was also around 1.0. There was a slight increase in the relative risk for arrhythmias, peripheral edema, angina pectoris, or heart failure, but no value went > 1.6 and CIs spanned 1.0, indicating the results lack statistical significance.
Reassurance for Dermatologists?
“This suggests that oral administration of these drugs to the patient with atopic dermatitis does not increase the risk of major adverse cardiac events, and dermatologists, based on our data, can safely consider JAK inhibitors for treating moderate to severe dermatitis, even in patients with high risk for these diseases,” El Ayadi said during a late-breaking news session at the meeting.
Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Department at Miguel Servet University Hospital in Zaragoza, Spain, who was one of the chairs for the session, said that this was “very good news for us.”
Gilaberte Calzada, president of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, asked if there were any data on the duration of treatment with the two JAKis included in the analysis. El Ayadi said that this was something that would be looked at in future data analyses.
Gilaberte Calzada also observed that because the CIs were wide, with more time, “we will have more defined data.”
Analyses Overview
For the two analyses — one in the overall population of patients with AD and the other in those aged 50 years or older — electronic medical record (EMR) data from the TriNetX Research Network were used. This is a global, federated health research network that contains EMRs for more than 275 million patients from over 120 healthcare organizations, El Ayadi explained.
To perform the analyses, the research team queried the TriNetX database to find all patients diagnosed with AD via the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code L20. They then determined if patients had been treated with JAKi or not, and specifically, with upadacitinib or abrocitinib. Those who had not received any JAKi treatment were the control population.
For the first analysis, no age-specific filter was applied. The investigators identified 1674 people with AD who had been treated with the JAKis and around 1.2 million who had not. Propensity score matching, based on age at diagnosis, biologic sex, and CV comorbidities, was performed to give a total of 1674 patients who had and 1674 who had not been treated with these medications.
In the second analysis, only those aged 50 years or older were considered; 875 patients who had received JAKi treatment were identified and around 250,000 who had not. Propensity score matching based on the same variables gave two groups of 875 people who had or had not taken a JAKi.
Queried over the age cutoff used, El Ayadi noted, “We did an analysis looking at patients 65 and older. However, we came up with lower patient numbers. … We do have this data, and we did not see any significant risk.”
The study was independently supported. El Ayadi and Gilaberte Calzada reported no conflicts of interest in relation to the presented findings.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EADV 2024