Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer care must go on, but changes may need to be made in the way some care is delivered.

“We’re headed for a time when there will be significant disruptions in the care of patients with cancer,” said Len Lichtenfeld, MD, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS), in a statement. “For some it may be as straightforward as a delay in having elective surgery. For others it may be delaying preventive care or adjuvant chemotherapy that’s meant to keep cancer from returning or rescheduling appointments.”

Lichtenfeld emphasized that cancer care teams are going to do the best they can to deliver care to those most in need. However, even in those circumstances, it won’t be life as usual. “It will require patience on everyone’s part as we go through this pandemic,” he said.

“The way we treat cancer over the next few months will change enormously,” writes a British oncologist in an article published in the Guardian.

“As oncologists, we will have to find a tenuous balance between undertreating people with cancer, resulting in more deaths from the disease in the medium to long term, and increasing deaths from COVID-19 in a vulnerable patient population. Alongside our patients we will have to make difficult decisions regarding treatments, with only low-quality evidence to guide us,” writes Lucy Gossage, MD, consultant oncologist at Nottingham University Hospital, UK.

The evidence to date (from reports from China in Lancet Oncology) suggests that people with cancer have a significantly higher risk of severe illness resulting in intensive care admissions or death when infected with COVID-19, particularly if they recently had chemotherapy or surgery.

“Many of the oncology treatments we currently use, especially those given after surgery to reduce risk of cancer recurrence, have relatively small benefits,” she writes.

“In the current climate, the balance of offering these treatments may shift; a small reduction in risk of cancer recurrence over the next 5 years may be outweighed by the potential for a short-term increase in risk of death from COVID-19. In the long term, more people’s cancer will return if we aren’t able to offer these treatments,” she adds.

Postpone Routine Screening

One thing that can go on the back burner for now is routine cancer screening, which can be postponed for now in order to conserve health system resources and reduce contact with healthcare facilities, says the ACS.

“Patients seeking routine cancer screenings should delay those until further notice,” said Lichtenfeld. “While timely screening is important, the need to prevent the spread of coronavirus and to reduce the strain on the medical system is more important right now.”

But as soon as restrictions to slow the spread of COVID-19 are lifted and routine visits to health facilities are safe, regular screening tests should be rescheduled.

Guidance From ASCO

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has issued new guidance on caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak.

First and foremost, ASCO encourages providers, facilities, and anyone caring for patients with cancer to follow the existing guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention when possible.

ASCO highlights the CDC’s general recommendation for healthcare facilities that suggests “elective surgeries” at inpatient facilities be rescheduled if possible, which has also been recommended by the American College of Surgeons.

However, in many cases, cancer surgery is not elective but essential, it points out. So this is largely an individual determination that clinicians and patients will need to make, taking into account the potential harms of delaying needed cancer-related surgery.

Systemic treatments, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, leave cancer patients vulnerable to infection, but ASCO says there is no direct evidence to support changes in regimens during the pandemic. Therefore, routinely stopping anticancer or immunosuppressive therapy is not recommended, as the balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection remains very unclear.

Clinical decisions must be individualized, ASCO emphasized, and suggested the following practice points be considered:

• For patients already in deep remission who are receiving maintenance therapy, stopping treatment may be an option.
• Some patients may be able to switch from IV to oral therapies, which would decrease the frequency of clinic visits.
• Decisions on modifying or withholding chemotherapy need to consider both the indication and goals of care, as well as where the patient is in the treatment regimen and tolerance to the therapy. As an example, the risk–benefit assessment for proceeding with chemotherapy in patients with untreated extensive small-cell lung cancer is quite different than proceeding with maintenance pemetrexed for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
• If local coronavirus transmission is an issue at a particular cancer center, reasonable options may include taking a 2-week treatment break or arranging treatment at a different facility.
• Evaluate if home infusion is medically and logistically feasible.
• In some settings, delaying or modifying adjuvant treatment presents a higher risk of compromised disease control and long-term survival than in others, but in cases where the absolute benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy may be quite small and other options are available, the risk of COVID-19 may be considered an additional factor when evaluating care.

Delay Stem Cell Transplants

For patients who are candidates for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, a delay may be reasonable if the patient is currently well controlled with conventional treatment, ASCO comments. It also directs clinicians to follow the recommendations provided by the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation regarding this issue.

Finally, there is also the question of prophylactic antiviral therapy: Should it be considered for cancer patients undergoing active therapy?

The answer to that question is currently unknown, says ASCO, but “this is an active area of research and evidence may be available at any time.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer care must go on, but changes may need to be made in the way some care is delivered.

“We’re headed for a time when there will be significant disruptions in the care of patients with cancer,” said Len Lichtenfeld, MD, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS), in a statement. “For some it may be as straightforward as a delay in having elective surgery. For others it may be delaying preventive care or adjuvant chemotherapy that’s meant to keep cancer from returning or rescheduling appointments.”

Lichtenfeld emphasized that cancer care teams are going to do the best they can to deliver care to those most in need. However, even in those circumstances, it won’t be life as usual. “It will require patience on everyone’s part as we go through this pandemic,” he said.

“The way we treat cancer over the next few months will change enormously,” writes a British oncologist in an article published in the Guardian.

“As oncologists, we will have to find a tenuous balance between undertreating people with cancer, resulting in more deaths from the disease in the medium to long term, and increasing deaths from COVID-19 in a vulnerable patient population. Alongside our patients we will have to make difficult decisions regarding treatments, with only low-quality evidence to guide us,” writes Lucy Gossage, MD, consultant oncologist at Nottingham University Hospital, UK.

The evidence to date (from reports from China in Lancet Oncology) suggests that people with cancer have a significantly higher risk of severe illness resulting in intensive care admissions or death when infected with COVID-19, particularly if they recently had chemotherapy or surgery.

“Many of the oncology treatments we currently use, especially those given after surgery to reduce risk of cancer recurrence, have relatively small benefits,” she writes.

“In the current climate, the balance of offering these treatments may shift; a small reduction in risk of cancer recurrence over the next 5 years may be outweighed by the potential for a short-term increase in risk of death from COVID-19. In the long term, more people’s cancer will return if we aren’t able to offer these treatments,” she adds.

Postpone Routine Screening

One thing that can go on the back burner for now is routine cancer screening, which can be postponed for now in order to conserve health system resources and reduce contact with healthcare facilities, says the ACS.

“Patients seeking routine cancer screenings should delay those until further notice,” said Lichtenfeld. “While timely screening is important, the need to prevent the spread of coronavirus and to reduce the strain on the medical system is more important right now.”

But as soon as restrictions to slow the spread of COVID-19 are lifted and routine visits to health facilities are safe, regular screening tests should be rescheduled.

Guidance From ASCO

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has issued new guidance on caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak.

First and foremost, ASCO encourages providers, facilities, and anyone caring for patients with cancer to follow the existing guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention when possible.

ASCO highlights the CDC’s general recommendation for healthcare facilities that suggests “elective surgeries” at inpatient facilities be rescheduled if possible, which has also been recommended by the American College of Surgeons.

However, in many cases, cancer surgery is not elective but essential, it points out. So this is largely an individual determination that clinicians and patients will need to make, taking into account the potential harms of delaying needed cancer-related surgery.

Systemic treatments, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, leave cancer patients vulnerable to infection, but ASCO says there is no direct evidence to support changes in regimens during the pandemic. Therefore, routinely stopping anticancer or immunosuppressive therapy is not recommended, as the balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection remains very unclear.

Clinical decisions must be individualized, ASCO emphasized, and suggested the following practice points be considered:

• For patients already in deep remission who are receiving maintenance therapy, stopping treatment may be an option.
• Some patients may be able to switch from IV to oral therapies, which would decrease the frequency of clinic visits.
• Decisions on modifying or withholding chemotherapy need to consider both the indication and goals of care, as well as where the patient is in the treatment regimen and tolerance to the therapy. As an example, the risk–benefit assessment for proceeding with chemotherapy in patients with untreated extensive small-cell lung cancer is quite different than proceeding with maintenance pemetrexed for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
• If local coronavirus transmission is an issue at a particular cancer center, reasonable options may include taking a 2-week treatment break or arranging treatment at a different facility.
• Evaluate if home infusion is medically and logistically feasible.
• In some settings, delaying or modifying adjuvant treatment presents a higher risk of compromised disease control and long-term survival than in others, but in cases where the absolute benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy may be quite small and other options are available, the risk of COVID-19 may be considered an additional factor when evaluating care.

Delay Stem Cell Transplants

For patients who are candidates for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, a delay may be reasonable if the patient is currently well controlled with conventional treatment, ASCO comments. It also directs clinicians to follow the recommendations provided by the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation regarding this issue.

Finally, there is also the question of prophylactic antiviral therapy: Should it be considered for cancer patients undergoing active therapy?

The answer to that question is currently unknown, says ASCO, but “this is an active area of research and evidence may be available at any time.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape’s Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer care must go on, but changes may need to be made in the way some care is delivered.

“We’re headed for a time when there will be significant disruptions in the care of patients with cancer,” said Len Lichtenfeld, MD, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS), in a statement. “For some it may be as straightforward as a delay in having elective surgery. For others it may be delaying preventive care or adjuvant chemotherapy that’s meant to keep cancer from returning or rescheduling appointments.”

Lichtenfeld emphasized that cancer care teams are going to do the best they can to deliver care to those most in need. However, even in those circumstances, it won’t be life as usual. “It will require patience on everyone’s part as we go through this pandemic,” he said.

“The way we treat cancer over the next few months will change enormously,” writes a British oncologist in an article published in the Guardian.

“As oncologists, we will have to find a tenuous balance between undertreating people with cancer, resulting in more deaths from the disease in the medium to long term, and increasing deaths from COVID-19 in a vulnerable patient population. Alongside our patients we will have to make difficult decisions regarding treatments, with only low-quality evidence to guide us,” writes Lucy Gossage, MD, consultant oncologist at Nottingham University Hospital, UK.

The evidence to date (from reports from China in Lancet Oncology) suggests that people with cancer have a significantly higher risk of severe illness resulting in intensive care admissions or death when infected with COVID-19, particularly if they recently had chemotherapy or surgery.

“Many of the oncology treatments we currently use, especially those given after surgery to reduce risk of cancer recurrence, have relatively small benefits,” she writes.

“In the current climate, the balance of offering these treatments may shift; a small reduction in risk of cancer recurrence over the next 5 years may be outweighed by the potential for a short-term increase in risk of death from COVID-19. In the long term, more people’s cancer will return if we aren’t able to offer these treatments,” she adds.

Postpone Routine Screening

One thing that can go on the back burner for now is routine cancer screening, which can be postponed for now in order to conserve health system resources and reduce contact with healthcare facilities, says the ACS.

“Patients seeking routine cancer screenings should delay those until further notice,” said Lichtenfeld. “While timely screening is important, the need to prevent the spread of coronavirus and to reduce the strain on the medical system is more important right now.”

But as soon as restrictions to slow the spread of COVID-19 are lifted and routine visits to health facilities are safe, regular screening tests should be rescheduled.

Guidance From ASCO

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has issued new guidance on caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak.

First and foremost, ASCO encourages providers, facilities, and anyone caring for patients with cancer to follow the existing guidelines from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention when possible.

ASCO highlights the CDC’s general recommendation for healthcare facilities that suggests “elective surgeries” at inpatient facilities be rescheduled if possible, which has also been recommended by the American College of Surgeons.

However, in many cases, cancer surgery is not elective but essential, it points out. So this is largely an individual determination that clinicians and patients will need to make, taking into account the potential harms of delaying needed cancer-related surgery.

Systemic treatments, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, leave cancer patients vulnerable to infection, but ASCO says there is no direct evidence to support changes in regimens during the pandemic. Therefore, routinely stopping anticancer or immunosuppressive therapy is not recommended, as the balance of potential harms that may result from delaying or interrupting treatment versus the potential benefits of possibly preventing or delaying COVID-19 infection remains very unclear.

Clinical decisions must be individualized, ASCO emphasized, and suggested the following practice points be considered:

• For patients already in deep remission who are receiving maintenance therapy, stopping treatment may be an option.
• Some patients may be able to switch from IV to oral therapies, which would decrease the frequency of clinic visits.
• Decisions on modifying or withholding chemotherapy need to consider both the indication and goals of care, as well as where the patient is in the treatment regimen and tolerance to the therapy. As an example, the risk–benefit assessment for proceeding with chemotherapy in patients with untreated extensive small-cell lung cancer is quite different than proceeding with maintenance pemetrexed for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
• If local coronavirus transmission is an issue at a particular cancer center, reasonable options may include taking a 2-week treatment break or arranging treatment at a different facility.
• Evaluate if home infusion is medically and logistically feasible.
• In some settings, delaying or modifying adjuvant treatment presents a higher risk of compromised disease control and long-term survival than in others, but in cases where the absolute benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy may be quite small and other options are available, the risk of COVID-19 may be considered an additional factor when evaluating care.

Delay Stem Cell Transplants

For patients who are candidates for allogeneic stem cell transplantation, a delay may be reasonable if the patient is currently well controlled with conventional treatment, ASCO comments. It also directs clinicians to follow the recommendations provided by the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation regarding this issue.

Finally, there is also the question of prophylactic antiviral therapy: Should it be considered for cancer patients undergoing active therapy?

The answer to that question is currently unknown, says ASCO, but “this is an active area of research and evidence may be available at any time.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator modulators are bringing new hope to many patients with CF. But what do physicians and patients need to know about the latest CFTR modulator therapies?

Susan M. Millard, MD, is a pediatric pulmonologist at Helen DeVos Children's Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich. In an audio interview, Dr. Millard discusses the new Food and Drug Administration-approved combination therapy of elexacaftor, tezacaftor, and ivacaftor (Trikafta). It's a trio that could make a significant difference for the roughly 90% of patients with at least one F508del mutation.

Dr. Millard outlines which patients are candidates for the combination therapy,  what physicians and patients can expect with Trikafta use, and how the drug affects patients' use of other CF therapies. She also explains the steps physicians should take before starting patients on the therapy, and what side effects to watch for during treatment.

Dr. Millard is the local principal investigator for CF research at Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital, including Mylan, Therapeutic Development Network, and Vertex clinical studies.

Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator modulators are bringing new hope to many patients with CF. But what do physicians and patients need to know about the latest CFTR modulator therapies?

Susan M. Millard, MD, is a pediatric pulmonologist at Helen DeVos Children's Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich. In an audio interview, Dr. Millard discusses the new Food and Drug Administration-approved combination therapy of elexacaftor, tezacaftor, and ivacaftor (Trikafta). It's a trio that could make a significant difference for the roughly 90% of patients with at least one F508del mutation.

Dr. Millard outlines which patients are candidates for the combination therapy,  what physicians and patients can expect with Trikafta use, and how the drug affects patients' use of other CF therapies. She also explains the steps physicians should take before starting patients on the therapy, and what side effects to watch for during treatment.

Dr. Millard is the local principal investigator for CF research at Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital, including Mylan, Therapeutic Development Network, and Vertex clinical studies.

Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator modulators are bringing new hope to many patients with CF. But what do physicians and patients need to know about the latest CFTR modulator therapies?

Susan M. Millard, MD, is a pediatric pulmonologist at Helen DeVos Children's Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich. In an audio interview, Dr. Millard discusses the new Food and Drug Administration-approved combination therapy of elexacaftor, tezacaftor, and ivacaftor (Trikafta). It's a trio that could make a significant difference for the roughly 90% of patients with at least one F508del mutation.

Dr. Millard outlines which patients are candidates for the combination therapy,  what physicians and patients can expect with Trikafta use, and how the drug affects patients' use of other CF therapies. She also explains the steps physicians should take before starting patients on the therapy, and what side effects to watch for during treatment.

Dr. Millard is the local principal investigator for CF research at Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital, including Mylan, Therapeutic Development Network, and Vertex clinical studies.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – Data presented at the 2020 CRT meeting, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute, show that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is safe and effective, at least in the short term, for low-risk patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis, which addresses a data gap.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In an investigator-driven prospective study, called LRT, there was no mortality, no myocardial infarctions (MI), and no disabling strokes 30 days after the procedure, according to Ronald Waksman, MD, associate director of cardiology at Medstar Heart Institute in Washington.

TAVR was approved in 2019 for low-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis regardless of aortic valve morphology, but the pivotal industry-led trials only enrolled patients with tricuspid valves, excluding the bicuspid population, according to Dr. Waksman.

However, bicuspid patients were enrolled in the investigator-led LRT study. The 1-year results with tricuspid values have been published previously (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:901-7), but new data from this same study provides the first prospective evaluation in low-risk bicuspid patients.

The LRT enrollment criteria were the same for the bicuspid patients as they were for those enrolled with tricuspid valves. These included a low surgical risk, defined as a Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score of 3 or less; no high-risk criteria independent of STS score; and eligibility for a transfemoral percutaneous procedure. Patients were permitted to undergo TAVR with any commercially available device.

The 61 patients enrolled from August 2016 to September 2019 were compared at 30 days of follow-up with 211 low-risk bicuspid patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Propensity matched, the two groups had generally similar baseline characteristics with some exceptions. Relative to the SAVR group, the TAVR group had an older median age (68.6 vs. 63.4 years) and a lower proportion of males (42.6% vs. 65.7%) and a lower proportion with New York Heart Association heart failure of class III or higher (15.8% vs. 24.6%).

For the primary outcome of all-cause mortality at 30 days, there were no deaths in the TAVR group versus one death in the SAVR group. TAVR was associated with a shorter length of stay (2.0 vs. 5.8 days) and a lower risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (1.6% vs. 42.6%). However, pacemaker implantations were more common in the TAVR group (11.5% vs. 5.6%). There was one stroke in the TAVR group, but it was not disabling.

Following TAVR, there was one case of paravalvular leak, but it was of moderate severity, according to Dr. Waksman. Leaflet thrombosis in the form of hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT), which occurred in 10.2% of patients; reduced leaflet motion (RELM), which occurred in 6.9%; and hypoattenuation affecting motion (HAM), which also occurred in 6.9%, was observed at 30 days following TAVR, but these have not so far been associated with any clinical consequences.

At baseline, only 4.9% of the bicuspid patients met criteria for NYHA class I function and 23% were in NYHA class III or higher. By 30 days, the proportion in NYHA class I had risen to 78.3%, and no patient was in NYHA class III or higher. Dr. Waksman characterized the improvement in hemodynamics – measured by mean aortic valve gradient and aortic valve area – as “excellent” at 30 days.

Further follow-up of bicuspid patients in the LRT study is needed to confirm long-term safety and efficacy, but Dr. Waksman indicated that the 30-day results are encouraging, in part because they show no greater risk of periprocedural complications than that observed in the tricuspid population.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – Data presented at the 2020 CRT meeting, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute, show that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is safe and effective, at least in the short term, for low-risk patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis, which addresses a data gap.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In an investigator-driven prospective study, called LRT, there was no mortality, no myocardial infarctions (MI), and no disabling strokes 30 days after the procedure, according to Ronald Waksman, MD, associate director of cardiology at Medstar Heart Institute in Washington.

TAVR was approved in 2019 for low-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis regardless of aortic valve morphology, but the pivotal industry-led trials only enrolled patients with tricuspid valves, excluding the bicuspid population, according to Dr. Waksman.

However, bicuspid patients were enrolled in the investigator-led LRT study. The 1-year results with tricuspid values have been published previously (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:901-7), but new data from this same study provides the first prospective evaluation in low-risk bicuspid patients.

The LRT enrollment criteria were the same for the bicuspid patients as they were for those enrolled with tricuspid valves. These included a low surgical risk, defined as a Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score of 3 or less; no high-risk criteria independent of STS score; and eligibility for a transfemoral percutaneous procedure. Patients were permitted to undergo TAVR with any commercially available device.

The 61 patients enrolled from August 2016 to September 2019 were compared at 30 days of follow-up with 211 low-risk bicuspid patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Propensity matched, the two groups had generally similar baseline characteristics with some exceptions. Relative to the SAVR group, the TAVR group had an older median age (68.6 vs. 63.4 years) and a lower proportion of males (42.6% vs. 65.7%) and a lower proportion with New York Heart Association heart failure of class III or higher (15.8% vs. 24.6%).

For the primary outcome of all-cause mortality at 30 days, there were no deaths in the TAVR group versus one death in the SAVR group. TAVR was associated with a shorter length of stay (2.0 vs. 5.8 days) and a lower risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (1.6% vs. 42.6%). However, pacemaker implantations were more common in the TAVR group (11.5% vs. 5.6%). There was one stroke in the TAVR group, but it was not disabling.

Following TAVR, there was one case of paravalvular leak, but it was of moderate severity, according to Dr. Waksman. Leaflet thrombosis in the form of hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT), which occurred in 10.2% of patients; reduced leaflet motion (RELM), which occurred in 6.9%; and hypoattenuation affecting motion (HAM), which also occurred in 6.9%, was observed at 30 days following TAVR, but these have not so far been associated with any clinical consequences.

At baseline, only 4.9% of the bicuspid patients met criteria for NYHA class I function and 23% were in NYHA class III or higher. By 30 days, the proportion in NYHA class I had risen to 78.3%, and no patient was in NYHA class III or higher. Dr. Waksman characterized the improvement in hemodynamics – measured by mean aortic valve gradient and aortic valve area – as “excellent” at 30 days.

Further follow-up of bicuspid patients in the LRT study is needed to confirm long-term safety and efficacy, but Dr. Waksman indicated that the 30-day results are encouraging, in part because they show no greater risk of periprocedural complications than that observed in the tricuspid population.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – Data presented at the 2020 CRT meeting, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute, show that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is safe and effective, at least in the short term, for low-risk patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis, which addresses a data gap.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In an investigator-driven prospective study, called LRT, there was no mortality, no myocardial infarctions (MI), and no disabling strokes 30 days after the procedure, according to Ronald Waksman, MD, associate director of cardiology at Medstar Heart Institute in Washington.

TAVR was approved in 2019 for low-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis regardless of aortic valve morphology, but the pivotal industry-led trials only enrolled patients with tricuspid valves, excluding the bicuspid population, according to Dr. Waksman.

However, bicuspid patients were enrolled in the investigator-led LRT study. The 1-year results with tricuspid values have been published previously (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:901-7), but new data from this same study provides the first prospective evaluation in low-risk bicuspid patients.

The LRT enrollment criteria were the same for the bicuspid patients as they were for those enrolled with tricuspid valves. These included a low surgical risk, defined as a Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score of 3 or less; no high-risk criteria independent of STS score; and eligibility for a transfemoral percutaneous procedure. Patients were permitted to undergo TAVR with any commercially available device.

The 61 patients enrolled from August 2016 to September 2019 were compared at 30 days of follow-up with 211 low-risk bicuspid patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Propensity matched, the two groups had generally similar baseline characteristics with some exceptions. Relative to the SAVR group, the TAVR group had an older median age (68.6 vs. 63.4 years) and a lower proportion of males (42.6% vs. 65.7%) and a lower proportion with New York Heart Association heart failure of class III or higher (15.8% vs. 24.6%).

For the primary outcome of all-cause mortality at 30 days, there were no deaths in the TAVR group versus one death in the SAVR group. TAVR was associated with a shorter length of stay (2.0 vs. 5.8 days) and a lower risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (1.6% vs. 42.6%). However, pacemaker implantations were more common in the TAVR group (11.5% vs. 5.6%). There was one stroke in the TAVR group, but it was not disabling.

Following TAVR, there was one case of paravalvular leak, but it was of moderate severity, according to Dr. Waksman. Leaflet thrombosis in the form of hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT), which occurred in 10.2% of patients; reduced leaflet motion (RELM), which occurred in 6.9%; and hypoattenuation affecting motion (HAM), which also occurred in 6.9%, was observed at 30 days following TAVR, but these have not so far been associated with any clinical consequences.

At baseline, only 4.9% of the bicuspid patients met criteria for NYHA class I function and 23% were in NYHA class III or higher. By 30 days, the proportion in NYHA class I had risen to 78.3%, and no patient was in NYHA class III or higher. Dr. Waksman characterized the improvement in hemodynamics – measured by mean aortic valve gradient and aortic valve area – as “excellent” at 30 days.

Further follow-up of bicuspid patients in the LRT study is needed to confirm long-term safety and efficacy, but Dr. Waksman indicated that the 30-day results are encouraging, in part because they show no greater risk of periprocedural complications than that observed in the tricuspid population.

Click to Read 

With newly available disease-modifying therapies, the phenotype of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is rapidly changing, and affected individuals are living longer, healthier lives.^1-4 This supplement discusses therapeutic strategies, FDA-approved treatment options, and the SMA drug pipeline.

Click to Read

To access Part 1 of the SMA Spotlight series, The Urgent Need for Early Diagnosis in Spinal Muscular Atrophy, visit www.mdedge.com/DiagnosisInSMA.

References

1. Finkel RS, Mercuri E, Darras BT, et al. Nusinersen versus sham control in infantile-onset spinal muscular atrophy. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(18):1723-1732.
2. Mercuri E, Darras BT, Chiriboga CA, et al. Nusinersen versus sham control in later-onset spinal muscular atrophy. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(7):625-635.
3. Mendell JR, Al-Zaidy S, Shell R, et al. Single-dose genereplacement therapy for spinal muscular atrophy. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(18):1713-1722.
4. De Vivo DC, Bertini E, Swoboda KJ, et al. Nusinersen initiated in infants during the presymptomatic stage of spinal muscular atrophy: Interim efficacy and safety results from the Phase 2 NURTURE study. Neuromuscul Disord. 2019;29(11):842-856.

Click to Read 

With newly available disease-modifying therapies, the phenotype of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is rapidly changing, and affected individuals are living longer, healthier lives.^1-4 This supplement discusses therapeutic strategies, FDA-approved treatment options, and the SMA drug pipeline.

Click to Read

To access Part 1 of the SMA Spotlight series, The Urgent Need for Early Diagnosis in Spinal Muscular Atrophy, visit www.mdedge.com/DiagnosisInSMA.

References

1. Finkel RS, Mercuri E, Darras BT, et al. Nusinersen versus sham control in infantile-onset spinal muscular atrophy. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(18):1723-1732.
2. Mercuri E, Darras BT, Chiriboga CA, et al. Nusinersen versus sham control in later-onset spinal muscular atrophy. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(7):625-635.
3. Mendell JR, Al-Zaidy S, Shell R, et al. Single-dose genereplacement therapy for spinal muscular atrophy. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(18):1713-1722.
4. De Vivo DC, Bertini E, Swoboda KJ, et al. Nusinersen initiated in infants during the presymptomatic stage of spinal muscular atrophy: Interim efficacy and safety results from the Phase 2 NURTURE study. Neuromuscul Disord. 2019;29(11):842-856.

Click to Read 

With newly available disease-modifying therapies, the phenotype of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is rapidly changing, and affected individuals are living longer, healthier lives.^1-4 This supplement discusses therapeutic strategies, FDA-approved treatment options, and the SMA drug pipeline.

Click to Read

To access Part 1 of the SMA Spotlight series, The Urgent Need for Early Diagnosis in Spinal Muscular Atrophy, visit www.mdedge.com/DiagnosisInSMA.

References

1. Finkel RS, Mercuri E, Darras BT, et al. Nusinersen versus sham control in infantile-onset spinal muscular atrophy. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(18):1723-1732.
2. Mercuri E, Darras BT, Chiriboga CA, et al. Nusinersen versus sham control in later-onset spinal muscular atrophy. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(7):625-635.
3. Mendell JR, Al-Zaidy S, Shell R, et al. Single-dose genereplacement therapy for spinal muscular atrophy. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(18):1713-1722.
4. De Vivo DC, Bertini E, Swoboda KJ, et al. Nusinersen initiated in infants during the presymptomatic stage of spinal muscular atrophy: Interim efficacy and safety results from the Phase 2 NURTURE study. Neuromuscul Disord. 2019;29(11):842-856.

The Diagnosis: Epidermolysis Bullosa Acquisita 

Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita (EBA) is a rare autoimmune blistering disorder characterized by tense bullae, skin fragility, atrophic scarring, and milia formation.¹ Blisters occur on a noninflammatory base in the classic variant and are trauma induced, hence the predilection for the extensor surfaces.² Mucosal involvement also has been described.¹ The characteristic findings in EBA are IgG autoantibodies directed at the N-terminal collagenous domain of type VII collagen, which composes the anchoring fibrils in the basement membrane zone.¹ Differentiating EBA from other subepidermal bullous diseases, especially bullous pemphigoid (BP), can be difficult, necessitating specialized tests.  

Biopsy of the perilesional skin can help identify the location of the blister formation. Our patient's biopsy showed a subepidermal blister with granulocytes. The differential diagnosis of a subepidermal blister includes BP, herpes gestationis, cicatricial pemphigoid, EBA, bullous systemic lupus erythematosus, dermatitis herpetiformis, linear IgA disease, and porphyria cutanea tarda. 

Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) was performed on the biopsy from our patient, which showed linear/particulate IgG, C3, and IgA deposits in the basement membrane zone, narrowing the differential diagnosis to BP or EBA. To differentiate EBA from BP, DIF of perilesional skin using a salt-split preparation was performed. This test distinguishes the location of the immunoreactants at the basement membrane zone. The antibody complexes in BP are found on the epidermal side of the split, while the antibody complexes in EBA are found on the dermal side of the split. Indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split skin also has been used to distinguish EBA from BP but is only conclusive if there are circulating autoantibodies to the basement membrane zone in the serum, which occurs in approximately 50% of patients with EBA and 15% of patients with BP.³ The immune complexes in our patient were found to be on the dermal side of the split after DIF on salt-split skin, confirming the diagnosis of EBA (Figure).  

Differentiating EBA from BP has great value, as the diagnosis affects treatment options. Bullous pemphigoid is fairly easy to treat, with most patients responding to prednisone.³ Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita usually is resistant to therapy. The disease course is chronic with  exacerbations and remissions. Dapsone often is used to control the disease, though this therapy for EBA is not currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The recommended initial dose of dapsone is 50 mg daily and should be increased by 50 mg each week until remission, usually 100 to 250 mg.⁴ We prescribed dapsone for our patient upon clinical suspicion of EBA before the DIF on salt-split skin was completed. A trial of prednisone may be warranted for EBA if there is no response to dapsone or colchicine, but the response is unpredictable. Cyclosporine usually results in a quick response and may be considered if there is clinically severe disease and other treatment alternatives have failed.⁴ 

The Diagnosis: Epidermolysis Bullosa Acquisita 

Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita (EBA) is a rare autoimmune blistering disorder characterized by tense bullae, skin fragility, atrophic scarring, and milia formation.¹ Blisters occur on a noninflammatory base in the classic variant and are trauma induced, hence the predilection for the extensor surfaces.² Mucosal involvement also has been described.¹ The characteristic findings in EBA are IgG autoantibodies directed at the N-terminal collagenous domain of type VII collagen, which composes the anchoring fibrils in the basement membrane zone.¹ Differentiating EBA from other subepidermal bullous diseases, especially bullous pemphigoid (BP), can be difficult, necessitating specialized tests.  

Biopsy of the perilesional skin can help identify the location of the blister formation. Our patient's biopsy showed a subepidermal blister with granulocytes. The differential diagnosis of a subepidermal blister includes BP, herpes gestationis, cicatricial pemphigoid, EBA, bullous systemic lupus erythematosus, dermatitis herpetiformis, linear IgA disease, and porphyria cutanea tarda. 

Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) was performed on the biopsy from our patient, which showed linear/particulate IgG, C3, and IgA deposits in the basement membrane zone, narrowing the differential diagnosis to BP or EBA. To differentiate EBA from BP, DIF of perilesional skin using a salt-split preparation was performed. This test distinguishes the location of the immunoreactants at the basement membrane zone. The antibody complexes in BP are found on the epidermal side of the split, while the antibody complexes in EBA are found on the dermal side of the split. Indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split skin also has been used to distinguish EBA from BP but is only conclusive if there are circulating autoantibodies to the basement membrane zone in the serum, which occurs in approximately 50% of patients with EBA and 15% of patients with BP.³ The immune complexes in our patient were found to be on the dermal side of the split after DIF on salt-split skin, confirming the diagnosis of EBA (Figure).  

Differentiating EBA from BP has great value, as the diagnosis affects treatment options. Bullous pemphigoid is fairly easy to treat, with most patients responding to prednisone.³ Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita usually is resistant to therapy. The disease course is chronic with  exacerbations and remissions. Dapsone often is used to control the disease, though this therapy for EBA is not currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The recommended initial dose of dapsone is 50 mg daily and should be increased by 50 mg each week until remission, usually 100 to 250 mg.⁴ We prescribed dapsone for our patient upon clinical suspicion of EBA before the DIF on salt-split skin was completed. A trial of prednisone may be warranted for EBA if there is no response to dapsone or colchicine, but the response is unpredictable. Cyclosporine usually results in a quick response and may be considered if there is clinically severe disease and other treatment alternatives have failed.⁴ 

The Diagnosis: Epidermolysis Bullosa Acquisita 

Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita (EBA) is a rare autoimmune blistering disorder characterized by tense bullae, skin fragility, atrophic scarring, and milia formation.¹ Blisters occur on a noninflammatory base in the classic variant and are trauma induced, hence the predilection for the extensor surfaces.² Mucosal involvement also has been described.¹ The characteristic findings in EBA are IgG autoantibodies directed at the N-terminal collagenous domain of type VII collagen, which composes the anchoring fibrils in the basement membrane zone.¹ Differentiating EBA from other subepidermal bullous diseases, especially bullous pemphigoid (BP), can be difficult, necessitating specialized tests.  

Biopsy of the perilesional skin can help identify the location of the blister formation. Our patient's biopsy showed a subepidermal blister with granulocytes. The differential diagnosis of a subepidermal blister includes BP, herpes gestationis, cicatricial pemphigoid, EBA, bullous systemic lupus erythematosus, dermatitis herpetiformis, linear IgA disease, and porphyria cutanea tarda. 

Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) was performed on the biopsy from our patient, which showed linear/particulate IgG, C3, and IgA deposits in the basement membrane zone, narrowing the differential diagnosis to BP or EBA. To differentiate EBA from BP, DIF of perilesional skin using a salt-split preparation was performed. This test distinguishes the location of the immunoreactants at the basement membrane zone. The antibody complexes in BP are found on the epidermal side of the split, while the antibody complexes in EBA are found on the dermal side of the split. Indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split skin also has been used to distinguish EBA from BP but is only conclusive if there are circulating autoantibodies to the basement membrane zone in the serum, which occurs in approximately 50% of patients with EBA and 15% of patients with BP.³ The immune complexes in our patient were found to be on the dermal side of the split after DIF on salt-split skin, confirming the diagnosis of EBA (Figure).  

Differentiating EBA from BP has great value, as the diagnosis affects treatment options. Bullous pemphigoid is fairly easy to treat, with most patients responding to prednisone.³ Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita usually is resistant to therapy. The disease course is chronic with  exacerbations and remissions. Dapsone often is used to control the disease, though this therapy for EBA is not currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The recommended initial dose of dapsone is 50 mg daily and should be increased by 50 mg each week until remission, usually 100 to 250 mg.⁴ We prescribed dapsone for our patient upon clinical suspicion of EBA before the DIF on salt-split skin was completed. A trial of prednisone may be warranted for EBA if there is no response to dapsone or colchicine, but the response is unpredictable. Cyclosporine usually results in a quick response and may be considered if there is clinically severe disease and other treatment alternatives have failed.⁴ 

Therapeutics could be available in the near term to help treat COVID-19 patients, according to President Donald Trump.

Courtesy CDC

During a March 19 press briefing, the president highlighted two drugs that could be put into play in the battle against the virus.

The first product is hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil), a drug used to treat malaria and severe arthritis, is showing promise as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

“The nice part is it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if things go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody,” President Trump said. “When you go with a brand-new drug, you don’t know that that’s going to happen,” adding that it has shown “very, very encouraging” results as a potential treatment for COVID-19.

He said this drug will be made available “almost immediately.” During the press conference, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, suggested the drug would be made available in the context of a large pragmatic clinical trial, enabling the FDA to collect data on it and make a long-term decision on its viability to treat COVID-19.

Dr. Hahn also pointed to the Gilead drug remdesivir – a drug originally developed to fight Ebola and currently undergoing clinical trials – as another possible candidate for a near-term therapeutic to help treat patients while vaccine development occurs.

Dr. Hahn noted that, while the agency is striving to provide regulatory flexibility, safety is paramount. “Let me make one thing clear: FDA’s responsibility to the American people is to ensure that products are safe and effective and that we are continuing to do that.”

He noted that if these and other experimental drugs show promise, physicians can request them under “compassionate use” provisions.

“We have criteria for that, and very speedy approval for that,” Dr. Hahn said. “The important thing about compassionate use ... this is even beyond ‘right to try.’ [We] get to collect the information about that.”

He noted that the FDA is looking at other drugs that are approved for other indications. The examinations of existing therapies are meant to be a bridge as companies work to develop new therapeutics as well as vaccines.

Dr. Hahn also highlighted a cross-agency effort on convalescent plasma, which uses the plasma from a patient who has recovered from COVID-19 infection to help patients fight the virus. “This is a possible treatment; this is not a proven treatment, “ Dr. Hahn said.

Takeda is working on an immunoglobulin treatment based on its intravenous immunoglobulin product Gammagard Liquid.

Julie Kim, president of plasma-derived therapies at Takeda, said the company should be able to go straight into testing efficacy of this approach, given the known safety profile of the treatment. She made the comments during a March 18 press briefing hosted by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Ms. Kim did caution that this would not be a mass market kind of treatment, as supply would depend on plasma donations from individuals who have fully recovered from a COVID-19 infection. She estimated that the treatment could be available to a targeted group of high-risk patients in 9-18 months.

PhRMA president and CEO Stephen Ubl said the industry is “literally working around the clock” on four key areas: development of new diagnostics, identification of potential existing treatments to make available through trials and compassionate use, development of novel therapies, and development of a vaccine.

There are more than 80 clinical trials underway on existing treatments that could have approval to treat COVID-19 in a matter of months, he said.

Mikael Dolsten, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at Pfizer, said that the company is working with Germany-based BioNTech SE to develop an mRNA-based vaccine for COVID-19, with testing expected to begin in Germany, China, and the United States by the end of April. The company also is screening antiviral compounds that were previously in development against other coronavirus diseases.

Clement Lewin, PhD, associate vice president of R&D strategy for vaccines at Sanofi, said the company has partnered with Regeneron to launch a trial of sarilumab (Kevzara), a drug approved to treat moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, to help treat COVID-19.

Meanwhile, Lilly Chief Scientific Officer Daniel Skovronsky, MD, PhD, noted that his company is collaborating with AbCellera to develop therapeutics using monoclonal antibodies isolated from one of the first U.S. patients who recovered from COVID-19. He said the goal is to begin testing within the next 4 months.

Separately, World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced during a March 18 press conference that it is spearheading a large international study examining a number of different treatments in what has been dubbed the SOLIDARITY trial. Argentina, Bahrain, Canada, France, Iran, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and Thailand have signed on to be a part of the trial, with more countries expected to participate.

“I continue to be inspired by the many demonstrations of solidarity from all over the world,” he said. “These and other efforts give me hope that together, we can and will prevail. This virus is presenting us with an unprecedented threat. But it’s also an unprecedented opportunity to come together as one against a common enemy, an enemy against humanity.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

Therapeutics could be available in the near term to help treat COVID-19 patients, according to President Donald Trump.

Courtesy CDC

During a March 19 press briefing, the president highlighted two drugs that could be put into play in the battle against the virus.

The first product is hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil), a drug used to treat malaria and severe arthritis, is showing promise as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

“The nice part is it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if things go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody,” President Trump said. “When you go with a brand-new drug, you don’t know that that’s going to happen,” adding that it has shown “very, very encouraging” results as a potential treatment for COVID-19.

He said this drug will be made available “almost immediately.” During the press conference, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, suggested the drug would be made available in the context of a large pragmatic clinical trial, enabling the FDA to collect data on it and make a long-term decision on its viability to treat COVID-19.

Dr. Hahn also pointed to the Gilead drug remdesivir – a drug originally developed to fight Ebola and currently undergoing clinical trials – as another possible candidate for a near-term therapeutic to help treat patients while vaccine development occurs.

Dr. Hahn noted that, while the agency is striving to provide regulatory flexibility, safety is paramount. “Let me make one thing clear: FDA’s responsibility to the American people is to ensure that products are safe and effective and that we are continuing to do that.”

He noted that if these and other experimental drugs show promise, physicians can request them under “compassionate use” provisions.

“We have criteria for that, and very speedy approval for that,” Dr. Hahn said. “The important thing about compassionate use ... this is even beyond ‘right to try.’ [We] get to collect the information about that.”

He noted that the FDA is looking at other drugs that are approved for other indications. The examinations of existing therapies are meant to be a bridge as companies work to develop new therapeutics as well as vaccines.

Dr. Hahn also highlighted a cross-agency effort on convalescent plasma, which uses the plasma from a patient who has recovered from COVID-19 infection to help patients fight the virus. “This is a possible treatment; this is not a proven treatment, “ Dr. Hahn said.

Takeda is working on an immunoglobulin treatment based on its intravenous immunoglobulin product Gammagard Liquid.

Julie Kim, president of plasma-derived therapies at Takeda, said the company should be able to go straight into testing efficacy of this approach, given the known safety profile of the treatment. She made the comments during a March 18 press briefing hosted by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Ms. Kim did caution that this would not be a mass market kind of treatment, as supply would depend on plasma donations from individuals who have fully recovered from a COVID-19 infection. She estimated that the treatment could be available to a targeted group of high-risk patients in 9-18 months.

PhRMA president and CEO Stephen Ubl said the industry is “literally working around the clock” on four key areas: development of new diagnostics, identification of potential existing treatments to make available through trials and compassionate use, development of novel therapies, and development of a vaccine.

There are more than 80 clinical trials underway on existing treatments that could have approval to treat COVID-19 in a matter of months, he said.

Mikael Dolsten, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at Pfizer, said that the company is working with Germany-based BioNTech SE to develop an mRNA-based vaccine for COVID-19, with testing expected to begin in Germany, China, and the United States by the end of April. The company also is screening antiviral compounds that were previously in development against other coronavirus diseases.

Clement Lewin, PhD, associate vice president of R&D strategy for vaccines at Sanofi, said the company has partnered with Regeneron to launch a trial of sarilumab (Kevzara), a drug approved to treat moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, to help treat COVID-19.

Meanwhile, Lilly Chief Scientific Officer Daniel Skovronsky, MD, PhD, noted that his company is collaborating with AbCellera to develop therapeutics using monoclonal antibodies isolated from one of the first U.S. patients who recovered from COVID-19. He said the goal is to begin testing within the next 4 months.

Separately, World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced during a March 18 press conference that it is spearheading a large international study examining a number of different treatments in what has been dubbed the SOLIDARITY trial. Argentina, Bahrain, Canada, France, Iran, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and Thailand have signed on to be a part of the trial, with more countries expected to participate.

“I continue to be inspired by the many demonstrations of solidarity from all over the world,” he said. “These and other efforts give me hope that together, we can and will prevail. This virus is presenting us with an unprecedented threat. But it’s also an unprecedented opportunity to come together as one against a common enemy, an enemy against humanity.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

Therapeutics could be available in the near term to help treat COVID-19 patients, according to President Donald Trump.

Courtesy CDC

During a March 19 press briefing, the president highlighted two drugs that could be put into play in the battle against the virus.

The first product is hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil), a drug used to treat malaria and severe arthritis, is showing promise as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

“The nice part is it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if things go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody,” President Trump said. “When you go with a brand-new drug, you don’t know that that’s going to happen,” adding that it has shown “very, very encouraging” results as a potential treatment for COVID-19.

He said this drug will be made available “almost immediately.” During the press conference, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, suggested the drug would be made available in the context of a large pragmatic clinical trial, enabling the FDA to collect data on it and make a long-term decision on its viability to treat COVID-19.

Dr. Hahn also pointed to the Gilead drug remdesivir – a drug originally developed to fight Ebola and currently undergoing clinical trials – as another possible candidate for a near-term therapeutic to help treat patients while vaccine development occurs.

Dr. Hahn noted that, while the agency is striving to provide regulatory flexibility, safety is paramount. “Let me make one thing clear: FDA’s responsibility to the American people is to ensure that products are safe and effective and that we are continuing to do that.”

He noted that if these and other experimental drugs show promise, physicians can request them under “compassionate use” provisions.

“We have criteria for that, and very speedy approval for that,” Dr. Hahn said. “The important thing about compassionate use ... this is even beyond ‘right to try.’ [We] get to collect the information about that.”

He noted that the FDA is looking at other drugs that are approved for other indications. The examinations of existing therapies are meant to be a bridge as companies work to develop new therapeutics as well as vaccines.

Dr. Hahn also highlighted a cross-agency effort on convalescent plasma, which uses the plasma from a patient who has recovered from COVID-19 infection to help patients fight the virus. “This is a possible treatment; this is not a proven treatment, “ Dr. Hahn said.

Takeda is working on an immunoglobulin treatment based on its intravenous immunoglobulin product Gammagard Liquid.

Julie Kim, president of plasma-derived therapies at Takeda, said the company should be able to go straight into testing efficacy of this approach, given the known safety profile of the treatment. She made the comments during a March 18 press briefing hosted by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Ms. Kim did caution that this would not be a mass market kind of treatment, as supply would depend on plasma donations from individuals who have fully recovered from a COVID-19 infection. She estimated that the treatment could be available to a targeted group of high-risk patients in 9-18 months.

PhRMA president and CEO Stephen Ubl said the industry is “literally working around the clock” on four key areas: development of new diagnostics, identification of potential existing treatments to make available through trials and compassionate use, development of novel therapies, and development of a vaccine.

There are more than 80 clinical trials underway on existing treatments that could have approval to treat COVID-19 in a matter of months, he said.

Mikael Dolsten, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer at Pfizer, said that the company is working with Germany-based BioNTech SE to develop an mRNA-based vaccine for COVID-19, with testing expected to begin in Germany, China, and the United States by the end of April. The company also is screening antiviral compounds that were previously in development against other coronavirus diseases.

Clement Lewin, PhD, associate vice president of R&D strategy for vaccines at Sanofi, said the company has partnered with Regeneron to launch a trial of sarilumab (Kevzara), a drug approved to treat moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, to help treat COVID-19.

Meanwhile, Lilly Chief Scientific Officer Daniel Skovronsky, MD, PhD, noted that his company is collaborating with AbCellera to develop therapeutics using monoclonal antibodies isolated from one of the first U.S. patients who recovered from COVID-19. He said the goal is to begin testing within the next 4 months.

Separately, World Health Organization Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced during a March 18 press conference that it is spearheading a large international study examining a number of different treatments in what has been dubbed the SOLIDARITY trial. Argentina, Bahrain, Canada, France, Iran, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and Thailand have signed on to be a part of the trial, with more countries expected to participate.

“I continue to be inspired by the many demonstrations of solidarity from all over the world,” he said. “These and other efforts give me hope that together, we can and will prevail. This virus is presenting us with an unprecedented threat. But it’s also an unprecedented opportunity to come together as one against a common enemy, an enemy against humanity.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) appears to be distinguished from other scarring forms of alopecia by the predominance of CD4+ cells in the lymphocytic inflammatory infiltrate, according to a histopathological study of biopsy specimens.

“Evaluation of the T-cell infiltrate may be a useful way to distinguish CCCA from lichen planopilaris or frontal fibrosing alopecia in some cases when histopathological features alone cannot be used to definitely distinguish between them,” reported Alexandra Flamm, MD, Ata Moshiri, MD, and coauthors from the departments of dermatology and pathology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The histopathological features of CCCA have been characterized previously, but the goal of this study was to go further in piecing together the pathophysiology, they noted.

Horizontal sections of 4-mm punch biopsy specimens were examined from 18 black women with a known diagnosis of CCCA. Both affected and unaffected follicles were evaluated with attention to the number and percentage of CD1a+ Langerhans cells, CD3+, CD4+, and CD8+ lymphocytes.

In this series, the lymphocytic infiltrate in both the affected and unaffected follicles was predominantly composed of CD4+ cells. The perifollicular ratio for CD4+ to CD8+ cells in affected follicles was 5.3:1. It was only modestly lower in unaffected follicles (4.3:1) and in the intrafollicular space of affected follicles (2.5:1).

Affected follicles had a higher number of CD1a+ Langerhans cells than unaffected follicles. This finding suggests, as others have hypothesized, that the antigen-presenting Langerhans cells draw lymphocytes to the follicle, according to the investigators. Elevated numbers of Langerhans cells have also been reported in other forms of scarring alopecia, such as lichen planopilaris (LPP).

In the case of CCCA, CD1a+ Langerhans cells appear to localize to the hair follicle in response to stimulus such as an injury. The CD4+ cells that follow the Langerhans cells participate in an inflammatory reaction that drives follicle destruction. In addition to this damage and scarring, the inflammatory response is also likely to be disrupting the blood supply.

“Fibroplasia associated with follicular scarring displaces blood vessels away from the outer root sheath epithelium,” the authors explained. Ultimately, “the mucinous fibroplasia and perifollicular fibrosis may disrupt and fragment blood vessels in the fibrous sheath, leaving only small clusters of vessels more distant to the keratinocytes in the outer root sheath.”

Prior studies of scarring alopecia diseases, including LLP, frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA), and keratosis follicularis spinulosa decalvans (KFSD), have typically described a predominantly CD8+ lymphocytic infiltrate. The evidence from this study that the infiltrate is CD4+ predominant in CCCA supports the conclusion that the pathophysiologic features of this type of alopecia are unique, according to the authors.

Work by others has associated CCCA with mutations in the PAD13 gene, which suggests a defect in the formation of hair shaft structure, but this may speak to susceptibility but not the mechanism of hair follicle damage. Rather, this study suggests that it is the concentration of a CD4+ predominant lymphocytic infiltrate in the perifollicular space that induces the pathological events.

For determining the fundamental cause of CCCA, “it will be important to determine what recruits the Langerhans cells to affected follicles,” the investigators suggested. Meanwhile, they expressed hope that the progress being made into decoding the pathogenesis of CCCA will lead to novel therapeutic strategies.

The authors did not list any disclosures. The funding source was listed as the Center for Scientific Review (Grant/Award).

SOURCE: Flamm A et al. J Cutan Pathol. 2020 Feb 18.doi: 10.1111/cup.13666.

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) appears to be distinguished from other scarring forms of alopecia by the predominance of CD4+ cells in the lymphocytic inflammatory infiltrate, according to a histopathological study of biopsy specimens.

“Evaluation of the T-cell infiltrate may be a useful way to distinguish CCCA from lichen planopilaris or frontal fibrosing alopecia in some cases when histopathological features alone cannot be used to definitely distinguish between them,” reported Alexandra Flamm, MD, Ata Moshiri, MD, and coauthors from the departments of dermatology and pathology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The histopathological features of CCCA have been characterized previously, but the goal of this study was to go further in piecing together the pathophysiology, they noted.

Horizontal sections of 4-mm punch biopsy specimens were examined from 18 black women with a known diagnosis of CCCA. Both affected and unaffected follicles were evaluated with attention to the number and percentage of CD1a+ Langerhans cells, CD3+, CD4+, and CD8+ lymphocytes.

In this series, the lymphocytic infiltrate in both the affected and unaffected follicles was predominantly composed of CD4+ cells. The perifollicular ratio for CD4+ to CD8+ cells in affected follicles was 5.3:1. It was only modestly lower in unaffected follicles (4.3:1) and in the intrafollicular space of affected follicles (2.5:1).

Affected follicles had a higher number of CD1a+ Langerhans cells than unaffected follicles. This finding suggests, as others have hypothesized, that the antigen-presenting Langerhans cells draw lymphocytes to the follicle, according to the investigators. Elevated numbers of Langerhans cells have also been reported in other forms of scarring alopecia, such as lichen planopilaris (LPP).

In the case of CCCA, CD1a+ Langerhans cells appear to localize to the hair follicle in response to stimulus such as an injury. The CD4+ cells that follow the Langerhans cells participate in an inflammatory reaction that drives follicle destruction. In addition to this damage and scarring, the inflammatory response is also likely to be disrupting the blood supply.

“Fibroplasia associated with follicular scarring displaces blood vessels away from the outer root sheath epithelium,” the authors explained. Ultimately, “the mucinous fibroplasia and perifollicular fibrosis may disrupt and fragment blood vessels in the fibrous sheath, leaving only small clusters of vessels more distant to the keratinocytes in the outer root sheath.”

Prior studies of scarring alopecia diseases, including LLP, frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA), and keratosis follicularis spinulosa decalvans (KFSD), have typically described a predominantly CD8+ lymphocytic infiltrate. The evidence from this study that the infiltrate is CD4+ predominant in CCCA supports the conclusion that the pathophysiologic features of this type of alopecia are unique, according to the authors.

Work by others has associated CCCA with mutations in the PAD13 gene, which suggests a defect in the formation of hair shaft structure, but this may speak to susceptibility but not the mechanism of hair follicle damage. Rather, this study suggests that it is the concentration of a CD4+ predominant lymphocytic infiltrate in the perifollicular space that induces the pathological events.

For determining the fundamental cause of CCCA, “it will be important to determine what recruits the Langerhans cells to affected follicles,” the investigators suggested. Meanwhile, they expressed hope that the progress being made into decoding the pathogenesis of CCCA will lead to novel therapeutic strategies.

The authors did not list any disclosures. The funding source was listed as the Center for Scientific Review (Grant/Award).

SOURCE: Flamm A et al. J Cutan Pathol. 2020 Feb 18.doi: 10.1111/cup.13666.

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) appears to be distinguished from other scarring forms of alopecia by the predominance of CD4+ cells in the lymphocytic inflammatory infiltrate, according to a histopathological study of biopsy specimens.

“Evaluation of the T-cell infiltrate may be a useful way to distinguish CCCA from lichen planopilaris or frontal fibrosing alopecia in some cases when histopathological features alone cannot be used to definitely distinguish between them,” reported Alexandra Flamm, MD, Ata Moshiri, MD, and coauthors from the departments of dermatology and pathology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The histopathological features of CCCA have been characterized previously, but the goal of this study was to go further in piecing together the pathophysiology, they noted.

Horizontal sections of 4-mm punch biopsy specimens were examined from 18 black women with a known diagnosis of CCCA. Both affected and unaffected follicles were evaluated with attention to the number and percentage of CD1a+ Langerhans cells, CD3+, CD4+, and CD8+ lymphocytes.

In this series, the lymphocytic infiltrate in both the affected and unaffected follicles was predominantly composed of CD4+ cells. The perifollicular ratio for CD4+ to CD8+ cells in affected follicles was 5.3:1. It was only modestly lower in unaffected follicles (4.3:1) and in the intrafollicular space of affected follicles (2.5:1).

Affected follicles had a higher number of CD1a+ Langerhans cells than unaffected follicles. This finding suggests, as others have hypothesized, that the antigen-presenting Langerhans cells draw lymphocytes to the follicle, according to the investigators. Elevated numbers of Langerhans cells have also been reported in other forms of scarring alopecia, such as lichen planopilaris (LPP).

In the case of CCCA, CD1a+ Langerhans cells appear to localize to the hair follicle in response to stimulus such as an injury. The CD4+ cells that follow the Langerhans cells participate in an inflammatory reaction that drives follicle destruction. In addition to this damage and scarring, the inflammatory response is also likely to be disrupting the blood supply.

“Fibroplasia associated with follicular scarring displaces blood vessels away from the outer root sheath epithelium,” the authors explained. Ultimately, “the mucinous fibroplasia and perifollicular fibrosis may disrupt and fragment blood vessels in the fibrous sheath, leaving only small clusters of vessels more distant to the keratinocytes in the outer root sheath.”

Prior studies of scarring alopecia diseases, including LLP, frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA), and keratosis follicularis spinulosa decalvans (KFSD), have typically described a predominantly CD8+ lymphocytic infiltrate. The evidence from this study that the infiltrate is CD4+ predominant in CCCA supports the conclusion that the pathophysiologic features of this type of alopecia are unique, according to the authors.

Work by others has associated CCCA with mutations in the PAD13 gene, which suggests a defect in the formation of hair shaft structure, but this may speak to susceptibility but not the mechanism of hair follicle damage. Rather, this study suggests that it is the concentration of a CD4+ predominant lymphocytic infiltrate in the perifollicular space that induces the pathological events.

For determining the fundamental cause of CCCA, “it will be important to determine what recruits the Langerhans cells to affected follicles,” the investigators suggested. Meanwhile, they expressed hope that the progress being made into decoding the pathogenesis of CCCA will lead to novel therapeutic strategies.

The authors did not list any disclosures. The funding source was listed as the Center for Scientific Review (Grant/Award).

SOURCE: Flamm A et al. J Cutan Pathol. 2020 Feb 18.doi: 10.1111/cup.13666.

*Correction, 3/20/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the age range for COVID-19 deaths. The headline of this story was corrected to read "20%  of COVID-19 deaths were aged 20-64 years" and the text was adjusted to reflect the correct age range.

A review of more than 4,000 U.S. patients who were diagnosed with novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) shows that an unexpected 20% of deaths occurred among adults aged 20-64 years, and 20% of those hospitalized were aged 20-44 years. 

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The expectation has been that people over 65 are most vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, but this study indicates that, at least in the United States, a significant number of patients under 45 can land in the hospital and can even die of the disease. 

To assess rates of hospitalization, admission to an ICU, and death among patients with COVID-19 by age group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed 4,226 COVID-19 cases in the United States that were reported between Feb. 12 and March 16.

Overall, older patients in this group were the most likely to be hospitalized, to be admitted to ICU, and to die of COVID-19. A total of 31% of the cases, 45% of hospitalizations, 53% of ICU admissions, and 80% of deaths occurred in patients aged 65 years and older. “Similar to reports from other countries, this finding suggests that the risk for serious disease and death from COVID-19 is higher in older age groups,” said the investigators. “In contrast, persons aged [19 years and younger] appear to have milder COVID-19 illness, with almost no hospitalizations or deaths reported to date in the United States in this age group.”

But compared with the under-19 group, patients aged 20-44 years appeared to be at higher risk for hospitalization and ICU admission, according to the data published March 18 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

The researchers excluded from their analysis patients who repatriated to the United States from Wuhan, China, and from Japan, including patients repatriated from cruise ships. Data on serious underlying health conditions were not available, and many cases were missing key data, they noted.
Among 508 patients known to have been hospitalized, 9% were aged 85 years or older, 36% were aged 65-84 years, 17% were aged 55-64 years, 18% were 45-54 years, and 20% were aged 20-44 years.

Among 121 patients admitted to an ICU, 7% were aged 85 years or older, 46% were aged 65-84 years, 36% were aged 45-64 years, and 12% were aged 20-44 years. Between 11% and 31% of patients with COVID-19 aged 75-84 years were admitted to an ICU.

Of 44 deaths, more than a third occurred among adults aged 85 years and older, and 46% occurred among adults aged 65-84 years, and 20% occurred among adults aged 20-64 years.

More follow-up time is needed to determine outcomes among active cases, the researchers said. These results also might overestimate the prevalence of severe disease because the initial approach to testing for COVID-19 focused on people with more severe disease. “These preliminary data also demonstrate that severe illness leading to hospitalization, including ICU admission and death, can occur in adults of any age with COVID-19,” according to the CDC.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: CDC COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6912e2.

*Correction, 3/20/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the age range for COVID-19 deaths. The headline of this story was corrected to read "20%  of COVID-19 deaths were aged 20-64 years" and the text was adjusted to reflect the correct age range.

A review of more than 4,000 U.S. patients who were diagnosed with novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) shows that an unexpected 20% of deaths occurred among adults aged 20-64 years, and 20% of those hospitalized were aged 20-44 years. 

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The expectation has been that people over 65 are most vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, but this study indicates that, at least in the United States, a significant number of patients under 45 can land in the hospital and can even die of the disease. 

To assess rates of hospitalization, admission to an ICU, and death among patients with COVID-19 by age group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed 4,226 COVID-19 cases in the United States that were reported between Feb. 12 and March 16.

Overall, older patients in this group were the most likely to be hospitalized, to be admitted to ICU, and to die of COVID-19. A total of 31% of the cases, 45% of hospitalizations, 53% of ICU admissions, and 80% of deaths occurred in patients aged 65 years and older. “Similar to reports from other countries, this finding suggests that the risk for serious disease and death from COVID-19 is higher in older age groups,” said the investigators. “In contrast, persons aged [19 years and younger] appear to have milder COVID-19 illness, with almost no hospitalizations or deaths reported to date in the United States in this age group.”

But compared with the under-19 group, patients aged 20-44 years appeared to be at higher risk for hospitalization and ICU admission, according to the data published March 18 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

The researchers excluded from their analysis patients who repatriated to the United States from Wuhan, China, and from Japan, including patients repatriated from cruise ships. Data on serious underlying health conditions were not available, and many cases were missing key data, they noted.
Among 508 patients known to have been hospitalized, 9% were aged 85 years or older, 36% were aged 65-84 years, 17% were aged 55-64 years, 18% were 45-54 years, and 20% were aged 20-44 years.

Among 121 patients admitted to an ICU, 7% were aged 85 years or older, 46% were aged 65-84 years, 36% were aged 45-64 years, and 12% were aged 20-44 years. Between 11% and 31% of patients with COVID-19 aged 75-84 years were admitted to an ICU.

Of 44 deaths, more than a third occurred among adults aged 85 years and older, and 46% occurred among adults aged 65-84 years, and 20% occurred among adults aged 20-64 years.

More follow-up time is needed to determine outcomes among active cases, the researchers said. These results also might overestimate the prevalence of severe disease because the initial approach to testing for COVID-19 focused on people with more severe disease. “These preliminary data also demonstrate that severe illness leading to hospitalization, including ICU admission and death, can occur in adults of any age with COVID-19,” according to the CDC.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: CDC COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6912e2.

*Correction, 3/20/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the age range for COVID-19 deaths. The headline of this story was corrected to read "20%  of COVID-19 deaths were aged 20-64 years" and the text was adjusted to reflect the correct age range.

A review of more than 4,000 U.S. patients who were diagnosed with novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) shows that an unexpected 20% of deaths occurred among adults aged 20-64 years, and 20% of those hospitalized were aged 20-44 years. 

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The expectation has been that people over 65 are most vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, but this study indicates that, at least in the United States, a significant number of patients under 45 can land in the hospital and can even die of the disease. 

To assess rates of hospitalization, admission to an ICU, and death among patients with COVID-19 by age group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed 4,226 COVID-19 cases in the United States that were reported between Feb. 12 and March 16.

Overall, older patients in this group were the most likely to be hospitalized, to be admitted to ICU, and to die of COVID-19. A total of 31% of the cases, 45% of hospitalizations, 53% of ICU admissions, and 80% of deaths occurred in patients aged 65 years and older. “Similar to reports from other countries, this finding suggests that the risk for serious disease and death from COVID-19 is higher in older age groups,” said the investigators. “In contrast, persons aged [19 years and younger] appear to have milder COVID-19 illness, with almost no hospitalizations or deaths reported to date in the United States in this age group.”

But compared with the under-19 group, patients aged 20-44 years appeared to be at higher risk for hospitalization and ICU admission, according to the data published March 18 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 

The researchers excluded from their analysis patients who repatriated to the United States from Wuhan, China, and from Japan, including patients repatriated from cruise ships. Data on serious underlying health conditions were not available, and many cases were missing key data, they noted.
Among 508 patients known to have been hospitalized, 9% were aged 85 years or older, 36% were aged 65-84 years, 17% were aged 55-64 years, 18% were 45-54 years, and 20% were aged 20-44 years.

Among 121 patients admitted to an ICU, 7% were aged 85 years or older, 46% were aged 65-84 years, 36% were aged 45-64 years, and 12% were aged 20-44 years. Between 11% and 31% of patients with COVID-19 aged 75-84 years were admitted to an ICU.

Of 44 deaths, more than a third occurred among adults aged 85 years and older, and 46% occurred among adults aged 65-84 years, and 20% occurred among adults aged 20-64 years.

More follow-up time is needed to determine outcomes among active cases, the researchers said. These results also might overestimate the prevalence of severe disease because the initial approach to testing for COVID-19 focused on people with more severe disease. “These preliminary data also demonstrate that severe illness leading to hospitalization, including ICU admission and death, can occur in adults of any age with COVID-19,” according to the CDC.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: CDC COVID-19 Response Team. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6912e2.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an incurable genetic blood disorder that reduces patients’ lifespan and quality of life. Many patients live into their 40s or 50s. Yet, throughout their lives, patients are plagued by lethargy, unpredictable painful crises, and frequent hospitalizations. For nearly 20 years, clinicians only had one drug to treat SCD. Since 2017, three new drugs have been approved, but their costs and lack of long-term data have spawned questions regarding access and benefit.

“SCD reduces lifespan by 30 years, and that’s very hard to quantify,” says Ifeyinwa Osunkwo, MD, professor of medicine and pediatrics and director of Sickle Cell Disease Enterprise at the Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C. “If you put a dollar amount on what someone would make working for 30 adult years, that would be more reflective of the true cost of treating the disease.”

In 1984, hydroxyurea (Hydrea, Droxia) became the first drug to treat SCD in adults.

Originally developed as a myelosuppressive antineoplastic, hydroxyurea is used to treat resistant chronic myeloid leukemia and certain head and neck cancers. In SCD, it increases levels of hemoglobin and fetal hemoglobin.

Despite its benefit, hydroxyurea has two major drawbacks: It is only effective in two genotypes – HbSS or HbS/Beta⁰thal.

HbSS or HbS/Beta⁰thal genotypes account for 60% of the SCD population, but further studies are required to elucidate hydroxyurea’s effect in other forms of SCD, according to Dr. Osunkwo.

Secondly, hydroxyurea only reduces the frequency of painful episodes by 50% – not enough to ameliorate the pain, said John J. Strouse, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine.

Newer therapies offer the potential to enhance the effects of hydroxyurea when used concomitantly. They also give clinicians additional options for patients who either fail hydroxyurea therapy or for whom it is inappropriate.

The amino acid L-glutamine (Endari) became the second drug approved for sickle cell in 2017. Indicated for patients 5 years of age and older, Dr. Osunkwo says many patients were thrilled to have a nonchemotherapeutic option available. However, the medical community received the drug with some skepticism. “The data show Endari is moderately effective at best,” said Dr. Strouse. “Also, the mechanism of action is unclear.”

Additionally, the drug’s powder form and twice-daily dosing regimen make adherence more challenging than swallowing a few hydroxyurea tablets or capsules once a day. In Dr. Osunkwo’s experience, patients who respond best to Endari tend to be those who are naturally motivated individuals who are intentional in their efforts at optimizing their nutrition and self-care.

“It takes a lot to be adherent to Endari,” she said. “You have to work at it.”

On Nov. 15, 2019, the FDA approved crizanlizumab-tmca (Adakveo) for patients 16 years of age and older to decrease the occurrence of vasoocclusive crises.

The drug works by blocking selectin – a protein involved in the painful vascular pathophysiology. Patients receive a loading dose of 5 mg/kg administered via intravenous infusion over 30 minutes at the initiation of therapy, as well as weeks 2 and 4. After that, patients undergo treatment once a month. Nausea, back pain, pyrexia, and arthralgia are the most frequently reported adverse reactions. Clinicians must monitor patients for signs and symptoms of infusion-related reactions.

Ten days later, the FDA approved voxelotor (Oxbryta) for patients ages 12 years and up. The drug inhibits hemoglobin S polymerization and increases hemoglobin levels. Like hydroxyurea, the drug offers the convenience of once-daily dosing, and the tablet can be taken without regard to food. The drug dose requires adjustment for patients with severe hepatic impairment. Headache, fatigue, rash, and gastrointestinal disturbances such as diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain fall among the most commonly reported side effects.

Endari, Adakveo, and Oxbryta can all be used as monotherapy. They also provide additional benefits in reducing pain and hospitalizations and improving anemia when used concomitantly with hydroxyurea.

Like so many drugs, these novel therapies are expensive. The cost of these novel treatments has raised some eyebrows.

Annual costs of generic hydroxyurea range in the neighborhood of $1,200. In a 2017 CNBC interview, Endari manufacturer Emmaus stated that it aimed to keep drug costs under $20,000 a year. Annual costs for Adakveo and Oxbryta costs are in the neighborhood of $100,000. Adakveo manufacturer Novartis reportedly priced vials at $2,347. Most patients will require at least three of the maximum four vials per treatment. In a press release, Global Therapeutics stated that Oxbyta would cost $10,417 a month.

However, Dr. Osunkwo says the benefits of these new drugs far exceed the costs from both monetary and quality of life standpoints.

“Sickle cell disease is costly to manage,” she said in an interview. “One hospitalization can cost $10,000.”

Additionally, many SCD patients are publicly insured because of the profound disability and loss of productive work they encounter as a direct consequence of their disease and its complications. Those too sick to complete their high school and postsecondary education find limited employment opportunities.

Those fortunate enough to secure employment face significantly fewer years they can work because their pain, fatigue, frequent hospitalizations, and cumulative organ damage result in permanent disability. Only a smaller number of patients with less severe disease manifestations can secure steady employment and pursue careers that allow them to obtain private insurance.

Even if the newer therapies can help cut some costs, clinicians should be aware that prior authorizations can delay patient access to Adakveo and Oxbyta.

“We wrote the first prescription for Oxbryta in November of 2019, but the prior authorization wasn’t approved until February of 2020,” she said. Adding Adakveo to her institution’s formulary required several months of navigation. Given the arduous process, Dr. Osunkwo anticipates it will take at least year after approval before Adakveo is available for all eligible patients.

The long-term impact of these drugs also remains to be seen, so hydroxyurea will likely remain the drug of choice for many patients, according to Dr. Strouse.

Dr. Osunkwo believes SCD needs more drugs in order to truly optimize outcomes, contain costs, and enhance the patient experience.

Dr. Osunkwo reports consultancy and being on the speaker’s bureau and participating in the advisory board for Novartis, which markets Adakveo, and relationships with a variety of other pharmaceutical companies. She is the editor in chief for Hematology News. Dr. Strouse reports consultancy for Global Therapeutics, which markets Oxbryta.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an incurable genetic blood disorder that reduces patients’ lifespan and quality of life. Many patients live into their 40s or 50s. Yet, throughout their lives, patients are plagued by lethargy, unpredictable painful crises, and frequent hospitalizations. For nearly 20 years, clinicians only had one drug to treat SCD. Since 2017, three new drugs have been approved, but their costs and lack of long-term data have spawned questions regarding access and benefit.

“SCD reduces lifespan by 30 years, and that’s very hard to quantify,” says Ifeyinwa Osunkwo, MD, professor of medicine and pediatrics and director of Sickle Cell Disease Enterprise at the Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C. “If you put a dollar amount on what someone would make working for 30 adult years, that would be more reflective of the true cost of treating the disease.”

In 1984, hydroxyurea (Hydrea, Droxia) became the first drug to treat SCD in adults.

Originally developed as a myelosuppressive antineoplastic, hydroxyurea is used to treat resistant chronic myeloid leukemia and certain head and neck cancers. In SCD, it increases levels of hemoglobin and fetal hemoglobin.

Despite its benefit, hydroxyurea has two major drawbacks: It is only effective in two genotypes – HbSS or HbS/Beta⁰thal.

HbSS or HbS/Beta⁰thal genotypes account for 60% of the SCD population, but further studies are required to elucidate hydroxyurea’s effect in other forms of SCD, according to Dr. Osunkwo.

Secondly, hydroxyurea only reduces the frequency of painful episodes by 50% – not enough to ameliorate the pain, said John J. Strouse, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine.

Newer therapies offer the potential to enhance the effects of hydroxyurea when used concomitantly. They also give clinicians additional options for patients who either fail hydroxyurea therapy or for whom it is inappropriate.

The amino acid L-glutamine (Endari) became the second drug approved for sickle cell in 2017. Indicated for patients 5 years of age and older, Dr. Osunkwo says many patients were thrilled to have a nonchemotherapeutic option available. However, the medical community received the drug with some skepticism. “The data show Endari is moderately effective at best,” said Dr. Strouse. “Also, the mechanism of action is unclear.”

Additionally, the drug’s powder form and twice-daily dosing regimen make adherence more challenging than swallowing a few hydroxyurea tablets or capsules once a day. In Dr. Osunkwo’s experience, patients who respond best to Endari tend to be those who are naturally motivated individuals who are intentional in their efforts at optimizing their nutrition and self-care.

“It takes a lot to be adherent to Endari,” she said. “You have to work at it.”

On Nov. 15, 2019, the FDA approved crizanlizumab-tmca (Adakveo) for patients 16 years of age and older to decrease the occurrence of vasoocclusive crises.

The drug works by blocking selectin – a protein involved in the painful vascular pathophysiology. Patients receive a loading dose of 5 mg/kg administered via intravenous infusion over 30 minutes at the initiation of therapy, as well as weeks 2 and 4. After that, patients undergo treatment once a month. Nausea, back pain, pyrexia, and arthralgia are the most frequently reported adverse reactions. Clinicians must monitor patients for signs and symptoms of infusion-related reactions.

Ten days later, the FDA approved voxelotor (Oxbryta) for patients ages 12 years and up. The drug inhibits hemoglobin S polymerization and increases hemoglobin levels. Like hydroxyurea, the drug offers the convenience of once-daily dosing, and the tablet can be taken without regard to food. The drug dose requires adjustment for patients with severe hepatic impairment. Headache, fatigue, rash, and gastrointestinal disturbances such as diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain fall among the most commonly reported side effects.

Endari, Adakveo, and Oxbryta can all be used as monotherapy. They also provide additional benefits in reducing pain and hospitalizations and improving anemia when used concomitantly with hydroxyurea.

Like so many drugs, these novel therapies are expensive. The cost of these novel treatments has raised some eyebrows.

Annual costs of generic hydroxyurea range in the neighborhood of $1,200. In a 2017 CNBC interview, Endari manufacturer Emmaus stated that it aimed to keep drug costs under $20,000 a year. Annual costs for Adakveo and Oxbryta costs are in the neighborhood of $100,000. Adakveo manufacturer Novartis reportedly priced vials at $2,347. Most patients will require at least three of the maximum four vials per treatment. In a press release, Global Therapeutics stated that Oxbyta would cost $10,417 a month.

However, Dr. Osunkwo says the benefits of these new drugs far exceed the costs from both monetary and quality of life standpoints.

“Sickle cell disease is costly to manage,” she said in an interview. “One hospitalization can cost $10,000.”

Additionally, many SCD patients are publicly insured because of the profound disability and loss of productive work they encounter as a direct consequence of their disease and its complications. Those too sick to complete their high school and postsecondary education find limited employment opportunities.

Those fortunate enough to secure employment face significantly fewer years they can work because their pain, fatigue, frequent hospitalizations, and cumulative organ damage result in permanent disability. Only a smaller number of patients with less severe disease manifestations can secure steady employment and pursue careers that allow them to obtain private insurance.

Even if the newer therapies can help cut some costs, clinicians should be aware that prior authorizations can delay patient access to Adakveo and Oxbyta.

“We wrote the first prescription for Oxbryta in November of 2019, but the prior authorization wasn’t approved until February of 2020,” she said. Adding Adakveo to her institution’s formulary required several months of navigation. Given the arduous process, Dr. Osunkwo anticipates it will take at least year after approval before Adakveo is available for all eligible patients.

The long-term impact of these drugs also remains to be seen, so hydroxyurea will likely remain the drug of choice for many patients, according to Dr. Strouse.

Dr. Osunkwo believes SCD needs more drugs in order to truly optimize outcomes, contain costs, and enhance the patient experience.

Dr. Osunkwo reports consultancy and being on the speaker’s bureau and participating in the advisory board for Novartis, which markets Adakveo, and relationships with a variety of other pharmaceutical companies. She is the editor in chief for Hematology News. Dr. Strouse reports consultancy for Global Therapeutics, which markets Oxbryta.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an incurable genetic blood disorder that reduces patients’ lifespan and quality of life. Many patients live into their 40s or 50s. Yet, throughout their lives, patients are plagued by lethargy, unpredictable painful crises, and frequent hospitalizations. For nearly 20 years, clinicians only had one drug to treat SCD. Since 2017, three new drugs have been approved, but their costs and lack of long-term data have spawned questions regarding access and benefit.

“SCD reduces lifespan by 30 years, and that’s very hard to quantify,” says Ifeyinwa Osunkwo, MD, professor of medicine and pediatrics and director of Sickle Cell Disease Enterprise at the Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C. “If you put a dollar amount on what someone would make working for 30 adult years, that would be more reflective of the true cost of treating the disease.”

In 1984, hydroxyurea (Hydrea, Droxia) became the first drug to treat SCD in adults.

Originally developed as a myelosuppressive antineoplastic, hydroxyurea is used to treat resistant chronic myeloid leukemia and certain head and neck cancers. In SCD, it increases levels of hemoglobin and fetal hemoglobin.

Despite its benefit, hydroxyurea has two major drawbacks: It is only effective in two genotypes – HbSS or HbS/Beta⁰thal.

HbSS or HbS/Beta⁰thal genotypes account for 60% of the SCD population, but further studies are required to elucidate hydroxyurea’s effect in other forms of SCD, according to Dr. Osunkwo.

Secondly, hydroxyurea only reduces the frequency of painful episodes by 50% – not enough to ameliorate the pain, said John J. Strouse, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine.

Newer therapies offer the potential to enhance the effects of hydroxyurea when used concomitantly. They also give clinicians additional options for patients who either fail hydroxyurea therapy or for whom it is inappropriate.

The amino acid L-glutamine (Endari) became the second drug approved for sickle cell in 2017. Indicated for patients 5 years of age and older, Dr. Osunkwo says many patients were thrilled to have a nonchemotherapeutic option available. However, the medical community received the drug with some skepticism. “The data show Endari is moderately effective at best,” said Dr. Strouse. “Also, the mechanism of action is unclear.”

Additionally, the drug’s powder form and twice-daily dosing regimen make adherence more challenging than swallowing a few hydroxyurea tablets or capsules once a day. In Dr. Osunkwo’s experience, patients who respond best to Endari tend to be those who are naturally motivated individuals who are intentional in their efforts at optimizing their nutrition and self-care.

“It takes a lot to be adherent to Endari,” she said. “You have to work at it.”

On Nov. 15, 2019, the FDA approved crizanlizumab-tmca (Adakveo) for patients 16 years of age and older to decrease the occurrence of vasoocclusive crises.

The drug works by blocking selectin – a protein involved in the painful vascular pathophysiology. Patients receive a loading dose of 5 mg/kg administered via intravenous infusion over 30 minutes at the initiation of therapy, as well as weeks 2 and 4. After that, patients undergo treatment once a month. Nausea, back pain, pyrexia, and arthralgia are the most frequently reported adverse reactions. Clinicians must monitor patients for signs and symptoms of infusion-related reactions.

Ten days later, the FDA approved voxelotor (Oxbryta) for patients ages 12 years and up. The drug inhibits hemoglobin S polymerization and increases hemoglobin levels. Like hydroxyurea, the drug offers the convenience of once-daily dosing, and the tablet can be taken without regard to food. The drug dose requires adjustment for patients with severe hepatic impairment. Headache, fatigue, rash, and gastrointestinal disturbances such as diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain fall among the most commonly reported side effects.

Endari, Adakveo, and Oxbryta can all be used as monotherapy. They also provide additional benefits in reducing pain and hospitalizations and improving anemia when used concomitantly with hydroxyurea.

Like so many drugs, these novel therapies are expensive. The cost of these novel treatments has raised some eyebrows.

Annual costs of generic hydroxyurea range in the neighborhood of $1,200. In a 2017 CNBC interview, Endari manufacturer Emmaus stated that it aimed to keep drug costs under $20,000 a year. Annual costs for Adakveo and Oxbryta costs are in the neighborhood of $100,000. Adakveo manufacturer Novartis reportedly priced vials at $2,347. Most patients will require at least three of the maximum four vials per treatment. In a press release, Global Therapeutics stated that Oxbyta would cost $10,417 a month.

However, Dr. Osunkwo says the benefits of these new drugs far exceed the costs from both monetary and quality of life standpoints.

“Sickle cell disease is costly to manage,” she said in an interview. “One hospitalization can cost $10,000.”

Additionally, many SCD patients are publicly insured because of the profound disability and loss of productive work they encounter as a direct consequence of their disease and its complications. Those too sick to complete their high school and postsecondary education find limited employment opportunities.

Those fortunate enough to secure employment face significantly fewer years they can work because their pain, fatigue, frequent hospitalizations, and cumulative organ damage result in permanent disability. Only a smaller number of patients with less severe disease manifestations can secure steady employment and pursue careers that allow them to obtain private insurance.

Even if the newer therapies can help cut some costs, clinicians should be aware that prior authorizations can delay patient access to Adakveo and Oxbyta.

“We wrote the first prescription for Oxbryta in November of 2019, but the prior authorization wasn’t approved until February of 2020,” she said. Adding Adakveo to her institution’s formulary required several months of navigation. Given the arduous process, Dr. Osunkwo anticipates it will take at least year after approval before Adakveo is available for all eligible patients.

The long-term impact of these drugs also remains to be seen, so hydroxyurea will likely remain the drug of choice for many patients, according to Dr. Strouse.

Dr. Osunkwo believes SCD needs more drugs in order to truly optimize outcomes, contain costs, and enhance the patient experience.

Dr. Osunkwo reports consultancy and being on the speaker’s bureau and participating in the advisory board for Novartis, which markets Adakveo, and relationships with a variety of other pharmaceutical companies. She is the editor in chief for Hematology News. Dr. Strouse reports consultancy for Global Therapeutics, which markets Oxbryta.

Recent advances in treatment appear to have reversed the course of melanoma mortality since 2013, according to data published in the American Journal of Public Health.

The U.S. death rate for melanoma, which had been rising at a rate of 0.22% a year for more than 2 decades, dropped by 17.9%, or 6.24% per year, during 2013-2016. That decline “coincides with the introduction of multiple new and efficacious treatments for metastatic melanoma,” such as BRAF inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, study author Juliana Berk-Krauss, MD, of the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn and colleagues wrote.

The other possible explanation for the decline in deaths, “education and early detection resulting in migration toward earlier stage melanomas with a greater chance of surgical cure,” is unlikely, according to the investigators. That’s because the small decrease in median tumor thickness that occurred during 1989-2009 “is not associated with changes in prognosis.”

The investigators’ analysis encompassed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry recorded during 1986-2016. Nine registry areas were included (Atlanta, Connecticut, Detroit, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, San Francisco-Oakland, Seattle-Puget Sound, and Utah), which covered about 9.4% of the U.S. population. The analysis was limited to the white population, which accounts for more than 90% of melanoma cases in the United States.

The data showed a slight decline in annual percent change in melanoma incidence, from 3.24% for 1986-2005 to 1.72% for 2006-2016. However, over the whole period studied (1986-2016), melanoma incidence increased by 108%, or about 2.7% per year.

“Given the increased incidence of melanoma throughout this period and the lack of stage migration, these data strongly suggest that the mortality decline is due to the extended survival associated with these [newer] treatments,” the investigators wrote.

This study was funded by NYU Langone. Two investigators disclosed potential conflicts of interest, including relationships with Bio-Rad Laboratories, Novartis, Merck, and several other companies.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Berk-Krauss J et al. Am J Public Health. 2020 Mar 19. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305567.

Recent advances in treatment appear to have reversed the course of melanoma mortality since 2013, according to data published in the American Journal of Public Health.

The U.S. death rate for melanoma, which had been rising at a rate of 0.22% a year for more than 2 decades, dropped by 17.9%, or 6.24% per year, during 2013-2016. That decline “coincides with the introduction of multiple new and efficacious treatments for metastatic melanoma,” such as BRAF inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, study author Juliana Berk-Krauss, MD, of the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn and colleagues wrote.

The other possible explanation for the decline in deaths, “education and early detection resulting in migration toward earlier stage melanomas with a greater chance of surgical cure,” is unlikely, according to the investigators. That’s because the small decrease in median tumor thickness that occurred during 1989-2009 “is not associated with changes in prognosis.”

The investigators’ analysis encompassed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry recorded during 1986-2016. Nine registry areas were included (Atlanta, Connecticut, Detroit, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, San Francisco-Oakland, Seattle-Puget Sound, and Utah), which covered about 9.4% of the U.S. population. The analysis was limited to the white population, which accounts for more than 90% of melanoma cases in the United States.

The data showed a slight decline in annual percent change in melanoma incidence, from 3.24% for 1986-2005 to 1.72% for 2006-2016. However, over the whole period studied (1986-2016), melanoma incidence increased by 108%, or about 2.7% per year.

“Given the increased incidence of melanoma throughout this period and the lack of stage migration, these data strongly suggest that the mortality decline is due to the extended survival associated with these [newer] treatments,” the investigators wrote.

This study was funded by NYU Langone. Two investigators disclosed potential conflicts of interest, including relationships with Bio-Rad Laboratories, Novartis, Merck, and several other companies.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Berk-Krauss J et al. Am J Public Health. 2020 Mar 19. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305567.

Recent advances in treatment appear to have reversed the course of melanoma mortality since 2013, according to data published in the American Journal of Public Health.

The U.S. death rate for melanoma, which had been rising at a rate of 0.22% a year for more than 2 decades, dropped by 17.9%, or 6.24% per year, during 2013-2016. That decline “coincides with the introduction of multiple new and efficacious treatments for metastatic melanoma,” such as BRAF inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, study author Juliana Berk-Krauss, MD, of the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn and colleagues wrote.

The other possible explanation for the decline in deaths, “education and early detection resulting in migration toward earlier stage melanomas with a greater chance of surgical cure,” is unlikely, according to the investigators. That’s because the small decrease in median tumor thickness that occurred during 1989-2009 “is not associated with changes in prognosis.”

The investigators’ analysis encompassed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry recorded during 1986-2016. Nine registry areas were included (Atlanta, Connecticut, Detroit, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, San Francisco-Oakland, Seattle-Puget Sound, and Utah), which covered about 9.4% of the U.S. population. The analysis was limited to the white population, which accounts for more than 90% of melanoma cases in the United States.

The data showed a slight decline in annual percent change in melanoma incidence, from 3.24% for 1986-2005 to 1.72% for 2006-2016. However, over the whole period studied (1986-2016), melanoma incidence increased by 108%, or about 2.7% per year.

“Given the increased incidence of melanoma throughout this period and the lack of stage migration, these data strongly suggest that the mortality decline is due to the extended survival associated with these [newer] treatments,” the investigators wrote.

This study was funded by NYU Langone. Two investigators disclosed potential conflicts of interest, including relationships with Bio-Rad Laboratories, Novartis, Merck, and several other companies.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Berk-Krauss J et al. Am J Public Health. 2020 Mar 19. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305567.