User login
MDedge conference coverage features onsite reporting of the latest study results and expert perspectives from leading researchers.
Tenecteplase for stroke thrombolysis up to 24 hours?
, a new trial from China suggests.
The phase 2a CHABLIS trial was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Xin Cheng, MD, associate professor of neurology at the Huashan Hospital of Fudan University and the National Center for Neurological Disorders in Shanghai, China.
“These results are the first to be reported with tenecteplase in the extended time window and suggest that it may be feasible to extend the time window of intravenous thrombolysis to 24 hours after last known well through perfusion imaging selection,” she concluded at the conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Dr. Cheng noted that alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator) is the standard of care for thrombolysis in stroke, with a time window of up to 4.5 hours after stroke onset. However, the recent EXTEND trial suggested benefit of alteplase in patients who were between 4.5 and 9 hours of stroke onset and who had hypoperfused but salvageable regions of brain detected on automated perfusion imaging.
Tenecteplase is a genetically modified variant of alteplase. It has received regulatory approval for treatment of myocardial infarction. Dr. Cheng said there is increasing interest in tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase, mainly because of its practical advantages (single bolus, rather than 1-hour infusion) and its having a number of hypothetical advantages over alteplase, including greater fibrin specificity and lesser likelihood of fibrinogen depletion.
Until now, studies of tenecteplase in stroke have included patients in the traditional time window, which has been no longer than 6 hours from stroke onset, she added.
For the current CHABLIS trial, the Chinese researchers investigated the use of tenecteplase administered to ischemic stroke patients at 4.5-24 hours from time of their being last seen well who were selected by significant penumbral mismatch on perfusion imaging. The trial included 86 patients who had an anterior large-vessel occlusion or severe stenosis identified on head and neck CT angiography and penumbral mismatch on CT perfusion imaging. They were randomized to one of two doses of tenecteplase, 0.25 mg/kg or 0.32 mg/kg.
The primary outcome was the achievement of reperfusion without symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24-48 hours after thrombolysis. This occurred in 32% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 23.3% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.
Recanalization at 4-6 hours occurred in 44% of both groups.
In terms of neurologic outcomes, an excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, was achieved in 28% of the 0.25-mg/kg group and 49% of the 0.32-mg/kg group. A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) occurred in 46% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 60% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.
Limitations of the study included a small sample size and the lack of a control group. In addition, the study included only Chinese patients, who are known to have different stroke etiologies in comparison with White patients, Dr. Cheng noted.
In the subset of patients who received tenecteplase and who underwent endovascular therapy, fewer patients (8.8%) reached the primary outcome measure of reperfusion without symptomatic ICH, compared with those who received only tenecteplase (40.4%).
“In our study, tenecteplase seems to be quite effective and safe in patients who do not need endovascular therapy,” Dr. Cheng said. “More research is needed to understand why tenecteplase was less effective in restoring blood flow and more likely to result in symptomatic brain bleeding among those who had endovascular therapy.”
The researchers have now started a phase 2b trial, CHABLIS-2. This is a randomized, multicenter, controlled, open-label study of the 0.25-mg/kg dose of tenecteplase.
Commenting on the current study at an ISC press conference, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said: “This is very important study looking at the question of using thrombolysis out to 24 hours, and it does suggest a benefit, but we don’t know the best dose yet.”
He noted that his hospital system has already switched from alteplase to tenecteplase in the treatment of stroke, and several other centers are also making this switch. “In our center, we use the 0.25-mg/kg dose, but we don’t routinely treat patients beyond the 4.5-hour time window,” Dr. Jovin reported.
“The signals are there for a longer treatment window,” he said. “But this study was not aiming to directly answer whether tenecteplase is better than no treatment or alteplase, or its use with endovascular therapy.”
Noting that there are similar randomized trials ongoing in the United States and other countries exploring the same doses of tenecteplase, he said he thought the “dose and approach is applicable to U.S. practice.”
The CHABLIS study was funded by national key research and development program of China from the Science and Technology Ministry. Tenecteplase was provided by Guangzhou Recomgen Biotech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new trial from China suggests.
The phase 2a CHABLIS trial was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Xin Cheng, MD, associate professor of neurology at the Huashan Hospital of Fudan University and the National Center for Neurological Disorders in Shanghai, China.
“These results are the first to be reported with tenecteplase in the extended time window and suggest that it may be feasible to extend the time window of intravenous thrombolysis to 24 hours after last known well through perfusion imaging selection,” she concluded at the conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Dr. Cheng noted that alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator) is the standard of care for thrombolysis in stroke, with a time window of up to 4.5 hours after stroke onset. However, the recent EXTEND trial suggested benefit of alteplase in patients who were between 4.5 and 9 hours of stroke onset and who had hypoperfused but salvageable regions of brain detected on automated perfusion imaging.
Tenecteplase is a genetically modified variant of alteplase. It has received regulatory approval for treatment of myocardial infarction. Dr. Cheng said there is increasing interest in tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase, mainly because of its practical advantages (single bolus, rather than 1-hour infusion) and its having a number of hypothetical advantages over alteplase, including greater fibrin specificity and lesser likelihood of fibrinogen depletion.
Until now, studies of tenecteplase in stroke have included patients in the traditional time window, which has been no longer than 6 hours from stroke onset, she added.
For the current CHABLIS trial, the Chinese researchers investigated the use of tenecteplase administered to ischemic stroke patients at 4.5-24 hours from time of their being last seen well who were selected by significant penumbral mismatch on perfusion imaging. The trial included 86 patients who had an anterior large-vessel occlusion or severe stenosis identified on head and neck CT angiography and penumbral mismatch on CT perfusion imaging. They were randomized to one of two doses of tenecteplase, 0.25 mg/kg or 0.32 mg/kg.
The primary outcome was the achievement of reperfusion without symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24-48 hours after thrombolysis. This occurred in 32% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 23.3% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.
Recanalization at 4-6 hours occurred in 44% of both groups.
In terms of neurologic outcomes, an excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, was achieved in 28% of the 0.25-mg/kg group and 49% of the 0.32-mg/kg group. A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) occurred in 46% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 60% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.
Limitations of the study included a small sample size and the lack of a control group. In addition, the study included only Chinese patients, who are known to have different stroke etiologies in comparison with White patients, Dr. Cheng noted.
In the subset of patients who received tenecteplase and who underwent endovascular therapy, fewer patients (8.8%) reached the primary outcome measure of reperfusion without symptomatic ICH, compared with those who received only tenecteplase (40.4%).
“In our study, tenecteplase seems to be quite effective and safe in patients who do not need endovascular therapy,” Dr. Cheng said. “More research is needed to understand why tenecteplase was less effective in restoring blood flow and more likely to result in symptomatic brain bleeding among those who had endovascular therapy.”
The researchers have now started a phase 2b trial, CHABLIS-2. This is a randomized, multicenter, controlled, open-label study of the 0.25-mg/kg dose of tenecteplase.
Commenting on the current study at an ISC press conference, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said: “This is very important study looking at the question of using thrombolysis out to 24 hours, and it does suggest a benefit, but we don’t know the best dose yet.”
He noted that his hospital system has already switched from alteplase to tenecteplase in the treatment of stroke, and several other centers are also making this switch. “In our center, we use the 0.25-mg/kg dose, but we don’t routinely treat patients beyond the 4.5-hour time window,” Dr. Jovin reported.
“The signals are there for a longer treatment window,” he said. “But this study was not aiming to directly answer whether tenecteplase is better than no treatment or alteplase, or its use with endovascular therapy.”
Noting that there are similar randomized trials ongoing in the United States and other countries exploring the same doses of tenecteplase, he said he thought the “dose and approach is applicable to U.S. practice.”
The CHABLIS study was funded by national key research and development program of China from the Science and Technology Ministry. Tenecteplase was provided by Guangzhou Recomgen Biotech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new trial from China suggests.
The phase 2a CHABLIS trial was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Xin Cheng, MD, associate professor of neurology at the Huashan Hospital of Fudan University and the National Center for Neurological Disorders in Shanghai, China.
“These results are the first to be reported with tenecteplase in the extended time window and suggest that it may be feasible to extend the time window of intravenous thrombolysis to 24 hours after last known well through perfusion imaging selection,” she concluded at the conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Dr. Cheng noted that alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator) is the standard of care for thrombolysis in stroke, with a time window of up to 4.5 hours after stroke onset. However, the recent EXTEND trial suggested benefit of alteplase in patients who were between 4.5 and 9 hours of stroke onset and who had hypoperfused but salvageable regions of brain detected on automated perfusion imaging.
Tenecteplase is a genetically modified variant of alteplase. It has received regulatory approval for treatment of myocardial infarction. Dr. Cheng said there is increasing interest in tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase, mainly because of its practical advantages (single bolus, rather than 1-hour infusion) and its having a number of hypothetical advantages over alteplase, including greater fibrin specificity and lesser likelihood of fibrinogen depletion.
Until now, studies of tenecteplase in stroke have included patients in the traditional time window, which has been no longer than 6 hours from stroke onset, she added.
For the current CHABLIS trial, the Chinese researchers investigated the use of tenecteplase administered to ischemic stroke patients at 4.5-24 hours from time of their being last seen well who were selected by significant penumbral mismatch on perfusion imaging. The trial included 86 patients who had an anterior large-vessel occlusion or severe stenosis identified on head and neck CT angiography and penumbral mismatch on CT perfusion imaging. They were randomized to one of two doses of tenecteplase, 0.25 mg/kg or 0.32 mg/kg.
The primary outcome was the achievement of reperfusion without symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24-48 hours after thrombolysis. This occurred in 32% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 23.3% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.
Recanalization at 4-6 hours occurred in 44% of both groups.
In terms of neurologic outcomes, an excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, was achieved in 28% of the 0.25-mg/kg group and 49% of the 0.32-mg/kg group. A good functional outcome (mRS, 0-2) occurred in 46% of the 0.25-mg/kg group versus 60% of the 0.32-mg/kg group.
Limitations of the study included a small sample size and the lack of a control group. In addition, the study included only Chinese patients, who are known to have different stroke etiologies in comparison with White patients, Dr. Cheng noted.
In the subset of patients who received tenecteplase and who underwent endovascular therapy, fewer patients (8.8%) reached the primary outcome measure of reperfusion without symptomatic ICH, compared with those who received only tenecteplase (40.4%).
“In our study, tenecteplase seems to be quite effective and safe in patients who do not need endovascular therapy,” Dr. Cheng said. “More research is needed to understand why tenecteplase was less effective in restoring blood flow and more likely to result in symptomatic brain bleeding among those who had endovascular therapy.”
The researchers have now started a phase 2b trial, CHABLIS-2. This is a randomized, multicenter, controlled, open-label study of the 0.25-mg/kg dose of tenecteplase.
Commenting on the current study at an ISC press conference, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, said: “This is very important study looking at the question of using thrombolysis out to 24 hours, and it does suggest a benefit, but we don’t know the best dose yet.”
He noted that his hospital system has already switched from alteplase to tenecteplase in the treatment of stroke, and several other centers are also making this switch. “In our center, we use the 0.25-mg/kg dose, but we don’t routinely treat patients beyond the 4.5-hour time window,” Dr. Jovin reported.
“The signals are there for a longer treatment window,” he said. “But this study was not aiming to directly answer whether tenecteplase is better than no treatment or alteplase, or its use with endovascular therapy.”
Noting that there are similar randomized trials ongoing in the United States and other countries exploring the same doses of tenecteplase, he said he thought the “dose and approach is applicable to U.S. practice.”
The CHABLIS study was funded by national key research and development program of China from the Science and Technology Ministry. Tenecteplase was provided by Guangzhou Recomgen Biotech.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2022
Tirofiban does not improve outcomes of endovascular treatment in stroke
, new data suggest.
In a randomized, phase 3 trial of more than 900 patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular treatment, the median Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days was 3 both in patients who received tirofiban and those who received placebo.
“There was treatment-effect modification by stroke etiology, where patients with large-artery atherosclerosis [LAA] seemed to benefit from the treatment,” said investigator Raul Nogueira, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Stroke Institute, during his presentation. “Tirofiban may improve endovascular treatment outcomes in LAA strokes. This obviously requires further investigation in future trials to confirm these findings.”
Results of the RESCUE BT trial were presented at the hybrid International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022, which was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, and online.
Multicenter trial
Endovascular treatment greatly increases the rate of reperfusion and improves functional outcomes in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke, the researchers note. But mechanical thrombectomy devices may injure the vessel wall, which can lead to clot formation and vessel reocclusion.
Platelet inhibition is a potential tactic for improving outcomes in this setting. Tirofiban, a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor, is a reversible antiplatelet drug with a rapid onset of action and a short half-life. The drug’s safety and efficacy in acute coronary syndrome are well established. There has been little evidence to date, however, on whether tirofiban improves outcomes among patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke.
The investigators conducted the Endovascular Treatment With Versus Without Tirofiban for Stroke Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion (RESCUE BT) trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IV tirofiban therapy before endovascular treatment in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke. They recruited consecutive patients at 55 thrombectomy-capable hospitals in China.
Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and presented within 24 hours of the time they were last seen when well. Baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was required to be 30 or lower, and all patients were required to have plans to undergo endovascular treatment. Eligible patients also had a baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score of 6 or greater.
Patients were randomized in groups of equal size to placebo or tirofiban and stratified by NIHSS score and occlusion site. Tirofiban was administered in a 10-mcg/kg bolus followed by continuous infusion (0.15 mcg/kg per min) for 24 hours. All patients underwent rapid endovascular treatment.
At the 20th hour after treatment initiation, antiplatelets were administered orally. IV study drug was stopped at the 24th hour.
The study’s primary endpoint was disability level, as measured by overall distribution of the 90-day mRS score. The primary safety endpoints were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) at 48 hours and mortality at 90 days.
Increased ICH risk
The investigators screened 1,970 patients and enrolled 950 into their study. The population’s median age was 67 years, and 58.8% of participants were men. In all, 463 participants were randomly assigned to tirofiban, and 485 to placebo. Two patients withdrew consent, and none were lost to follow-up.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced in both groups. One difference, however, was that large-vessel occlusion was less prevalent in the tirofiban group (42.6%) than in the control group (49.1%).
The primary endpoint did not differ between treatment groups. The adjusted common odds ratio was 1.09 (P = .46). “There is perhaps a sign that there is maybe a favorable effect of tirofiban,” said Dr. Nogueira. “However, this did not reach statistical significance.”
The rates of symptomatic ICH and mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between groups. There was a trend toward a higher rate of symptomatic ICH in the tirofiban group, however. Moreover, the rate of any ICH was 34.9% in the tirofiban group and 28.0% in the control group (P = .02).
In prespecified subgroup analysis, the researchers found that, among patients with large-vessel occlusion, the adjusted common odds ratio was 1.43 favoring tirofiban treatment. No other subgroups showed significant differences.
“In the intention-to-treat analysis, tirofiban did not improve clinical outcomes in the overall study population,” said Dr. Nogueira. “It did increase the rate of any ICH and potentially increased the rate of symptomatic ICH as well.”
The ongoing RESCUE BT2 trial is examining the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in patients with acute ischemic stroke with non–large-vessel occlusion. As of Jan. 20, 781 patients had been assigned randomly to treatment, said Dr. Nogueira.
Patient selection crucial
Louise McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said that the study was well designed.
“The concern with any kind of platelet therapy or adjunctive therapy is hemorrhage,” said Dr. McCullough, who was not involved in the research. The results in the overall population support this concern.
The location of the trial sites may have influenced the results. “It was a multicenter trial, but it was predominantly done in Asia, and we know that there are higher levels of intracranial atherosclerosis in that population,” said Dr. McCullough.
The results indicate a potential benefit of tirofiban in patients with large-vessel occlusion, yet this finding raises practical questions. “It’s often difficult to know if these patients have atherosclerosis until you’re actually in the vessel,” said Dr. McCullough.
The findings may not have immediate practical implications. “I don’t think that in routine clinical practice it’s something that we would offer until we can decide how safe it is,” said Dr. McCullough. The question will be how to select the populations in whom the drug will have the most efficacy.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Army Medical University, and Lunan Pharmaceutical Group, the manufacturer of tirofiban. Dr. Nogueira reported holding stock in Brainomix, Viz-AI, Corindus Vascular Robotics, Vesalio, Viz-AI, and Ceretrieve. He has received research support from Corindus Vascular Robotics. Dr. Nogueira reported other financial relationships related to Stryker Neurovascular, Medtronic, Cerenovus, and Phenox. Dr. McCullough has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new data suggest.
In a randomized, phase 3 trial of more than 900 patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular treatment, the median Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days was 3 both in patients who received tirofiban and those who received placebo.
“There was treatment-effect modification by stroke etiology, where patients with large-artery atherosclerosis [LAA] seemed to benefit from the treatment,” said investigator Raul Nogueira, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Stroke Institute, during his presentation. “Tirofiban may improve endovascular treatment outcomes in LAA strokes. This obviously requires further investigation in future trials to confirm these findings.”
Results of the RESCUE BT trial were presented at the hybrid International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022, which was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, and online.
Multicenter trial
Endovascular treatment greatly increases the rate of reperfusion and improves functional outcomes in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke, the researchers note. But mechanical thrombectomy devices may injure the vessel wall, which can lead to clot formation and vessel reocclusion.
Platelet inhibition is a potential tactic for improving outcomes in this setting. Tirofiban, a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor, is a reversible antiplatelet drug with a rapid onset of action and a short half-life. The drug’s safety and efficacy in acute coronary syndrome are well established. There has been little evidence to date, however, on whether tirofiban improves outcomes among patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke.
The investigators conducted the Endovascular Treatment With Versus Without Tirofiban for Stroke Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion (RESCUE BT) trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IV tirofiban therapy before endovascular treatment in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke. They recruited consecutive patients at 55 thrombectomy-capable hospitals in China.
Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and presented within 24 hours of the time they were last seen when well. Baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was required to be 30 or lower, and all patients were required to have plans to undergo endovascular treatment. Eligible patients also had a baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score of 6 or greater.
Patients were randomized in groups of equal size to placebo or tirofiban and stratified by NIHSS score and occlusion site. Tirofiban was administered in a 10-mcg/kg bolus followed by continuous infusion (0.15 mcg/kg per min) for 24 hours. All patients underwent rapid endovascular treatment.
At the 20th hour after treatment initiation, antiplatelets were administered orally. IV study drug was stopped at the 24th hour.
The study’s primary endpoint was disability level, as measured by overall distribution of the 90-day mRS score. The primary safety endpoints were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) at 48 hours and mortality at 90 days.
Increased ICH risk
The investigators screened 1,970 patients and enrolled 950 into their study. The population’s median age was 67 years, and 58.8% of participants were men. In all, 463 participants were randomly assigned to tirofiban, and 485 to placebo. Two patients withdrew consent, and none were lost to follow-up.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced in both groups. One difference, however, was that large-vessel occlusion was less prevalent in the tirofiban group (42.6%) than in the control group (49.1%).
The primary endpoint did not differ between treatment groups. The adjusted common odds ratio was 1.09 (P = .46). “There is perhaps a sign that there is maybe a favorable effect of tirofiban,” said Dr. Nogueira. “However, this did not reach statistical significance.”
The rates of symptomatic ICH and mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between groups. There was a trend toward a higher rate of symptomatic ICH in the tirofiban group, however. Moreover, the rate of any ICH was 34.9% in the tirofiban group and 28.0% in the control group (P = .02).
In prespecified subgroup analysis, the researchers found that, among patients with large-vessel occlusion, the adjusted common odds ratio was 1.43 favoring tirofiban treatment. No other subgroups showed significant differences.
“In the intention-to-treat analysis, tirofiban did not improve clinical outcomes in the overall study population,” said Dr. Nogueira. “It did increase the rate of any ICH and potentially increased the rate of symptomatic ICH as well.”
The ongoing RESCUE BT2 trial is examining the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in patients with acute ischemic stroke with non–large-vessel occlusion. As of Jan. 20, 781 patients had been assigned randomly to treatment, said Dr. Nogueira.
Patient selection crucial
Louise McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said that the study was well designed.
“The concern with any kind of platelet therapy or adjunctive therapy is hemorrhage,” said Dr. McCullough, who was not involved in the research. The results in the overall population support this concern.
The location of the trial sites may have influenced the results. “It was a multicenter trial, but it was predominantly done in Asia, and we know that there are higher levels of intracranial atherosclerosis in that population,” said Dr. McCullough.
The results indicate a potential benefit of tirofiban in patients with large-vessel occlusion, yet this finding raises practical questions. “It’s often difficult to know if these patients have atherosclerosis until you’re actually in the vessel,” said Dr. McCullough.
The findings may not have immediate practical implications. “I don’t think that in routine clinical practice it’s something that we would offer until we can decide how safe it is,” said Dr. McCullough. The question will be how to select the populations in whom the drug will have the most efficacy.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Army Medical University, and Lunan Pharmaceutical Group, the manufacturer of tirofiban. Dr. Nogueira reported holding stock in Brainomix, Viz-AI, Corindus Vascular Robotics, Vesalio, Viz-AI, and Ceretrieve. He has received research support from Corindus Vascular Robotics. Dr. Nogueira reported other financial relationships related to Stryker Neurovascular, Medtronic, Cerenovus, and Phenox. Dr. McCullough has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new data suggest.
In a randomized, phase 3 trial of more than 900 patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular treatment, the median Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days was 3 both in patients who received tirofiban and those who received placebo.
“There was treatment-effect modification by stroke etiology, where patients with large-artery atherosclerosis [LAA] seemed to benefit from the treatment,” said investigator Raul Nogueira, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Stroke Institute, during his presentation. “Tirofiban may improve endovascular treatment outcomes in LAA strokes. This obviously requires further investigation in future trials to confirm these findings.”
Results of the RESCUE BT trial were presented at the hybrid International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022, which was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, and online.
Multicenter trial
Endovascular treatment greatly increases the rate of reperfusion and improves functional outcomes in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke, the researchers note. But mechanical thrombectomy devices may injure the vessel wall, which can lead to clot formation and vessel reocclusion.
Platelet inhibition is a potential tactic for improving outcomes in this setting. Tirofiban, a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor, is a reversible antiplatelet drug with a rapid onset of action and a short half-life. The drug’s safety and efficacy in acute coronary syndrome are well established. There has been little evidence to date, however, on whether tirofiban improves outcomes among patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke.
The investigators conducted the Endovascular Treatment With Versus Without Tirofiban for Stroke Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion (RESCUE BT) trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IV tirofiban therapy before endovascular treatment in patients with large-vessel occlusion stroke. They recruited consecutive patients at 55 thrombectomy-capable hospitals in China.
Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and presented within 24 hours of the time they were last seen when well. Baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was required to be 30 or lower, and all patients were required to have plans to undergo endovascular treatment. Eligible patients also had a baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score of 6 or greater.
Patients were randomized in groups of equal size to placebo or tirofiban and stratified by NIHSS score and occlusion site. Tirofiban was administered in a 10-mcg/kg bolus followed by continuous infusion (0.15 mcg/kg per min) for 24 hours. All patients underwent rapid endovascular treatment.
At the 20th hour after treatment initiation, antiplatelets were administered orally. IV study drug was stopped at the 24th hour.
The study’s primary endpoint was disability level, as measured by overall distribution of the 90-day mRS score. The primary safety endpoints were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) at 48 hours and mortality at 90 days.
Increased ICH risk
The investigators screened 1,970 patients and enrolled 950 into their study. The population’s median age was 67 years, and 58.8% of participants were men. In all, 463 participants were randomly assigned to tirofiban, and 485 to placebo. Two patients withdrew consent, and none were lost to follow-up.
Baseline characteristics were well balanced in both groups. One difference, however, was that large-vessel occlusion was less prevalent in the tirofiban group (42.6%) than in the control group (49.1%).
The primary endpoint did not differ between treatment groups. The adjusted common odds ratio was 1.09 (P = .46). “There is perhaps a sign that there is maybe a favorable effect of tirofiban,” said Dr. Nogueira. “However, this did not reach statistical significance.”
The rates of symptomatic ICH and mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between groups. There was a trend toward a higher rate of symptomatic ICH in the tirofiban group, however. Moreover, the rate of any ICH was 34.9% in the tirofiban group and 28.0% in the control group (P = .02).
In prespecified subgroup analysis, the researchers found that, among patients with large-vessel occlusion, the adjusted common odds ratio was 1.43 favoring tirofiban treatment. No other subgroups showed significant differences.
“In the intention-to-treat analysis, tirofiban did not improve clinical outcomes in the overall study population,” said Dr. Nogueira. “It did increase the rate of any ICH and potentially increased the rate of symptomatic ICH as well.”
The ongoing RESCUE BT2 trial is examining the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in patients with acute ischemic stroke with non–large-vessel occlusion. As of Jan. 20, 781 patients had been assigned randomly to treatment, said Dr. Nogueira.
Patient selection crucial
Louise McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said that the study was well designed.
“The concern with any kind of platelet therapy or adjunctive therapy is hemorrhage,” said Dr. McCullough, who was not involved in the research. The results in the overall population support this concern.
The location of the trial sites may have influenced the results. “It was a multicenter trial, but it was predominantly done in Asia, and we know that there are higher levels of intracranial atherosclerosis in that population,” said Dr. McCullough.
The results indicate a potential benefit of tirofiban in patients with large-vessel occlusion, yet this finding raises practical questions. “It’s often difficult to know if these patients have atherosclerosis until you’re actually in the vessel,” said Dr. McCullough.
The findings may not have immediate practical implications. “I don’t think that in routine clinical practice it’s something that we would offer until we can decide how safe it is,” said Dr. McCullough. The question will be how to select the populations in whom the drug will have the most efficacy.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Army Medical University, and Lunan Pharmaceutical Group, the manufacturer of tirofiban. Dr. Nogueira reported holding stock in Brainomix, Viz-AI, Corindus Vascular Robotics, Vesalio, Viz-AI, and Ceretrieve. He has received research support from Corindus Vascular Robotics. Dr. Nogueira reported other financial relationships related to Stryker Neurovascular, Medtronic, Cerenovus, and Phenox. Dr. McCullough has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2022
Top strategies for preventing tardive dyskinesia
LAS VEGAS –
“But this does not seem to always be the case, because there is still a risk of TD, and we need to monitor for it,” Dr. Correll, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at The Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “It is important to minimize the risk of TD by educating patients and caregivers about the risks of and alternatives to antipsychotic medication and early signs of TD.”
First described in 1957, TD is characterized by involuntary repetitive but irregular movements, mostly in the oral, lingual, and buccal regions – such as tongue protruding, puckering, chewing, and grimacing. Less often, there are movements in the hands, legs, feet, and torso. Symptoms can include mannerisms, stereotypies, tics, myoclonus, dystonias, tremor, and akathisia. “TD can be severe, persistent, and have medical and psychosocial consequences,” Dr. Correll said. “It can occur in untreated patients, but treatment with dopamine blocking agents – antipsychotics and metoclopramide – increases risk for TD.”
Differential diagnoses to consider include morbus Huntington, benign familial Chorea, and Sydenham’s Chorea. Less frequent causes of TD include metabolic conditions such as uremia, hyponatremia, hypernatremia, hypoparathyroidism, and hyperparathyroidism. “Those would need to be ruled out during the physical exam,” he said. There can also be inflammatory causes of TD such as herpes simplex virus, varicella, measles, mumps, and rubella.
A standard measure for TD diagnosis is the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), an observer-rated 12-item anchored scale that takes 5-10 minutes to administer. However, the AIMS on its own does not diagnose TD. In 1982, researchers developed three diagnostic criteria for TD: At least 3 months of cumulative antipsychotic drug exposure; presence of at least moderate abnormal involuntary movements in one or more body area(s) or mild movements in two or more body areas, and absence of other conditions that might produce involuntary movements (Arch Gen Psychiatry 1982;39:486-7).
The impact of TD on everyday functioning depends on anatomic location as well as severity, Dr. Correll continued. The condition can cause impairments to speech, verbal communication, dentition, temporomandibular joint pain/myalgia, swallowing difficulties, and fine motor skills including instrumental activities of daily living and written communication. Truncal and lower extremity TD can affect gait, posture and postural stability, strength, power flexibility, physical capacity, and one’s ability to exercise. “There are also psychological impairments,” he said. “Patients can develop different awareness so they become self-conscious; there can be cognitive abnormalities, and they can become more anxious or [have an] increased sense of paranoia, isolation, stigma, social and/or educational/vocational impairment.”
According to research by Dr. Correll and colleagues, unmodifiable patient-related risk factors for TD include older age, female sex, and being of white or African descent (J Neurol Sci 2018 June 15; 389:21-7). Unmodifiable illness-related risk factors include longer duration of illness, intellectual disability and brain damage, negative symptoms in schizophrenia, mood disorders, cognitive symptoms in mood disorders, and gene polymorphisms involving antipsychotic metabolism and dopamine functioning. Modifiable comorbidity-related factors include diabetes, smoking, and alcohol/substance abuse, while modifiable treatment-related factors include dopamine receptor blockers, higher cumulative and current antipsychotic dose or plasma levels, early parkinsonian side effects, treatment-emergent akathisia, and anticholinergic co-treatment. In a meta-analysis of 41 studies that aimed to determine the prevalence of TD, the mean age of the 11,493 patients was 43, 66% were male, and 77% had schizophrenia spectrum disorders (J Clin Psychiatry. 2017 Mar;78[3]:e264-78). The global mean TD prevalence was 25%, but the rates were lower with patients on current treatment with second-generation antipsychotics compared with those on first-generation antipsychotics (21% vs. 30%, respectively).
According to Dr. Correll, strategies for preventing TD include confirming and documenting the indication for dopamine antagonist antipsychotic medications, using conservative maintenance doses, and considering the use of SGAs, especially in those at high risk for EPS (extrapyramidal symptoms). “Don’t go too high [with the dose],” he said. “Stay below the EPS threshold. Inform patients and caregivers of the risk of TD and assess for incipient signs regularly using the AIMS.”
Treatment options include discontinuing antipsychotics, adjusting their dose, or switching patients from a first-generation antipsychotic to a second-generation antipsychotic. Supplementation with antioxidants/radical scavengers such as vitamin E, vitamin B6, ginkgo biloba, and fish oil “can be tried, but have limited evidence, as is the case for melatonin.” Other options include clonazepam, amantadine, donepezil, and tetrabenazine, a reversible and specific inhibitor of vesicular monoamine transporter-2 (VMAT-2), a transporter that packages neurotransmitters (preferentially dopamine) into vesicles for release into the synapse and was approved in 2008 as an orphan drug for the treatment of choreiform movements associated with Huntington’s disease. “Neurologists have using tetrabenazine off-label for TD, but in schizophrenia and other psychiatric care, we rarely use it because it has to be given three times a day and it has a black box warning for depression and suicidality,” he said.
Dr. Correll noted that the Food and Drug Administration approval of two more recent VMAT-2 inhibitors – deutetrabenazine (Austedo) and valbenazine (Ingrezza) – provides an evidence-based care option for the effective management of TD. Deutetrabenazine requires titration over several weeks and twice-daily dosing, while valbenazine can reach the maximum dose by the beginning of week 2 and is dosed once daily. Deutetrabenazine should be taken with food, which is not required valbenazine.
“Both VMAT-2 inhibitors are generally well tolerated and have a positive benefit-risk ratio,” he said. “Both are recommended by the APA guidelines as the preferred and only evidence-based treatment for TD.”
Dr. Correll reported that he has received honoraria from and has been an advisory board member for numerous pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grant support from Janssen, the National Institute of Mental Health, the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Takeda, and the Thrasher Foundation.
LAS VEGAS –
“But this does not seem to always be the case, because there is still a risk of TD, and we need to monitor for it,” Dr. Correll, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at The Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “It is important to minimize the risk of TD by educating patients and caregivers about the risks of and alternatives to antipsychotic medication and early signs of TD.”
First described in 1957, TD is characterized by involuntary repetitive but irregular movements, mostly in the oral, lingual, and buccal regions – such as tongue protruding, puckering, chewing, and grimacing. Less often, there are movements in the hands, legs, feet, and torso. Symptoms can include mannerisms, stereotypies, tics, myoclonus, dystonias, tremor, and akathisia. “TD can be severe, persistent, and have medical and psychosocial consequences,” Dr. Correll said. “It can occur in untreated patients, but treatment with dopamine blocking agents – antipsychotics and metoclopramide – increases risk for TD.”
Differential diagnoses to consider include morbus Huntington, benign familial Chorea, and Sydenham’s Chorea. Less frequent causes of TD include metabolic conditions such as uremia, hyponatremia, hypernatremia, hypoparathyroidism, and hyperparathyroidism. “Those would need to be ruled out during the physical exam,” he said. There can also be inflammatory causes of TD such as herpes simplex virus, varicella, measles, mumps, and rubella.
A standard measure for TD diagnosis is the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), an observer-rated 12-item anchored scale that takes 5-10 minutes to administer. However, the AIMS on its own does not diagnose TD. In 1982, researchers developed three diagnostic criteria for TD: At least 3 months of cumulative antipsychotic drug exposure; presence of at least moderate abnormal involuntary movements in one or more body area(s) or mild movements in two or more body areas, and absence of other conditions that might produce involuntary movements (Arch Gen Psychiatry 1982;39:486-7).
The impact of TD on everyday functioning depends on anatomic location as well as severity, Dr. Correll continued. The condition can cause impairments to speech, verbal communication, dentition, temporomandibular joint pain/myalgia, swallowing difficulties, and fine motor skills including instrumental activities of daily living and written communication. Truncal and lower extremity TD can affect gait, posture and postural stability, strength, power flexibility, physical capacity, and one’s ability to exercise. “There are also psychological impairments,” he said. “Patients can develop different awareness so they become self-conscious; there can be cognitive abnormalities, and they can become more anxious or [have an] increased sense of paranoia, isolation, stigma, social and/or educational/vocational impairment.”
According to research by Dr. Correll and colleagues, unmodifiable patient-related risk factors for TD include older age, female sex, and being of white or African descent (J Neurol Sci 2018 June 15; 389:21-7). Unmodifiable illness-related risk factors include longer duration of illness, intellectual disability and brain damage, negative symptoms in schizophrenia, mood disorders, cognitive symptoms in mood disorders, and gene polymorphisms involving antipsychotic metabolism and dopamine functioning. Modifiable comorbidity-related factors include diabetes, smoking, and alcohol/substance abuse, while modifiable treatment-related factors include dopamine receptor blockers, higher cumulative and current antipsychotic dose or plasma levels, early parkinsonian side effects, treatment-emergent akathisia, and anticholinergic co-treatment. In a meta-analysis of 41 studies that aimed to determine the prevalence of TD, the mean age of the 11,493 patients was 43, 66% were male, and 77% had schizophrenia spectrum disorders (J Clin Psychiatry. 2017 Mar;78[3]:e264-78). The global mean TD prevalence was 25%, but the rates were lower with patients on current treatment with second-generation antipsychotics compared with those on first-generation antipsychotics (21% vs. 30%, respectively).
According to Dr. Correll, strategies for preventing TD include confirming and documenting the indication for dopamine antagonist antipsychotic medications, using conservative maintenance doses, and considering the use of SGAs, especially in those at high risk for EPS (extrapyramidal symptoms). “Don’t go too high [with the dose],” he said. “Stay below the EPS threshold. Inform patients and caregivers of the risk of TD and assess for incipient signs regularly using the AIMS.”
Treatment options include discontinuing antipsychotics, adjusting their dose, or switching patients from a first-generation antipsychotic to a second-generation antipsychotic. Supplementation with antioxidants/radical scavengers such as vitamin E, vitamin B6, ginkgo biloba, and fish oil “can be tried, but have limited evidence, as is the case for melatonin.” Other options include clonazepam, amantadine, donepezil, and tetrabenazine, a reversible and specific inhibitor of vesicular monoamine transporter-2 (VMAT-2), a transporter that packages neurotransmitters (preferentially dopamine) into vesicles for release into the synapse and was approved in 2008 as an orphan drug for the treatment of choreiform movements associated with Huntington’s disease. “Neurologists have using tetrabenazine off-label for TD, but in schizophrenia and other psychiatric care, we rarely use it because it has to be given three times a day and it has a black box warning for depression and suicidality,” he said.
Dr. Correll noted that the Food and Drug Administration approval of two more recent VMAT-2 inhibitors – deutetrabenazine (Austedo) and valbenazine (Ingrezza) – provides an evidence-based care option for the effective management of TD. Deutetrabenazine requires titration over several weeks and twice-daily dosing, while valbenazine can reach the maximum dose by the beginning of week 2 and is dosed once daily. Deutetrabenazine should be taken with food, which is not required valbenazine.
“Both VMAT-2 inhibitors are generally well tolerated and have a positive benefit-risk ratio,” he said. “Both are recommended by the APA guidelines as the preferred and only evidence-based treatment for TD.”
Dr. Correll reported that he has received honoraria from and has been an advisory board member for numerous pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grant support from Janssen, the National Institute of Mental Health, the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Takeda, and the Thrasher Foundation.
LAS VEGAS –
“But this does not seem to always be the case, because there is still a risk of TD, and we need to monitor for it,” Dr. Correll, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at The Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “It is important to minimize the risk of TD by educating patients and caregivers about the risks of and alternatives to antipsychotic medication and early signs of TD.”
First described in 1957, TD is characterized by involuntary repetitive but irregular movements, mostly in the oral, lingual, and buccal regions – such as tongue protruding, puckering, chewing, and grimacing. Less often, there are movements in the hands, legs, feet, and torso. Symptoms can include mannerisms, stereotypies, tics, myoclonus, dystonias, tremor, and akathisia. “TD can be severe, persistent, and have medical and psychosocial consequences,” Dr. Correll said. “It can occur in untreated patients, but treatment with dopamine blocking agents – antipsychotics and metoclopramide – increases risk for TD.”
Differential diagnoses to consider include morbus Huntington, benign familial Chorea, and Sydenham’s Chorea. Less frequent causes of TD include metabolic conditions such as uremia, hyponatremia, hypernatremia, hypoparathyroidism, and hyperparathyroidism. “Those would need to be ruled out during the physical exam,” he said. There can also be inflammatory causes of TD such as herpes simplex virus, varicella, measles, mumps, and rubella.
A standard measure for TD diagnosis is the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), an observer-rated 12-item anchored scale that takes 5-10 minutes to administer. However, the AIMS on its own does not diagnose TD. In 1982, researchers developed three diagnostic criteria for TD: At least 3 months of cumulative antipsychotic drug exposure; presence of at least moderate abnormal involuntary movements in one or more body area(s) or mild movements in two or more body areas, and absence of other conditions that might produce involuntary movements (Arch Gen Psychiatry 1982;39:486-7).
The impact of TD on everyday functioning depends on anatomic location as well as severity, Dr. Correll continued. The condition can cause impairments to speech, verbal communication, dentition, temporomandibular joint pain/myalgia, swallowing difficulties, and fine motor skills including instrumental activities of daily living and written communication. Truncal and lower extremity TD can affect gait, posture and postural stability, strength, power flexibility, physical capacity, and one’s ability to exercise. “There are also psychological impairments,” he said. “Patients can develop different awareness so they become self-conscious; there can be cognitive abnormalities, and they can become more anxious or [have an] increased sense of paranoia, isolation, stigma, social and/or educational/vocational impairment.”
According to research by Dr. Correll and colleagues, unmodifiable patient-related risk factors for TD include older age, female sex, and being of white or African descent (J Neurol Sci 2018 June 15; 389:21-7). Unmodifiable illness-related risk factors include longer duration of illness, intellectual disability and brain damage, negative symptoms in schizophrenia, mood disorders, cognitive symptoms in mood disorders, and gene polymorphisms involving antipsychotic metabolism and dopamine functioning. Modifiable comorbidity-related factors include diabetes, smoking, and alcohol/substance abuse, while modifiable treatment-related factors include dopamine receptor blockers, higher cumulative and current antipsychotic dose or plasma levels, early parkinsonian side effects, treatment-emergent akathisia, and anticholinergic co-treatment. In a meta-analysis of 41 studies that aimed to determine the prevalence of TD, the mean age of the 11,493 patients was 43, 66% were male, and 77% had schizophrenia spectrum disorders (J Clin Psychiatry. 2017 Mar;78[3]:e264-78). The global mean TD prevalence was 25%, but the rates were lower with patients on current treatment with second-generation antipsychotics compared with those on first-generation antipsychotics (21% vs. 30%, respectively).
According to Dr. Correll, strategies for preventing TD include confirming and documenting the indication for dopamine antagonist antipsychotic medications, using conservative maintenance doses, and considering the use of SGAs, especially in those at high risk for EPS (extrapyramidal symptoms). “Don’t go too high [with the dose],” he said. “Stay below the EPS threshold. Inform patients and caregivers of the risk of TD and assess for incipient signs regularly using the AIMS.”
Treatment options include discontinuing antipsychotics, adjusting their dose, or switching patients from a first-generation antipsychotic to a second-generation antipsychotic. Supplementation with antioxidants/radical scavengers such as vitamin E, vitamin B6, ginkgo biloba, and fish oil “can be tried, but have limited evidence, as is the case for melatonin.” Other options include clonazepam, amantadine, donepezil, and tetrabenazine, a reversible and specific inhibitor of vesicular monoamine transporter-2 (VMAT-2), a transporter that packages neurotransmitters (preferentially dopamine) into vesicles for release into the synapse and was approved in 2008 as an orphan drug for the treatment of choreiform movements associated with Huntington’s disease. “Neurologists have using tetrabenazine off-label for TD, but in schizophrenia and other psychiatric care, we rarely use it because it has to be given three times a day and it has a black box warning for depression and suicidality,” he said.
Dr. Correll noted that the Food and Drug Administration approval of two more recent VMAT-2 inhibitors – deutetrabenazine (Austedo) and valbenazine (Ingrezza) – provides an evidence-based care option for the effective management of TD. Deutetrabenazine requires titration over several weeks and twice-daily dosing, while valbenazine can reach the maximum dose by the beginning of week 2 and is dosed once daily. Deutetrabenazine should be taken with food, which is not required valbenazine.
“Both VMAT-2 inhibitors are generally well tolerated and have a positive benefit-risk ratio,” he said. “Both are recommended by the APA guidelines as the preferred and only evidence-based treatment for TD.”
Dr. Correll reported that he has received honoraria from and has been an advisory board member for numerous pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grant support from Janssen, the National Institute of Mental Health, the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Takeda, and the Thrasher Foundation.
REPORTING FROM NPA 2022
Urticaria: An elusive disorder with ‘a high unmet need for treatment’
In the clinical experience of Adam Friedman, MD, when patients present with acute urticaria, the culprit is usually food, a drug, or a bug.
But in some cases, the trigger remains elusive. “We don’t always find the source, but don’t beat yourself up about it,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, and Surgical Conference. “The basic rule is to treat patients to clearance and keep them clear.”
Chronic urticaria is characterized by plaques with a burning/itch sensation that often “move” to different locations on the body over minutes to hours, and they typically last for less than 24 hours. The plaques are often oval, round, or irregular in shape and they typically leave no postinflammatory pigmentary alteration or scarring other than from scratching.
Urticaria affects an estimated 20% of the population, Dr. Friedman said, and is more common in females than males. More than two-thirds of cases are self-limiting but 10% can persist longer than 5 years. Acute episodes are more likely to have an identifiable trigger, while chronic episodes, which last more than six weeks, typically do not. The longer the duration, the lower the chance of identifying the root cause. The foods/food products most commonly affecting children with acute urticaria include milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy, while the common culprits in adults are tree nuts, peanuts, and shellfish. Other triggers include the yellow food dye annatto, the red food dye carmine, contact with raw fruits or vegetables, animal saliva, and certain detergents or perfume.
“When you have no idea what the cause is for acute urticaria, I think about viral or bacterial infections, especially in children,” Dr. Friedman said, particularly mycoplasma, adenovirus, enterovirus, rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, Epstein-Barr virus, and cytomegalovirus. COVID-19 has also been a new etiologic source for a recent rise in acute urticaria cases.
Other causes include certain medications such as antibiotics, opiates, muscle relaxants, salicylates, and NSAIDs; stinging insects; and exposure to latex products, which can cross react with passion fruit, banana, avocado, chestnut, and kiwi. Alcohol consumption can also trigger urticaria.
“Ask patients if they have joint discomfort or pain,” Dr. Friedman advised, referring to urticaria arthritis syndrome that is typically seen more often in women than in men. “It’s rare but important, because that may distinguish for you what is needed to get those patients under control.”
which spontaneously occurs after an exposure to an external force. “The distinguishing feature here is that it doesn’t last long – 30 minutes or so – and is typically unresponsive to corticosteroids,” Dr. Friedman said. “It comes on quickly but disappears quickly whereas with chronic spontaneous urticaria, someone might be getting those wheals of flare for hours and hours.”
The most common form of physical urticaria is dermatographism, while other examples include physical urticaria resulting from exposure to cholinergic agents, heat, exercise, cold, water, sunlight, and pressure on the skin.
About half of patients with chronic urticaria are disease free within 1 year, but 20% continue to experience episodes for more than 10 years. One study found that patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria who were diagnosed at a younger age trended toward a longer disease course, and rates were higher in women, compared with men. “Perceived stress can make this worse,” Dr. Friedman added.
According to Dr. Friedman, it’s more important to ask patients targeted questions during office visits than it is to do a full workup. “I ask patients to keep a diary, which can help them identify triggers if there are any,” he said. “I also ask them to take a picture of the papules with their smartphone. There can be a genetic association, so it’s important to ask if anyone else in the family has urticaria. No routine lab tests are required unless there’s something in the history that suggests it’s worthwhile. Let the patient guide the diagnostic workup; don’t just order a million tests.”
That said, known comorbidities associated with urticaria include autoimmune disease, atopy, infections, metabolic conditions, and neoplastic disorders. “Biopsies are typically useless because this is an invisible dermatosis,” he said. “They’re useful when it’s urticarial, not urticaria, when you’re trying to figure out what it is.”
According to recently published international guidelines on urticaria, published in September 2021, the recommended first line of treatment for urticaria is with second-generation nonsedating antihistamines such as cetirizine and loratadine, up to four times the recommended dose.
Second-generation derivatives include desloratadine, levocetirizine, and fexofenadine. “I like using fexofenadine in the morning for folks who don’t tolerate cetirizine, then I’ll recommend something a little more sedating at night,” Dr. Friedman said. “We max out [the dose] by week 4. If it works, great. If not, we move on to something else.”
In late 2021, the British Association of Dermatologists also published guidelines on the treatment of chronic urticaria.
As for markers of treatment success, a study of 240 children with chronic spontaneous urticaria found that risk factors for a poor response included longer duration of disease, higher treatment step until initial disease control, and food sensitization.
Vitamin D supplementation may also add some benefit. One study of 42 adults with urticaria found that low and high doses of vitamin D added to antihistamine therapy can boost effectiveness. “This may be because vitamin D could be a marker of severity,” Dr. Friedman said. “The reality is, however, that a lot of patients don’t do well.”
Data from the large, prospective study known as AWARE (A World-Wide Antihistamine-Refractory Chronic Urticaria Patient Evaluation) found that 23% patients treated with nonsedating H1-antihistamines and 42% patients treated with up-dosed nonsedating H1-antihistamines had uncontrolled chronic spontaneous urticaria at month 24.
A second-line treatment option for patients aged 6 and older is the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab, 150-300 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. Dr. Friedman typically uses only the 300-mg dose. “You do not need to take pretreatment serum IgE levels,” he said. “The most significant adverse event is anaphylaxis, which only affects 0.2% of patients.”
A third-line option is cyclosporine A. A dose of 3-5mg/kg per day appears to benefit about two-thirds of patients with antihistamine recalcitrant chronic urticaria. “It works fast but you can’t keep patients on it for very long,” he said.
Another third-line option is mycophenolate mofetil, which may work by inhibiting the production of autoantibodies to the high-affinity IgE receptor and/or IgE. “It does work well, especially in conjunction with antihistamines; it’s kind of a softer immunosuppressant,” he said. Methotrexate can also be used as an add-on therapy to H1 antihistamine therapy in difficult-to-treat cases.
“It’s great we have [a Food and Drug Administration]–approved biologic therapy in omalizumab and access to over-the-counter antihistamines, but there is a high unmet need for treatment,” and a need for new therapies, Dr. Friedman said. “Only about 39% achieve symptomatic control with conventional dosing of antihistamines, and 63% of nonresponders achieve symptom control with a fourfold increased dosing of antihistamines.” In addition, about 20% of patients will not respond to either standard or increased doses of antihistamines and are eligible for treatment with omalizumab. However, more than 50% of such patients experience a delay or lack of response to omalizumab. “We need innovation; we need to understand the disease better,” he said.
Dr. Friedman disclosed that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser for Loreal, La Roche Posay, Cerave, Galderma, Aveeno, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Dermira, Brickell Biotech, Incyte, UCB, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Almirall, Zylo Therapeutics, Hoth Therapeutics, Corbus, Greenway Therapeutics, TruPotency, and Dermavant. He is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen, Brickell Biotech, and Incyte, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Incyte, and Galderma.
In the clinical experience of Adam Friedman, MD, when patients present with acute urticaria, the culprit is usually food, a drug, or a bug.
But in some cases, the trigger remains elusive. “We don’t always find the source, but don’t beat yourself up about it,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, and Surgical Conference. “The basic rule is to treat patients to clearance and keep them clear.”
Chronic urticaria is characterized by plaques with a burning/itch sensation that often “move” to different locations on the body over minutes to hours, and they typically last for less than 24 hours. The plaques are often oval, round, or irregular in shape and they typically leave no postinflammatory pigmentary alteration or scarring other than from scratching.
Urticaria affects an estimated 20% of the population, Dr. Friedman said, and is more common in females than males. More than two-thirds of cases are self-limiting but 10% can persist longer than 5 years. Acute episodes are more likely to have an identifiable trigger, while chronic episodes, which last more than six weeks, typically do not. The longer the duration, the lower the chance of identifying the root cause. The foods/food products most commonly affecting children with acute urticaria include milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy, while the common culprits in adults are tree nuts, peanuts, and shellfish. Other triggers include the yellow food dye annatto, the red food dye carmine, contact with raw fruits or vegetables, animal saliva, and certain detergents or perfume.
“When you have no idea what the cause is for acute urticaria, I think about viral or bacterial infections, especially in children,” Dr. Friedman said, particularly mycoplasma, adenovirus, enterovirus, rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, Epstein-Barr virus, and cytomegalovirus. COVID-19 has also been a new etiologic source for a recent rise in acute urticaria cases.
Other causes include certain medications such as antibiotics, opiates, muscle relaxants, salicylates, and NSAIDs; stinging insects; and exposure to latex products, which can cross react with passion fruit, banana, avocado, chestnut, and kiwi. Alcohol consumption can also trigger urticaria.
“Ask patients if they have joint discomfort or pain,” Dr. Friedman advised, referring to urticaria arthritis syndrome that is typically seen more often in women than in men. “It’s rare but important, because that may distinguish for you what is needed to get those patients under control.”
which spontaneously occurs after an exposure to an external force. “The distinguishing feature here is that it doesn’t last long – 30 minutes or so – and is typically unresponsive to corticosteroids,” Dr. Friedman said. “It comes on quickly but disappears quickly whereas with chronic spontaneous urticaria, someone might be getting those wheals of flare for hours and hours.”
The most common form of physical urticaria is dermatographism, while other examples include physical urticaria resulting from exposure to cholinergic agents, heat, exercise, cold, water, sunlight, and pressure on the skin.
About half of patients with chronic urticaria are disease free within 1 year, but 20% continue to experience episodes for more than 10 years. One study found that patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria who were diagnosed at a younger age trended toward a longer disease course, and rates were higher in women, compared with men. “Perceived stress can make this worse,” Dr. Friedman added.
According to Dr. Friedman, it’s more important to ask patients targeted questions during office visits than it is to do a full workup. “I ask patients to keep a diary, which can help them identify triggers if there are any,” he said. “I also ask them to take a picture of the papules with their smartphone. There can be a genetic association, so it’s important to ask if anyone else in the family has urticaria. No routine lab tests are required unless there’s something in the history that suggests it’s worthwhile. Let the patient guide the diagnostic workup; don’t just order a million tests.”
That said, known comorbidities associated with urticaria include autoimmune disease, atopy, infections, metabolic conditions, and neoplastic disorders. “Biopsies are typically useless because this is an invisible dermatosis,” he said. “They’re useful when it’s urticarial, not urticaria, when you’re trying to figure out what it is.”
According to recently published international guidelines on urticaria, published in September 2021, the recommended first line of treatment for urticaria is with second-generation nonsedating antihistamines such as cetirizine and loratadine, up to four times the recommended dose.
Second-generation derivatives include desloratadine, levocetirizine, and fexofenadine. “I like using fexofenadine in the morning for folks who don’t tolerate cetirizine, then I’ll recommend something a little more sedating at night,” Dr. Friedman said. “We max out [the dose] by week 4. If it works, great. If not, we move on to something else.”
In late 2021, the British Association of Dermatologists also published guidelines on the treatment of chronic urticaria.
As for markers of treatment success, a study of 240 children with chronic spontaneous urticaria found that risk factors for a poor response included longer duration of disease, higher treatment step until initial disease control, and food sensitization.
Vitamin D supplementation may also add some benefit. One study of 42 adults with urticaria found that low and high doses of vitamin D added to antihistamine therapy can boost effectiveness. “This may be because vitamin D could be a marker of severity,” Dr. Friedman said. “The reality is, however, that a lot of patients don’t do well.”
Data from the large, prospective study known as AWARE (A World-Wide Antihistamine-Refractory Chronic Urticaria Patient Evaluation) found that 23% patients treated with nonsedating H1-antihistamines and 42% patients treated with up-dosed nonsedating H1-antihistamines had uncontrolled chronic spontaneous urticaria at month 24.
A second-line treatment option for patients aged 6 and older is the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab, 150-300 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. Dr. Friedman typically uses only the 300-mg dose. “You do not need to take pretreatment serum IgE levels,” he said. “The most significant adverse event is anaphylaxis, which only affects 0.2% of patients.”
A third-line option is cyclosporine A. A dose of 3-5mg/kg per day appears to benefit about two-thirds of patients with antihistamine recalcitrant chronic urticaria. “It works fast but you can’t keep patients on it for very long,” he said.
Another third-line option is mycophenolate mofetil, which may work by inhibiting the production of autoantibodies to the high-affinity IgE receptor and/or IgE. “It does work well, especially in conjunction with antihistamines; it’s kind of a softer immunosuppressant,” he said. Methotrexate can also be used as an add-on therapy to H1 antihistamine therapy in difficult-to-treat cases.
“It’s great we have [a Food and Drug Administration]–approved biologic therapy in omalizumab and access to over-the-counter antihistamines, but there is a high unmet need for treatment,” and a need for new therapies, Dr. Friedman said. “Only about 39% achieve symptomatic control with conventional dosing of antihistamines, and 63% of nonresponders achieve symptom control with a fourfold increased dosing of antihistamines.” In addition, about 20% of patients will not respond to either standard or increased doses of antihistamines and are eligible for treatment with omalizumab. However, more than 50% of such patients experience a delay or lack of response to omalizumab. “We need innovation; we need to understand the disease better,” he said.
Dr. Friedman disclosed that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser for Loreal, La Roche Posay, Cerave, Galderma, Aveeno, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Dermira, Brickell Biotech, Incyte, UCB, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Almirall, Zylo Therapeutics, Hoth Therapeutics, Corbus, Greenway Therapeutics, TruPotency, and Dermavant. He is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen, Brickell Biotech, and Incyte, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Incyte, and Galderma.
In the clinical experience of Adam Friedman, MD, when patients present with acute urticaria, the culprit is usually food, a drug, or a bug.
But in some cases, the trigger remains elusive. “We don’t always find the source, but don’t beat yourself up about it,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, and Surgical Conference. “The basic rule is to treat patients to clearance and keep them clear.”
Chronic urticaria is characterized by plaques with a burning/itch sensation that often “move” to different locations on the body over minutes to hours, and they typically last for less than 24 hours. The plaques are often oval, round, or irregular in shape and they typically leave no postinflammatory pigmentary alteration or scarring other than from scratching.
Urticaria affects an estimated 20% of the population, Dr. Friedman said, and is more common in females than males. More than two-thirds of cases are self-limiting but 10% can persist longer than 5 years. Acute episodes are more likely to have an identifiable trigger, while chronic episodes, which last more than six weeks, typically do not. The longer the duration, the lower the chance of identifying the root cause. The foods/food products most commonly affecting children with acute urticaria include milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy, while the common culprits in adults are tree nuts, peanuts, and shellfish. Other triggers include the yellow food dye annatto, the red food dye carmine, contact with raw fruits or vegetables, animal saliva, and certain detergents or perfume.
“When you have no idea what the cause is for acute urticaria, I think about viral or bacterial infections, especially in children,” Dr. Friedman said, particularly mycoplasma, adenovirus, enterovirus, rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, Epstein-Barr virus, and cytomegalovirus. COVID-19 has also been a new etiologic source for a recent rise in acute urticaria cases.
Other causes include certain medications such as antibiotics, opiates, muscle relaxants, salicylates, and NSAIDs; stinging insects; and exposure to latex products, which can cross react with passion fruit, banana, avocado, chestnut, and kiwi. Alcohol consumption can also trigger urticaria.
“Ask patients if they have joint discomfort or pain,” Dr. Friedman advised, referring to urticaria arthritis syndrome that is typically seen more often in women than in men. “It’s rare but important, because that may distinguish for you what is needed to get those patients under control.”
which spontaneously occurs after an exposure to an external force. “The distinguishing feature here is that it doesn’t last long – 30 minutes or so – and is typically unresponsive to corticosteroids,” Dr. Friedman said. “It comes on quickly but disappears quickly whereas with chronic spontaneous urticaria, someone might be getting those wheals of flare for hours and hours.”
The most common form of physical urticaria is dermatographism, while other examples include physical urticaria resulting from exposure to cholinergic agents, heat, exercise, cold, water, sunlight, and pressure on the skin.
About half of patients with chronic urticaria are disease free within 1 year, but 20% continue to experience episodes for more than 10 years. One study found that patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria who were diagnosed at a younger age trended toward a longer disease course, and rates were higher in women, compared with men. “Perceived stress can make this worse,” Dr. Friedman added.
According to Dr. Friedman, it’s more important to ask patients targeted questions during office visits than it is to do a full workup. “I ask patients to keep a diary, which can help them identify triggers if there are any,” he said. “I also ask them to take a picture of the papules with their smartphone. There can be a genetic association, so it’s important to ask if anyone else in the family has urticaria. No routine lab tests are required unless there’s something in the history that suggests it’s worthwhile. Let the patient guide the diagnostic workup; don’t just order a million tests.”
That said, known comorbidities associated with urticaria include autoimmune disease, atopy, infections, metabolic conditions, and neoplastic disorders. “Biopsies are typically useless because this is an invisible dermatosis,” he said. “They’re useful when it’s urticarial, not urticaria, when you’re trying to figure out what it is.”
According to recently published international guidelines on urticaria, published in September 2021, the recommended first line of treatment for urticaria is with second-generation nonsedating antihistamines such as cetirizine and loratadine, up to four times the recommended dose.
Second-generation derivatives include desloratadine, levocetirizine, and fexofenadine. “I like using fexofenadine in the morning for folks who don’t tolerate cetirizine, then I’ll recommend something a little more sedating at night,” Dr. Friedman said. “We max out [the dose] by week 4. If it works, great. If not, we move on to something else.”
In late 2021, the British Association of Dermatologists also published guidelines on the treatment of chronic urticaria.
As for markers of treatment success, a study of 240 children with chronic spontaneous urticaria found that risk factors for a poor response included longer duration of disease, higher treatment step until initial disease control, and food sensitization.
Vitamin D supplementation may also add some benefit. One study of 42 adults with urticaria found that low and high doses of vitamin D added to antihistamine therapy can boost effectiveness. “This may be because vitamin D could be a marker of severity,” Dr. Friedman said. “The reality is, however, that a lot of patients don’t do well.”
Data from the large, prospective study known as AWARE (A World-Wide Antihistamine-Refractory Chronic Urticaria Patient Evaluation) found that 23% patients treated with nonsedating H1-antihistamines and 42% patients treated with up-dosed nonsedating H1-antihistamines had uncontrolled chronic spontaneous urticaria at month 24.
A second-line treatment option for patients aged 6 and older is the anti-IgE antibody omalizumab, 150-300 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. Dr. Friedman typically uses only the 300-mg dose. “You do not need to take pretreatment serum IgE levels,” he said. “The most significant adverse event is anaphylaxis, which only affects 0.2% of patients.”
A third-line option is cyclosporine A. A dose of 3-5mg/kg per day appears to benefit about two-thirds of patients with antihistamine recalcitrant chronic urticaria. “It works fast but you can’t keep patients on it for very long,” he said.
Another third-line option is mycophenolate mofetil, which may work by inhibiting the production of autoantibodies to the high-affinity IgE receptor and/or IgE. “It does work well, especially in conjunction with antihistamines; it’s kind of a softer immunosuppressant,” he said. Methotrexate can also be used as an add-on therapy to H1 antihistamine therapy in difficult-to-treat cases.
“It’s great we have [a Food and Drug Administration]–approved biologic therapy in omalizumab and access to over-the-counter antihistamines, but there is a high unmet need for treatment,” and a need for new therapies, Dr. Friedman said. “Only about 39% achieve symptomatic control with conventional dosing of antihistamines, and 63% of nonresponders achieve symptom control with a fourfold increased dosing of antihistamines.” In addition, about 20% of patients will not respond to either standard or increased doses of antihistamines and are eligible for treatment with omalizumab. However, more than 50% of such patients experience a delay or lack of response to omalizumab. “We need innovation; we need to understand the disease better,” he said.
Dr. Friedman disclosed that he serves as a consultant and/or adviser for Loreal, La Roche Posay, Cerave, Galderma, Aveeno, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Dermira, Brickell Biotech, Incyte, UCB, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Almirall, Zylo Therapeutics, Hoth Therapeutics, Corbus, Greenway Therapeutics, TruPotency, and Dermavant. He is a speaker for Regeneron/Sanofi, AbbVie, Janssen, Brickell Biotech, and Incyte, and has received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Incyte, and Galderma.
FROM ODAC 2022
Full results of anal cancer study point to barriers to care
Reports based on a press release in October 2021 suggested it, but now the full data tell the story:
“We now show, for the first time, that treatment of anal HSIL is effective in reducing the incidence of anal cancer,” said Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the Anal Neoplasia Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco. “These data should be included in an overall assessment for inclusion of screening for and treating HSIL as standard of care in people living with HIV.”
Dr. Palefsky presented the full results in a special session at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which drew excitement, gratitude, and relief from both researchers and clinicians, who flocked to the session.
But it’s not just people with HIV who will benefit from this research. Dr. Palefsky suggested that the findings should also be considered as guides for other people at high-risk for anal cancer, such as people who are immunocompromised for other reasons, including those with lupus, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, or cisgender women who have had vulvar or cervical cancer or precancer.
“If we can show efficacy in the most challenging group of all, which are people living with HIV, we think the results can be as good, if not even better, in the other groups at high risk of anal cancer,” Dr. Palefsky said.
But to serve anyone – whether living with HIV or not – infrastructure, algorithms, and workforce training are going be needed to meet the currently unserved people through use of high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) and other screening technology, he said.
Dr. Palefsy and colleagues screened 10,723 people living with HIV being served at 15 clinics nationwide. More than half, 52.2%, had anal HSIL – 53.3% of the cisgender men living with HIV in the trial, 45.8% of the cis women living with HIV, and a full 62.5% of transgender participants.
Those 4,446 participants were split evenly between the treatment arm and the control arm. Those in the treatment arm received treatment for HSIL on their first study visit via one of five options: hyfrecation, office-based electrocautery ablation, infrared coagulation, topical 5-fluorouracil cream, or topical imiquimod. Then, every 6 months after that, they came in for HRA, blood tests, anal Pap smears, and biopsies to check for any lingering or new HSIL. If clinicians found such cells, they received treatment again. If biopsies still showed HSIL and clinician and participant were worried about cancer, they could come in as frequently as every 3 months and receive treatment each time.
The active-monitoring control group still received an anal Pap smear, blood tests, biopsy, and HRA every 6 months – a level of care that is currently not mandated anywhere for people living with HIV, Dr. Palefsky said in an interview. They were also able to come in for more frequent monitoring (every 3 months) if clinicians were worried about cancer.
“Those in both arms would have been getting more attention than if they had not participated in the study,” he said.
In addition, during screening, researchers found that cancer was already present in 17 other people, who skipped the study to go right to treatment.
Participants reflected the demographics of the HIV epidemic in the United States. They were older (median age, 51 years), mostly gay (78%), and cisgender male (80%). Close to half, 42%, were Black, and 16% were Latinx. In addition, cisgender women made up 16% of the participants and transgender people, and nonbinary individuals accounted for more than 3% of the participants. In addition, one in three smoked.
The vast majority of participants had well-controlled HIV and healthy immune systems, though half in each arm had a history of AIDS, defined as lowest-ever CD4 immune cell counts below 200. Today, more than 80% of participants had undetectable viral loads, defined as a viral load less than 50 copies/mL, and another 7% had HIV viral loads below 200. In total, 9.3% in the treatment arm and 10.9% in the control arm had HIV viral loads higher than that. At time of enrollment, CD4 counts were above 600 in each group, indicating healthy immune systems.
Although all participants were there because they had anal HSIL, more than 1 in 10 – 13% – had abnormal cells so extensive that they covered more than half of the anal canal or the perianal region.
Once everyone was enrolled, researchers began monitoring and treatment, looking specifically for 31 cases of cancer – a number the team had determined that they’d need in order to draw any conclusions. Dr. Palefsky didn’t have to wait long. They were still trying to enroll the last 1,000 participants to have the power necessary to reach that number when the cancer diagnoses came in.
Dr. Palefsky told this news organization that the reason for that is unclear. It could be that some of those cases would have resolved on their own, and so the swiftness with which they reached the required number of cancer cases belies their seriousness. It could also be that the particular people who enrolled in this trial were engaging in behaviors that put them at even higher risk for anal cancer than the population of people living with HIV in the United States.
Or it could be that symptom-based screening is missing a lot of cancers that currently go untreated.
“So perhaps we will be seeing an increase in anal cancer reported in the future compared to the currently reported rates,” he said. “We don’t really know.”
Regardless of the reason for the speed to cases of cancer, the results were definitive: Nine participants were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the treatment arm, while 21 were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the control arm. That’s a 57% reduction in cancer occurrence between the arms. Or, to put it another way, the rate of anal cancer among people in the treatment arm was 173 per 100,000 people-years. In the active monitoring arm, it was 402 per 100,000 person-years. For context, the overall rate of anal cancer among people living with HIV is 50 per 100,000 person-years. The rate in the general U.S. population is 8 per 100,000 people-years.
The experimental treatment was such a definitive success that the investigators stopped the trial and shifted all participants in the control arm to treatment.
‘We have to build’
Before Dr. Palefsky was even done presenting the data, clinicians, people living with HIV, and experts at the session were already brainstorming as to how to get these results into practice.
“These data are what we have long needed to fuel some action on this important problem, including medical cost reimbursement through insurance and increasing the number of persons trained and capable in anal cancer screening,” John Brooks, MD, head of the epidemiology research team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, wrote in the virtual chat.
Jeff Taylor, a member of the ANCHOR advisory board and a person living with HIV who participated in one of the first azidothymidine trials in the late 1980s, responded quickly.
“What kind of advocacy from researchers, HIV clinicians and [people living with HIV] is needed to get this on treatment guidelines, HRA providers trained and certified, and payors to cover this so [people living with HIV] actually have access to lifesaving screening and [treatment]?” Mr. Taylor asked.
It’s a serious challenge. David Malebranche, MD, an Atlanta-based internal medicine physician who specializes in sexual health and HIV, commented in an interview. When he saw the initial press release last year on the ANCHOR findings, his first reaction was: “Thank god. We finally have some data to show what we’ve been trying to get people to do” all along.
But then he wondered, who is going to perform these tests? It’s a fair question. Currently, the wait for an HRA is 6-12 months in many parts of the country. And Dr. Malebranche can’t imagine this being added to his already full plate as a primary care provider.
“If you tell a primary care provider now that they have to do a rectal Pap smear, that’s going to be a problem while you’re also asking them to screen each patient for depression, anxiety, domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, all the healthcare maintenance and all the other screening tests – and then you deal with not only the urgent complaint but then all the complex medical issues on top of that – in a 15-minute or 10-minute visit,” he said.
Now that we have these data, he said, “we have to build.”
Dr. Palefsky agreed. Very few centers have enough people skilled at performing HRAs to meet the current demand, and it’s not realistic to expect clinicians to perform an HRA every 6 months like the study team did. There need to be algorithms put in place to help practitioners figure out who among their patients living with HIV could benefit from this increased screening, as well as biomarkers to identify HSIL progression and regression without the use of HRA, Dr. Palefsky told attendees. And more clinicians need to be recruited and trained to read HRAs, which can be difficult for the untrained eye to decipher.
Dr. Malebranche added another, more fundamental thing that needs to be built. Dr. Malebranche has worked in HIV clinics where the majority of his patients qualify for insurance under the Ryan White Program and get their medications through the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. While Ryan White programs can provide critical wraparound care, Dr. Malebranche has had to refer out for something like an HRA or cancer treatment. But the people who only access care through such programs may not have coverage with the clinics that perform HRA or that treat cancer. And that’s if they can even find someone to see them.
“If I live in a state like Georgia, which doesn’t have Medicaid expansion and we have people who are uninsured, where do you send them?” Dr. Malebranche asked. “This isn’t theoretical. I ran into this problem when I was working at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation last year. ... This is a call for infrastructure.”
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Brooks reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Palefsky has received consultant fees from Merck, Vir Biotechnology, Virion Therapeutics, and Antiva Bioscience, as well as speaker fees from Merck. Dr. Malebranche has received consulting and advising fees from ViiV Healthcare.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Reports based on a press release in October 2021 suggested it, but now the full data tell the story:
“We now show, for the first time, that treatment of anal HSIL is effective in reducing the incidence of anal cancer,” said Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the Anal Neoplasia Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco. “These data should be included in an overall assessment for inclusion of screening for and treating HSIL as standard of care in people living with HIV.”
Dr. Palefsky presented the full results in a special session at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which drew excitement, gratitude, and relief from both researchers and clinicians, who flocked to the session.
But it’s not just people with HIV who will benefit from this research. Dr. Palefsky suggested that the findings should also be considered as guides for other people at high-risk for anal cancer, such as people who are immunocompromised for other reasons, including those with lupus, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, or cisgender women who have had vulvar or cervical cancer or precancer.
“If we can show efficacy in the most challenging group of all, which are people living with HIV, we think the results can be as good, if not even better, in the other groups at high risk of anal cancer,” Dr. Palefsky said.
But to serve anyone – whether living with HIV or not – infrastructure, algorithms, and workforce training are going be needed to meet the currently unserved people through use of high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) and other screening technology, he said.
Dr. Palefsy and colleagues screened 10,723 people living with HIV being served at 15 clinics nationwide. More than half, 52.2%, had anal HSIL – 53.3% of the cisgender men living with HIV in the trial, 45.8% of the cis women living with HIV, and a full 62.5% of transgender participants.
Those 4,446 participants were split evenly between the treatment arm and the control arm. Those in the treatment arm received treatment for HSIL on their first study visit via one of five options: hyfrecation, office-based electrocautery ablation, infrared coagulation, topical 5-fluorouracil cream, or topical imiquimod. Then, every 6 months after that, they came in for HRA, blood tests, anal Pap smears, and biopsies to check for any lingering or new HSIL. If clinicians found such cells, they received treatment again. If biopsies still showed HSIL and clinician and participant were worried about cancer, they could come in as frequently as every 3 months and receive treatment each time.
The active-monitoring control group still received an anal Pap smear, blood tests, biopsy, and HRA every 6 months – a level of care that is currently not mandated anywhere for people living with HIV, Dr. Palefsky said in an interview. They were also able to come in for more frequent monitoring (every 3 months) if clinicians were worried about cancer.
“Those in both arms would have been getting more attention than if they had not participated in the study,” he said.
In addition, during screening, researchers found that cancer was already present in 17 other people, who skipped the study to go right to treatment.
Participants reflected the demographics of the HIV epidemic in the United States. They were older (median age, 51 years), mostly gay (78%), and cisgender male (80%). Close to half, 42%, were Black, and 16% were Latinx. In addition, cisgender women made up 16% of the participants and transgender people, and nonbinary individuals accounted for more than 3% of the participants. In addition, one in three smoked.
The vast majority of participants had well-controlled HIV and healthy immune systems, though half in each arm had a history of AIDS, defined as lowest-ever CD4 immune cell counts below 200. Today, more than 80% of participants had undetectable viral loads, defined as a viral load less than 50 copies/mL, and another 7% had HIV viral loads below 200. In total, 9.3% in the treatment arm and 10.9% in the control arm had HIV viral loads higher than that. At time of enrollment, CD4 counts were above 600 in each group, indicating healthy immune systems.
Although all participants were there because they had anal HSIL, more than 1 in 10 – 13% – had abnormal cells so extensive that they covered more than half of the anal canal or the perianal region.
Once everyone was enrolled, researchers began monitoring and treatment, looking specifically for 31 cases of cancer – a number the team had determined that they’d need in order to draw any conclusions. Dr. Palefsky didn’t have to wait long. They were still trying to enroll the last 1,000 participants to have the power necessary to reach that number when the cancer diagnoses came in.
Dr. Palefsky told this news organization that the reason for that is unclear. It could be that some of those cases would have resolved on their own, and so the swiftness with which they reached the required number of cancer cases belies their seriousness. It could also be that the particular people who enrolled in this trial were engaging in behaviors that put them at even higher risk for anal cancer than the population of people living with HIV in the United States.
Or it could be that symptom-based screening is missing a lot of cancers that currently go untreated.
“So perhaps we will be seeing an increase in anal cancer reported in the future compared to the currently reported rates,” he said. “We don’t really know.”
Regardless of the reason for the speed to cases of cancer, the results were definitive: Nine participants were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the treatment arm, while 21 were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the control arm. That’s a 57% reduction in cancer occurrence between the arms. Or, to put it another way, the rate of anal cancer among people in the treatment arm was 173 per 100,000 people-years. In the active monitoring arm, it was 402 per 100,000 person-years. For context, the overall rate of anal cancer among people living with HIV is 50 per 100,000 person-years. The rate in the general U.S. population is 8 per 100,000 people-years.
The experimental treatment was such a definitive success that the investigators stopped the trial and shifted all participants in the control arm to treatment.
‘We have to build’
Before Dr. Palefsky was even done presenting the data, clinicians, people living with HIV, and experts at the session were already brainstorming as to how to get these results into practice.
“These data are what we have long needed to fuel some action on this important problem, including medical cost reimbursement through insurance and increasing the number of persons trained and capable in anal cancer screening,” John Brooks, MD, head of the epidemiology research team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, wrote in the virtual chat.
Jeff Taylor, a member of the ANCHOR advisory board and a person living with HIV who participated in one of the first azidothymidine trials in the late 1980s, responded quickly.
“What kind of advocacy from researchers, HIV clinicians and [people living with HIV] is needed to get this on treatment guidelines, HRA providers trained and certified, and payors to cover this so [people living with HIV] actually have access to lifesaving screening and [treatment]?” Mr. Taylor asked.
It’s a serious challenge. David Malebranche, MD, an Atlanta-based internal medicine physician who specializes in sexual health and HIV, commented in an interview. When he saw the initial press release last year on the ANCHOR findings, his first reaction was: “Thank god. We finally have some data to show what we’ve been trying to get people to do” all along.
But then he wondered, who is going to perform these tests? It’s a fair question. Currently, the wait for an HRA is 6-12 months in many parts of the country. And Dr. Malebranche can’t imagine this being added to his already full plate as a primary care provider.
“If you tell a primary care provider now that they have to do a rectal Pap smear, that’s going to be a problem while you’re also asking them to screen each patient for depression, anxiety, domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, all the healthcare maintenance and all the other screening tests – and then you deal with not only the urgent complaint but then all the complex medical issues on top of that – in a 15-minute or 10-minute visit,” he said.
Now that we have these data, he said, “we have to build.”
Dr. Palefsky agreed. Very few centers have enough people skilled at performing HRAs to meet the current demand, and it’s not realistic to expect clinicians to perform an HRA every 6 months like the study team did. There need to be algorithms put in place to help practitioners figure out who among their patients living with HIV could benefit from this increased screening, as well as biomarkers to identify HSIL progression and regression without the use of HRA, Dr. Palefsky told attendees. And more clinicians need to be recruited and trained to read HRAs, which can be difficult for the untrained eye to decipher.
Dr. Malebranche added another, more fundamental thing that needs to be built. Dr. Malebranche has worked in HIV clinics where the majority of his patients qualify for insurance under the Ryan White Program and get their medications through the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. While Ryan White programs can provide critical wraparound care, Dr. Malebranche has had to refer out for something like an HRA or cancer treatment. But the people who only access care through such programs may not have coverage with the clinics that perform HRA or that treat cancer. And that’s if they can even find someone to see them.
“If I live in a state like Georgia, which doesn’t have Medicaid expansion and we have people who are uninsured, where do you send them?” Dr. Malebranche asked. “This isn’t theoretical. I ran into this problem when I was working at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation last year. ... This is a call for infrastructure.”
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Brooks reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Palefsky has received consultant fees from Merck, Vir Biotechnology, Virion Therapeutics, and Antiva Bioscience, as well as speaker fees from Merck. Dr. Malebranche has received consulting and advising fees from ViiV Healthcare.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Reports based on a press release in October 2021 suggested it, but now the full data tell the story:
“We now show, for the first time, that treatment of anal HSIL is effective in reducing the incidence of anal cancer,” said Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the Anal Neoplasia Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco. “These data should be included in an overall assessment for inclusion of screening for and treating HSIL as standard of care in people living with HIV.”
Dr. Palefsky presented the full results in a special session at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, which drew excitement, gratitude, and relief from both researchers and clinicians, who flocked to the session.
But it’s not just people with HIV who will benefit from this research. Dr. Palefsky suggested that the findings should also be considered as guides for other people at high-risk for anal cancer, such as people who are immunocompromised for other reasons, including those with lupus, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, or cisgender women who have had vulvar or cervical cancer or precancer.
“If we can show efficacy in the most challenging group of all, which are people living with HIV, we think the results can be as good, if not even better, in the other groups at high risk of anal cancer,” Dr. Palefsky said.
But to serve anyone – whether living with HIV or not – infrastructure, algorithms, and workforce training are going be needed to meet the currently unserved people through use of high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) and other screening technology, he said.
Dr. Palefsy and colleagues screened 10,723 people living with HIV being served at 15 clinics nationwide. More than half, 52.2%, had anal HSIL – 53.3% of the cisgender men living with HIV in the trial, 45.8% of the cis women living with HIV, and a full 62.5% of transgender participants.
Those 4,446 participants were split evenly between the treatment arm and the control arm. Those in the treatment arm received treatment for HSIL on their first study visit via one of five options: hyfrecation, office-based electrocautery ablation, infrared coagulation, topical 5-fluorouracil cream, or topical imiquimod. Then, every 6 months after that, they came in for HRA, blood tests, anal Pap smears, and biopsies to check for any lingering or new HSIL. If clinicians found such cells, they received treatment again. If biopsies still showed HSIL and clinician and participant were worried about cancer, they could come in as frequently as every 3 months and receive treatment each time.
The active-monitoring control group still received an anal Pap smear, blood tests, biopsy, and HRA every 6 months – a level of care that is currently not mandated anywhere for people living with HIV, Dr. Palefsky said in an interview. They were also able to come in for more frequent monitoring (every 3 months) if clinicians were worried about cancer.
“Those in both arms would have been getting more attention than if they had not participated in the study,” he said.
In addition, during screening, researchers found that cancer was already present in 17 other people, who skipped the study to go right to treatment.
Participants reflected the demographics of the HIV epidemic in the United States. They were older (median age, 51 years), mostly gay (78%), and cisgender male (80%). Close to half, 42%, were Black, and 16% were Latinx. In addition, cisgender women made up 16% of the participants and transgender people, and nonbinary individuals accounted for more than 3% of the participants. In addition, one in three smoked.
The vast majority of participants had well-controlled HIV and healthy immune systems, though half in each arm had a history of AIDS, defined as lowest-ever CD4 immune cell counts below 200. Today, more than 80% of participants had undetectable viral loads, defined as a viral load less than 50 copies/mL, and another 7% had HIV viral loads below 200. In total, 9.3% in the treatment arm and 10.9% in the control arm had HIV viral loads higher than that. At time of enrollment, CD4 counts were above 600 in each group, indicating healthy immune systems.
Although all participants were there because they had anal HSIL, more than 1 in 10 – 13% – had abnormal cells so extensive that they covered more than half of the anal canal or the perianal region.
Once everyone was enrolled, researchers began monitoring and treatment, looking specifically for 31 cases of cancer – a number the team had determined that they’d need in order to draw any conclusions. Dr. Palefsky didn’t have to wait long. They were still trying to enroll the last 1,000 participants to have the power necessary to reach that number when the cancer diagnoses came in.
Dr. Palefsky told this news organization that the reason for that is unclear. It could be that some of those cases would have resolved on their own, and so the swiftness with which they reached the required number of cancer cases belies their seriousness. It could also be that the particular people who enrolled in this trial were engaging in behaviors that put them at even higher risk for anal cancer than the population of people living with HIV in the United States.
Or it could be that symptom-based screening is missing a lot of cancers that currently go untreated.
“So perhaps we will be seeing an increase in anal cancer reported in the future compared to the currently reported rates,” he said. “We don’t really know.”
Regardless of the reason for the speed to cases of cancer, the results were definitive: Nine participants were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the treatment arm, while 21 were diagnosed with invasive anal cancer in the control arm. That’s a 57% reduction in cancer occurrence between the arms. Or, to put it another way, the rate of anal cancer among people in the treatment arm was 173 per 100,000 people-years. In the active monitoring arm, it was 402 per 100,000 person-years. For context, the overall rate of anal cancer among people living with HIV is 50 per 100,000 person-years. The rate in the general U.S. population is 8 per 100,000 people-years.
The experimental treatment was such a definitive success that the investigators stopped the trial and shifted all participants in the control arm to treatment.
‘We have to build’
Before Dr. Palefsky was even done presenting the data, clinicians, people living with HIV, and experts at the session were already brainstorming as to how to get these results into practice.
“These data are what we have long needed to fuel some action on this important problem, including medical cost reimbursement through insurance and increasing the number of persons trained and capable in anal cancer screening,” John Brooks, MD, head of the epidemiology research team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention, wrote in the virtual chat.
Jeff Taylor, a member of the ANCHOR advisory board and a person living with HIV who participated in one of the first azidothymidine trials in the late 1980s, responded quickly.
“What kind of advocacy from researchers, HIV clinicians and [people living with HIV] is needed to get this on treatment guidelines, HRA providers trained and certified, and payors to cover this so [people living with HIV] actually have access to lifesaving screening and [treatment]?” Mr. Taylor asked.
It’s a serious challenge. David Malebranche, MD, an Atlanta-based internal medicine physician who specializes in sexual health and HIV, commented in an interview. When he saw the initial press release last year on the ANCHOR findings, his first reaction was: “Thank god. We finally have some data to show what we’ve been trying to get people to do” all along.
But then he wondered, who is going to perform these tests? It’s a fair question. Currently, the wait for an HRA is 6-12 months in many parts of the country. And Dr. Malebranche can’t imagine this being added to his already full plate as a primary care provider.
“If you tell a primary care provider now that they have to do a rectal Pap smear, that’s going to be a problem while you’re also asking them to screen each patient for depression, anxiety, domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, all the healthcare maintenance and all the other screening tests – and then you deal with not only the urgent complaint but then all the complex medical issues on top of that – in a 15-minute or 10-minute visit,” he said.
Now that we have these data, he said, “we have to build.”
Dr. Palefsky agreed. Very few centers have enough people skilled at performing HRAs to meet the current demand, and it’s not realistic to expect clinicians to perform an HRA every 6 months like the study team did. There need to be algorithms put in place to help practitioners figure out who among their patients living with HIV could benefit from this increased screening, as well as biomarkers to identify HSIL progression and regression without the use of HRA, Dr. Palefsky told attendees. And more clinicians need to be recruited and trained to read HRAs, which can be difficult for the untrained eye to decipher.
Dr. Malebranche added another, more fundamental thing that needs to be built. Dr. Malebranche has worked in HIV clinics where the majority of his patients qualify for insurance under the Ryan White Program and get their medications through the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. While Ryan White programs can provide critical wraparound care, Dr. Malebranche has had to refer out for something like an HRA or cancer treatment. But the people who only access care through such programs may not have coverage with the clinics that perform HRA or that treat cancer. And that’s if they can even find someone to see them.
“If I live in a state like Georgia, which doesn’t have Medicaid expansion and we have people who are uninsured, where do you send them?” Dr. Malebranche asked. “This isn’t theoretical. I ran into this problem when I was working at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation last year. ... This is a call for infrastructure.”
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Brooks reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Palefsky has received consultant fees from Merck, Vir Biotechnology, Virion Therapeutics, and Antiva Bioscience, as well as speaker fees from Merck. Dr. Malebranche has received consulting and advising fees from ViiV Healthcare.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CROI 2022
Third transplant patient cured of HIV marks important firsts
that has plagued the world for decades.
But while this case is certainly cause for celebration, experts involved in the effort say we are still a long way from a universal cure.
Researcher Yvonne Bryson, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles, told those attending the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections that this case is special. The patient was a woman living with HIV who is multiracial. The previous two patients were men: one white, one Latinx.
The woman in this case was given transplants of stem cells and umbilical cord blood to treat leukemia. The treatment not only sent her cancer into remission, but her HIV as well.
The success of this case suggests that cord stem cell transplants should be considered to produce remission and cure for those with HIV who also have cancers and other diseases, the researchers said.
While the news was met with excitement in the scientific community, the approach will not be available universally, since the transplants were all done to treat cancers in the three HIV-infected patients. Overall, Dr. Bryson estimates that about 50 people per year may benefit from this procedure.
Even so, other experts say the approach could provide insight into other ways to find cures. And Dr. Bryson says it opens up options for more diverse populations.
“A bone marrow transplant is not a viable large-scale strategy for curing HIV, but it does present a proof of concept that HIV can be cured,” said Sharon Lewin, MD, president-elect of the International AIDS Society. “It also further strengthens using gene therapy as a viable strategy for an HIV cure.”
The woman needed a stem cell transplant after being diagnosed with leukemia. The stem cell transplant technique used was also novel, Dr. Bryson said. The medical team used a combination of adult stem cells from a relative’s blood and umbilical cord blood from a cord-blood bank that had a rare mutation that makes the immune system resistant to HIV.
In the previous two cases of HIV cures after transplants, both patients were treated with stem cell transplants, with the same mutation, but from bone marrow transplants, a more difficult procedure. And no cord blood was used for those.
The combination of adult cells and cord-blood cells proved to be the ticket to success. Using the adult cells provides a kind of bridge that helps until the cord blood takes over, the researchers said. By day 100 after the transplant, Dr. Bryson said, the woman basically had a new immune system.
HIV remained undetectable in T cells and in bone marrow. And 37 months after the transplant, the woman stopped taking the antiretroviral treatment commonly given to treat HIV infection.
‘’She is currently clinically well,” Dr. Bryson said. Her cancer is in remission.
Case histories: Three patients
The woman, who is middle-aged, has requested privacy, asking that neither her age nor other details be released. But the researchers did provide some background on her medical history and her route back to health. She was diagnosed with HIV in 2013 and began treatment with antiretroviral therapy (ART). Four years after her HIV diagnosis, she developed high-risk acute myelogenous leukemia. The transplant was done to treat that.
Her recovery was much less bumpy than that of the previous two patients, the researchers said. She left the hospital 17 days after the transplant. She didn’t have serious complications like the first two, who developed a condition that occurs when donor bone marrow or stem cells attack the recipient.
“This case also suggests that it’s the transplant of HIV-resistant cells that was key to achieving a cure here,” said Dr. Lewin. The first patient who had HIV remission after a stem cell transplant, a White man, stayed in remission for 12 years and was termed cured. But he died of leukemia in September 2020. The other, a Latinx man, has been in remission for more than 30 months.
HIV statistics, ethnic/racial burdens
In the United States, about 1.2 million people have HIV, according to HIV.gov. Thirteen percent of those who have it do not know they have it. In 2019, 34,800 new infections were diagnosed.
Certain ethnic and racial groups are more affected by HIV than others, given their proportions in the U.S. population, federal statistics suggest. In 2019, for instance, African Americans were 13% of the U.S. population but 40% of those with HIV. Hispanics/Latinx represented 18.5% of the total population but 25% of those diagnosed with HIV.
Disparities also affect women unequally, with Black women disproportionately affected, compared to women of other ethnic and racial groups. Annual HIV infections remained stable overall among Black women from 2015 to 2019, but the rate of new HIV infections among Black women is 11 times that of White women and 4 times that of Latinx, according to federal statistics.
Expert perspective, reactions
Vincent Marconi, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, Atlanta, whose research focuses on disparities in HIV treatment responses, called the news “an exciting development for the cure agenda. This is the first woman to have been cured for at least 14 months, and they used cord blood, which could allow for potentially less toxic regimens and fewer adverse effects.”
Although the approach, meant to be used to treat the cancers, will not be widely available, he said that ‘’it does provide insight into somewhat related alternative models of cure involving gene therapy.”
Meanwhile, Dr. Marconi and other researchers are focusing on the concept of long-term HIV remission if a cure is not possible. Among the strategies under study are gene editing and immune-based treatments. HIV remission is generally defined as having an HIV viral load that is not detectable after stopping treatment.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
that has plagued the world for decades.
But while this case is certainly cause for celebration, experts involved in the effort say we are still a long way from a universal cure.
Researcher Yvonne Bryson, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles, told those attending the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections that this case is special. The patient was a woman living with HIV who is multiracial. The previous two patients were men: one white, one Latinx.
The woman in this case was given transplants of stem cells and umbilical cord blood to treat leukemia. The treatment not only sent her cancer into remission, but her HIV as well.
The success of this case suggests that cord stem cell transplants should be considered to produce remission and cure for those with HIV who also have cancers and other diseases, the researchers said.
While the news was met with excitement in the scientific community, the approach will not be available universally, since the transplants were all done to treat cancers in the three HIV-infected patients. Overall, Dr. Bryson estimates that about 50 people per year may benefit from this procedure.
Even so, other experts say the approach could provide insight into other ways to find cures. And Dr. Bryson says it opens up options for more diverse populations.
“A bone marrow transplant is not a viable large-scale strategy for curing HIV, but it does present a proof of concept that HIV can be cured,” said Sharon Lewin, MD, president-elect of the International AIDS Society. “It also further strengthens using gene therapy as a viable strategy for an HIV cure.”
The woman needed a stem cell transplant after being diagnosed with leukemia. The stem cell transplant technique used was also novel, Dr. Bryson said. The medical team used a combination of adult stem cells from a relative’s blood and umbilical cord blood from a cord-blood bank that had a rare mutation that makes the immune system resistant to HIV.
In the previous two cases of HIV cures after transplants, both patients were treated with stem cell transplants, with the same mutation, but from bone marrow transplants, a more difficult procedure. And no cord blood was used for those.
The combination of adult cells and cord-blood cells proved to be the ticket to success. Using the adult cells provides a kind of bridge that helps until the cord blood takes over, the researchers said. By day 100 after the transplant, Dr. Bryson said, the woman basically had a new immune system.
HIV remained undetectable in T cells and in bone marrow. And 37 months after the transplant, the woman stopped taking the antiretroviral treatment commonly given to treat HIV infection.
‘’She is currently clinically well,” Dr. Bryson said. Her cancer is in remission.
Case histories: Three patients
The woman, who is middle-aged, has requested privacy, asking that neither her age nor other details be released. But the researchers did provide some background on her medical history and her route back to health. She was diagnosed with HIV in 2013 and began treatment with antiretroviral therapy (ART). Four years after her HIV diagnosis, she developed high-risk acute myelogenous leukemia. The transplant was done to treat that.
Her recovery was much less bumpy than that of the previous two patients, the researchers said. She left the hospital 17 days after the transplant. She didn’t have serious complications like the first two, who developed a condition that occurs when donor bone marrow or stem cells attack the recipient.
“This case also suggests that it’s the transplant of HIV-resistant cells that was key to achieving a cure here,” said Dr. Lewin. The first patient who had HIV remission after a stem cell transplant, a White man, stayed in remission for 12 years and was termed cured. But he died of leukemia in September 2020. The other, a Latinx man, has been in remission for more than 30 months.
HIV statistics, ethnic/racial burdens
In the United States, about 1.2 million people have HIV, according to HIV.gov. Thirteen percent of those who have it do not know they have it. In 2019, 34,800 new infections were diagnosed.
Certain ethnic and racial groups are more affected by HIV than others, given their proportions in the U.S. population, federal statistics suggest. In 2019, for instance, African Americans were 13% of the U.S. population but 40% of those with HIV. Hispanics/Latinx represented 18.5% of the total population but 25% of those diagnosed with HIV.
Disparities also affect women unequally, with Black women disproportionately affected, compared to women of other ethnic and racial groups. Annual HIV infections remained stable overall among Black women from 2015 to 2019, but the rate of new HIV infections among Black women is 11 times that of White women and 4 times that of Latinx, according to federal statistics.
Expert perspective, reactions
Vincent Marconi, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, Atlanta, whose research focuses on disparities in HIV treatment responses, called the news “an exciting development for the cure agenda. This is the first woman to have been cured for at least 14 months, and they used cord blood, which could allow for potentially less toxic regimens and fewer adverse effects.”
Although the approach, meant to be used to treat the cancers, will not be widely available, he said that ‘’it does provide insight into somewhat related alternative models of cure involving gene therapy.”
Meanwhile, Dr. Marconi and other researchers are focusing on the concept of long-term HIV remission if a cure is not possible. Among the strategies under study are gene editing and immune-based treatments. HIV remission is generally defined as having an HIV viral load that is not detectable after stopping treatment.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
that has plagued the world for decades.
But while this case is certainly cause for celebration, experts involved in the effort say we are still a long way from a universal cure.
Researcher Yvonne Bryson, MD, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles, told those attending the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections that this case is special. The patient was a woman living with HIV who is multiracial. The previous two patients were men: one white, one Latinx.
The woman in this case was given transplants of stem cells and umbilical cord blood to treat leukemia. The treatment not only sent her cancer into remission, but her HIV as well.
The success of this case suggests that cord stem cell transplants should be considered to produce remission and cure for those with HIV who also have cancers and other diseases, the researchers said.
While the news was met with excitement in the scientific community, the approach will not be available universally, since the transplants were all done to treat cancers in the three HIV-infected patients. Overall, Dr. Bryson estimates that about 50 people per year may benefit from this procedure.
Even so, other experts say the approach could provide insight into other ways to find cures. And Dr. Bryson says it opens up options for more diverse populations.
“A bone marrow transplant is not a viable large-scale strategy for curing HIV, but it does present a proof of concept that HIV can be cured,” said Sharon Lewin, MD, president-elect of the International AIDS Society. “It also further strengthens using gene therapy as a viable strategy for an HIV cure.”
The woman needed a stem cell transplant after being diagnosed with leukemia. The stem cell transplant technique used was also novel, Dr. Bryson said. The medical team used a combination of adult stem cells from a relative’s blood and umbilical cord blood from a cord-blood bank that had a rare mutation that makes the immune system resistant to HIV.
In the previous two cases of HIV cures after transplants, both patients were treated with stem cell transplants, with the same mutation, but from bone marrow transplants, a more difficult procedure. And no cord blood was used for those.
The combination of adult cells and cord-blood cells proved to be the ticket to success. Using the adult cells provides a kind of bridge that helps until the cord blood takes over, the researchers said. By day 100 after the transplant, Dr. Bryson said, the woman basically had a new immune system.
HIV remained undetectable in T cells and in bone marrow. And 37 months after the transplant, the woman stopped taking the antiretroviral treatment commonly given to treat HIV infection.
‘’She is currently clinically well,” Dr. Bryson said. Her cancer is in remission.
Case histories: Three patients
The woman, who is middle-aged, has requested privacy, asking that neither her age nor other details be released. But the researchers did provide some background on her medical history and her route back to health. She was diagnosed with HIV in 2013 and began treatment with antiretroviral therapy (ART). Four years after her HIV diagnosis, she developed high-risk acute myelogenous leukemia. The transplant was done to treat that.
Her recovery was much less bumpy than that of the previous two patients, the researchers said. She left the hospital 17 days after the transplant. She didn’t have serious complications like the first two, who developed a condition that occurs when donor bone marrow or stem cells attack the recipient.
“This case also suggests that it’s the transplant of HIV-resistant cells that was key to achieving a cure here,” said Dr. Lewin. The first patient who had HIV remission after a stem cell transplant, a White man, stayed in remission for 12 years and was termed cured. But he died of leukemia in September 2020. The other, a Latinx man, has been in remission for more than 30 months.
HIV statistics, ethnic/racial burdens
In the United States, about 1.2 million people have HIV, according to HIV.gov. Thirteen percent of those who have it do not know they have it. In 2019, 34,800 new infections were diagnosed.
Certain ethnic and racial groups are more affected by HIV than others, given their proportions in the U.S. population, federal statistics suggest. In 2019, for instance, African Americans were 13% of the U.S. population but 40% of those with HIV. Hispanics/Latinx represented 18.5% of the total population but 25% of those diagnosed with HIV.
Disparities also affect women unequally, with Black women disproportionately affected, compared to women of other ethnic and racial groups. Annual HIV infections remained stable overall among Black women from 2015 to 2019, but the rate of new HIV infections among Black women is 11 times that of White women and 4 times that of Latinx, according to federal statistics.
Expert perspective, reactions
Vincent Marconi, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Emory University, Atlanta, whose research focuses on disparities in HIV treatment responses, called the news “an exciting development for the cure agenda. This is the first woman to have been cured for at least 14 months, and they used cord blood, which could allow for potentially less toxic regimens and fewer adverse effects.”
Although the approach, meant to be used to treat the cancers, will not be widely available, he said that ‘’it does provide insight into somewhat related alternative models of cure involving gene therapy.”
Meanwhile, Dr. Marconi and other researchers are focusing on the concept of long-term HIV remission if a cure is not possible. Among the strategies under study are gene editing and immune-based treatments. HIV remission is generally defined as having an HIV viral load that is not detectable after stopping treatment.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM CROI 22
DOACs comparable to warfarin in CVT
and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.
The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.
“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.
But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.
Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.
Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.
She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.
A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.
A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.
As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.
The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.
The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.
The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.
The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.
The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.
Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.
Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.
When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).
But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).
When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
Similar efficacy, better safety
Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”
Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”
“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”
In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”
They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”
They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”
The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.
The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.
The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.
“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.
But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.
Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.
Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.
She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.
A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.
A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.
As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.
The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.
The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.
The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.
The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.
The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.
Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.
Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.
When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).
But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).
When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
Similar efficacy, better safety
Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”
Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”
“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”
In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”
They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”
They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”
The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.
The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.
The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.
“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.
But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.
Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.
Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.
She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.
A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.
A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.
As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.
The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.
The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.
The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.
The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.
The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.
Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.
Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.
When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).
But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).
When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
Similar efficacy, better safety
Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”
Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”
“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”
In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”
They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”
They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”
The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.
The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From ISC 2022
Long COVID is real and consists of these conditions – or does it?
Loss of smell. Fatigue. Mental health challenges. Difficulty breathing and other lower respiratory diseases. Fluid and electrolyte disorders. Cardiac dysrhythmia and other nonspecific chest pains. Trouble with urination. Diabetes?
Statistically, . The data, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, can be used to guide diagnoses of long COVID, and may be the guide soon at Kaiser Permanente offices, Michael Horberg, MD, executive director of research, community benefit, and Medicaid strategy at the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute, said in an interview.
“There are some real conditions you could ask about” if you were evaluating a patient who believes they have PASC, Dr. Horberg said. “And there are real conditions that are symptoms patients have but they don’t fit the PASC diagnosis.”
That list is likely to evolve as specific symptoms emerge with new variants, he said. And there’s also the nationwide Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) trial being conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Horberg is withholding judgment on diabetes, though, until more data come in.
During the global pandemic, Dr. Horberg, an HIV physician by training, found himself writing policies and guidelines for Kaiser’s Mid-Atlantic States (KPMAS) COVID response. Not long after that, the reports of symptoms that have come to be called long COVID started to come in. But they were “a mishmash of things” – everything from binge eating to the skin condition vitiligo to cranial nerve impairment, along with the more common complaints like fever, insomnia, and shortness of breath.
So Dr. Horberg looked back through KPMAS patient charts and found 28,118 members who had received a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result in 2020. Then he matched them 3:1 with 70,293 members who didn’t have a positive PCR. The majority were women, nearly half were younger than 50, more than 40% were Black, and 24.5% were Latinx. The majority met clinical definitions of overweight or obese and many had other chronic illnesses, including diabetes (18.7% in the COVID-positive group), chronic kidney disease (3%) and cancer (2.6%). Rates of chronic illnesses were similar between arms.
Then they went back to 4 years before each positive PCR test and looked for all the illnesses before COVID, all those that emerged within 30 days of COVID diagnosis and those illnesses that emerged between 1 and 3 months after diagnosis.
From that search, they found 15 symptoms that were more common among people who’d had COVID. In addition to the symptoms listed above, those included abdominal pain, other nervous system disorders, dizziness or vertigo, and nausea and vomiting. Then they looked at whether each patient had experienced those symptoms in the 4 years before COVID to see if they were, in fact, new diagnoses.
More than 1 in 10
About one in four people who’d had COVID reported symptoms they thought might be long COVID, but through the analysis, they found that only 13% actually developed new conditions that could be categorized as long COVID.
“When you start controlling for all those chronic conditions, a lot of symptoms fall out,” Dr. Horberg told this news organization. “Plus, when you start comparing to the COVID-negative population, especially in the first 30 days of your positive diagnosis, actually, the COVID-negative patients have essentially almost the same amount, sometimes more.”
For instance, in the first month after diagnosis, though people with COVID reported anxiety symptoms after their diagnoses, people who’d never had COVID were coming in even more often with that symptom. And although gastrointestinal disorders were common in people who’d had COVID, they were just as likely in people who had not. Nausea and vomiting were actually 19% more common in people without COVID than in those with it. And people without COVID were nearly twice as likely to develop nutritional and endocrine disorders.
In the longer run, people who’d had COVID were 25% more likely to develop dysrhythmias, 20% more likely to develop diabetes, 60% more likely to develop fatigue, 21% more likely to develop genitourinary conditions, 39% more likely to develop chest pains, and a full 3.88 times more likely to develop trouble with olfaction.
And although people who’d had COVID were numerically 5% more likely to develop both abdominal pain and vertigo, 4% more likely to develop nervous system disorders, and 1% more likely to develop anxiety disorders longer term, none of those reached statistical significance.
The only diagnosis that doesn’t make sense to Dr. Horberg is diabetes.
“At this point I don’t think it’s been fully explained,” Dr. Horberg said. “I don’t think COVID is affecting the pancreas. But I do think that these are people who probably sought medical care, who hadn’t been seeking medical care and that the findings of diabetes were incidental diagnoses.”
Still, Dr. Horberg isn’t saying never on that. “As they say, more research is needed,” he added.
Ready to define long COVID?
As an intensive care unit physician and pulmonologist, Michael Risbano, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, has seen a lot of COVID. As the co-manager of the medical system’s post-COVID clinic, he’s also seen a lot of people coming in for help with what could be long COVID. When he saw the data from Dr. Horberg’s presentation, at first it seemed to confirm what he’d already known. But then he looked further.
“Well, this is actually making sense,” Dr. Risbano thought. At his clinic, it’s been an ongoing challenge to tease out what symptoms existed before COVID. Unlike Kaiser, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is not a closed system.
“We know some people who tend to get sick [with COVID] have some underlying medical issues already,” Dr. Risbano said in an interview. “But we don’t always have a good baseline as to what they were like beforehand, so we don’t always know what’s changed.”
He said the study design here, though retrospective and based on chart review rather than prospective observation, starts to put symptoms into the larger context of a patient’s life. And the diabetes association really stood out to him. He recalled one patient who, when she was admitted to the ICU, had a hemoglobin A1c that was totally normal. But when that patient returned a few months later, her blood sugar had skyrocketed.
“It was sky-high, like 13, and she was in diabetic ketoacidosis,” he said. “I know that’s an N of 1, but my wife is a dietitian and a case manager, and she’s having a lot of people coming in with a new diagnosis of diabetes.”
Still, he said he’s not sure that the conditions the study identified should be the basis for a definition of long COVID.
“I don’t know if you can come up with a definition out of this,” he said. “But I think this is at least helpful in telling us what disease states are different pre- and post-COVID, and what sorts of diagnoses clinicians should look for when a patient comes in after having a COVID diagnosis.”
Dr. Horberg and Dr. Risbano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Loss of smell. Fatigue. Mental health challenges. Difficulty breathing and other lower respiratory diseases. Fluid and electrolyte disorders. Cardiac dysrhythmia and other nonspecific chest pains. Trouble with urination. Diabetes?
Statistically, . The data, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, can be used to guide diagnoses of long COVID, and may be the guide soon at Kaiser Permanente offices, Michael Horberg, MD, executive director of research, community benefit, and Medicaid strategy at the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute, said in an interview.
“There are some real conditions you could ask about” if you were evaluating a patient who believes they have PASC, Dr. Horberg said. “And there are real conditions that are symptoms patients have but they don’t fit the PASC diagnosis.”
That list is likely to evolve as specific symptoms emerge with new variants, he said. And there’s also the nationwide Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) trial being conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Horberg is withholding judgment on diabetes, though, until more data come in.
During the global pandemic, Dr. Horberg, an HIV physician by training, found himself writing policies and guidelines for Kaiser’s Mid-Atlantic States (KPMAS) COVID response. Not long after that, the reports of symptoms that have come to be called long COVID started to come in. But they were “a mishmash of things” – everything from binge eating to the skin condition vitiligo to cranial nerve impairment, along with the more common complaints like fever, insomnia, and shortness of breath.
So Dr. Horberg looked back through KPMAS patient charts and found 28,118 members who had received a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result in 2020. Then he matched them 3:1 with 70,293 members who didn’t have a positive PCR. The majority were women, nearly half were younger than 50, more than 40% were Black, and 24.5% were Latinx. The majority met clinical definitions of overweight or obese and many had other chronic illnesses, including diabetes (18.7% in the COVID-positive group), chronic kidney disease (3%) and cancer (2.6%). Rates of chronic illnesses were similar between arms.
Then they went back to 4 years before each positive PCR test and looked for all the illnesses before COVID, all those that emerged within 30 days of COVID diagnosis and those illnesses that emerged between 1 and 3 months after diagnosis.
From that search, they found 15 symptoms that were more common among people who’d had COVID. In addition to the symptoms listed above, those included abdominal pain, other nervous system disorders, dizziness or vertigo, and nausea and vomiting. Then they looked at whether each patient had experienced those symptoms in the 4 years before COVID to see if they were, in fact, new diagnoses.
More than 1 in 10
About one in four people who’d had COVID reported symptoms they thought might be long COVID, but through the analysis, they found that only 13% actually developed new conditions that could be categorized as long COVID.
“When you start controlling for all those chronic conditions, a lot of symptoms fall out,” Dr. Horberg told this news organization. “Plus, when you start comparing to the COVID-negative population, especially in the first 30 days of your positive diagnosis, actually, the COVID-negative patients have essentially almost the same amount, sometimes more.”
For instance, in the first month after diagnosis, though people with COVID reported anxiety symptoms after their diagnoses, people who’d never had COVID were coming in even more often with that symptom. And although gastrointestinal disorders were common in people who’d had COVID, they were just as likely in people who had not. Nausea and vomiting were actually 19% more common in people without COVID than in those with it. And people without COVID were nearly twice as likely to develop nutritional and endocrine disorders.
In the longer run, people who’d had COVID were 25% more likely to develop dysrhythmias, 20% more likely to develop diabetes, 60% more likely to develop fatigue, 21% more likely to develop genitourinary conditions, 39% more likely to develop chest pains, and a full 3.88 times more likely to develop trouble with olfaction.
And although people who’d had COVID were numerically 5% more likely to develop both abdominal pain and vertigo, 4% more likely to develop nervous system disorders, and 1% more likely to develop anxiety disorders longer term, none of those reached statistical significance.
The only diagnosis that doesn’t make sense to Dr. Horberg is diabetes.
“At this point I don’t think it’s been fully explained,” Dr. Horberg said. “I don’t think COVID is affecting the pancreas. But I do think that these are people who probably sought medical care, who hadn’t been seeking medical care and that the findings of diabetes were incidental diagnoses.”
Still, Dr. Horberg isn’t saying never on that. “As they say, more research is needed,” he added.
Ready to define long COVID?
As an intensive care unit physician and pulmonologist, Michael Risbano, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, has seen a lot of COVID. As the co-manager of the medical system’s post-COVID clinic, he’s also seen a lot of people coming in for help with what could be long COVID. When he saw the data from Dr. Horberg’s presentation, at first it seemed to confirm what he’d already known. But then he looked further.
“Well, this is actually making sense,” Dr. Risbano thought. At his clinic, it’s been an ongoing challenge to tease out what symptoms existed before COVID. Unlike Kaiser, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is not a closed system.
“We know some people who tend to get sick [with COVID] have some underlying medical issues already,” Dr. Risbano said in an interview. “But we don’t always have a good baseline as to what they were like beforehand, so we don’t always know what’s changed.”
He said the study design here, though retrospective and based on chart review rather than prospective observation, starts to put symptoms into the larger context of a patient’s life. And the diabetes association really stood out to him. He recalled one patient who, when she was admitted to the ICU, had a hemoglobin A1c that was totally normal. But when that patient returned a few months later, her blood sugar had skyrocketed.
“It was sky-high, like 13, and she was in diabetic ketoacidosis,” he said. “I know that’s an N of 1, but my wife is a dietitian and a case manager, and she’s having a lot of people coming in with a new diagnosis of diabetes.”
Still, he said he’s not sure that the conditions the study identified should be the basis for a definition of long COVID.
“I don’t know if you can come up with a definition out of this,” he said. “But I think this is at least helpful in telling us what disease states are different pre- and post-COVID, and what sorts of diagnoses clinicians should look for when a patient comes in after having a COVID diagnosis.”
Dr. Horberg and Dr. Risbano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Loss of smell. Fatigue. Mental health challenges. Difficulty breathing and other lower respiratory diseases. Fluid and electrolyte disorders. Cardiac dysrhythmia and other nonspecific chest pains. Trouble with urination. Diabetes?
Statistically, . The data, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, can be used to guide diagnoses of long COVID, and may be the guide soon at Kaiser Permanente offices, Michael Horberg, MD, executive director of research, community benefit, and Medicaid strategy at the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute, said in an interview.
“There are some real conditions you could ask about” if you were evaluating a patient who believes they have PASC, Dr. Horberg said. “And there are real conditions that are symptoms patients have but they don’t fit the PASC diagnosis.”
That list is likely to evolve as specific symptoms emerge with new variants, he said. And there’s also the nationwide Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) trial being conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Horberg is withholding judgment on diabetes, though, until more data come in.
During the global pandemic, Dr. Horberg, an HIV physician by training, found himself writing policies and guidelines for Kaiser’s Mid-Atlantic States (KPMAS) COVID response. Not long after that, the reports of symptoms that have come to be called long COVID started to come in. But they were “a mishmash of things” – everything from binge eating to the skin condition vitiligo to cranial nerve impairment, along with the more common complaints like fever, insomnia, and shortness of breath.
So Dr. Horberg looked back through KPMAS patient charts and found 28,118 members who had received a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result in 2020. Then he matched them 3:1 with 70,293 members who didn’t have a positive PCR. The majority were women, nearly half were younger than 50, more than 40% were Black, and 24.5% were Latinx. The majority met clinical definitions of overweight or obese and many had other chronic illnesses, including diabetes (18.7% in the COVID-positive group), chronic kidney disease (3%) and cancer (2.6%). Rates of chronic illnesses were similar between arms.
Then they went back to 4 years before each positive PCR test and looked for all the illnesses before COVID, all those that emerged within 30 days of COVID diagnosis and those illnesses that emerged between 1 and 3 months after diagnosis.
From that search, they found 15 symptoms that were more common among people who’d had COVID. In addition to the symptoms listed above, those included abdominal pain, other nervous system disorders, dizziness or vertigo, and nausea and vomiting. Then they looked at whether each patient had experienced those symptoms in the 4 years before COVID to see if they were, in fact, new diagnoses.
More than 1 in 10
About one in four people who’d had COVID reported symptoms they thought might be long COVID, but through the analysis, they found that only 13% actually developed new conditions that could be categorized as long COVID.
“When you start controlling for all those chronic conditions, a lot of symptoms fall out,” Dr. Horberg told this news organization. “Plus, when you start comparing to the COVID-negative population, especially in the first 30 days of your positive diagnosis, actually, the COVID-negative patients have essentially almost the same amount, sometimes more.”
For instance, in the first month after diagnosis, though people with COVID reported anxiety symptoms after their diagnoses, people who’d never had COVID were coming in even more often with that symptom. And although gastrointestinal disorders were common in people who’d had COVID, they were just as likely in people who had not. Nausea and vomiting were actually 19% more common in people without COVID than in those with it. And people without COVID were nearly twice as likely to develop nutritional and endocrine disorders.
In the longer run, people who’d had COVID were 25% more likely to develop dysrhythmias, 20% more likely to develop diabetes, 60% more likely to develop fatigue, 21% more likely to develop genitourinary conditions, 39% more likely to develop chest pains, and a full 3.88 times more likely to develop trouble with olfaction.
And although people who’d had COVID were numerically 5% more likely to develop both abdominal pain and vertigo, 4% more likely to develop nervous system disorders, and 1% more likely to develop anxiety disorders longer term, none of those reached statistical significance.
The only diagnosis that doesn’t make sense to Dr. Horberg is diabetes.
“At this point I don’t think it’s been fully explained,” Dr. Horberg said. “I don’t think COVID is affecting the pancreas. But I do think that these are people who probably sought medical care, who hadn’t been seeking medical care and that the findings of diabetes were incidental diagnoses.”
Still, Dr. Horberg isn’t saying never on that. “As they say, more research is needed,” he added.
Ready to define long COVID?
As an intensive care unit physician and pulmonologist, Michael Risbano, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, has seen a lot of COVID. As the co-manager of the medical system’s post-COVID clinic, he’s also seen a lot of people coming in for help with what could be long COVID. When he saw the data from Dr. Horberg’s presentation, at first it seemed to confirm what he’d already known. But then he looked further.
“Well, this is actually making sense,” Dr. Risbano thought. At his clinic, it’s been an ongoing challenge to tease out what symptoms existed before COVID. Unlike Kaiser, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is not a closed system.
“We know some people who tend to get sick [with COVID] have some underlying medical issues already,” Dr. Risbano said in an interview. “But we don’t always have a good baseline as to what they were like beforehand, so we don’t always know what’s changed.”
He said the study design here, though retrospective and based on chart review rather than prospective observation, starts to put symptoms into the larger context of a patient’s life. And the diabetes association really stood out to him. He recalled one patient who, when she was admitted to the ICU, had a hemoglobin A1c that was totally normal. But when that patient returned a few months later, her blood sugar had skyrocketed.
“It was sky-high, like 13, and she was in diabetic ketoacidosis,” he said. “I know that’s an N of 1, but my wife is a dietitian and a case manager, and she’s having a lot of people coming in with a new diagnosis of diabetes.”
Still, he said he’s not sure that the conditions the study identified should be the basis for a definition of long COVID.
“I don’t know if you can come up with a definition out of this,” he said. “But I think this is at least helpful in telling us what disease states are different pre- and post-COVID, and what sorts of diagnoses clinicians should look for when a patient comes in after having a COVID diagnosis.”
Dr. Horberg and Dr. Risbano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CROI 2022
Group prenatal care had mixed effect on preterm birth disparities
Group prenatal care did not reduce preterm birth among low-income patients compared to patients receiving individual prenatal care, but the different care models did shrink racial disparities in low-birth-weight and preterm births, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Patients who attended more group prenatal care visits also had better outcomes, reported Amy Crockett, MD, professor of ob.gyn. and director of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellowship Program at the University of South Carolina in Greenville.
Though the results did not show group prenatal care to be the “silver bullet” they might have hoped for in reducing preterm birth and low birth weight among Black women, the study did show group prenatal care to have some clinical effect, Dr. Crockett suggested.
Ilina Pluym, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, said that preterm birth and low birth weight are complex problems that cannot be solved by a single fix.
“In terms of the racial disparities, it is difficult to prove that 9 months of good access to prenatal care will undo the years of limited health care and life stressors that, as a whole, possibly contribute more to the overall risk profile of the patient,” Dr. Pluym said. “But as providers, we want to intervene and help in the portion that we can, and optimizing prenatal care is one tangible thing we can try.”
The racial disparities that exist in preterm birth, low birth weight, and infant and maternal mortality are not caused by biologic or genetic factors, Dr. Crockett told attendees.
”Rather, they are the result of long-standing systemic racism and discrimination deeply embedded in the culture of the United States,” she said. “To achieve racial equity, we need reform at the societal level.” But she noted that it might be possible for individual practices to play a role as well, which led her to design a study comparing outcomes from group versus individual prenatal care.
The group care model used for the study is called Centering Pregnancy, in which 8-10 pregnant patients who are due in the same month attend 10 two-hour prenatal care sessions together. Dr. Crockett noted that other research has identified potential reductions in preterm birth with group care models, but some are underpowered while others are observational and limited by confounding, selection bias, or small sample sizes.
The researchers aimed to recruit 3,160 patients to ensure an adequately powered study after estimated losses to follow-up, but they were able to recruit only 2,350 patients, resulting in potentially underpowered results. All the patients were receiving care at a single obstetric practice for a medically low-risk singleton pregnancy of 20 or fewer weeks gestation. A total of 1,176 patients were randomly assigned to attend group prenatal care appointments, and 1,174 patients were assigned to individual prenatal care.
The patients in both groups were an average age of 25 with a prepregnancy body mass index of 29. A similar proportion in both the group and individual care were married (24%) patients and had a government payer (96%-97%). Approximately 41%were Black patients, 37% were White patients, and 21% were Hispanic patients in both groups. Rates of chronic hypertension, smoking, vaginal infection in pregnancy, parity, cervix length, and use of cerclage were similar in both groups.
Gestational age outcomes were available for 1,099 group care patients (94%) and 1,120 individual care patients (95%), and birth weight outcomes were available for 1,028 group care patients (87%) and 1,044 individual care patients (89%).
In the individual care group, 8.7% of the patients had a preterm birth, compared to 10.4% who attended group prenatal care, but the findings did not reach significance (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.63). The difference between the 9.6% of group care patients and 8.9% of individual care patients who had babies with low birth weights were not significantly different.
While no significant difference in preterm birth occurred between the groups, the secondary outcome looking at racial disparities yielded one statistically significant result. Black women receiving individual prenatal care were twice as likely as were White women to have an infant with a low birth weight (OR, 2.1; 95% CI: 1.29-3.5). Among those receiving group care, however, the 12.5% of Black women and 8.9% of White women whose infants had a low birth weight were not significantly different.
There was a trend toward narrower disparities in preterm birth in the group versus individual care groups. Among those receiving group care, 11.4% of Black women and 10.8% of White women had a preterm birth, compared to 10.2% of Black women and 7.7% of White women in the individual care group.
Then the researchers compared the groups with regard to compliance while adjusting for baseline differences. “We saw decreasing rates of preterm birth for Black patients relative to White patients, particularly after attending five or more sessions in the group care arm with the rates of preterm birth narrowing and the disparity becoming nonsignificant with more exposure to group care,” Dr. Crockett said. “In individual care, the rate of preterm birth remained the highest for Black women regardless of the number of visits attended.”
The idea of trying group prenatal care is appealing, Dr. Pluym said in an interview, though both models have their advantages.
”The strength of individual care is the focus on the patient exam and individual patient questions,” Dr. Pluym said. “The strengths of group prenatal care are the consolidation of the patient education aspect of prenatal care that is uniform for all patients, the sense of community patients feel, and the opportunity to hear other patients questions that you may not have thought of. It sounds like, anecdotally, patients and providers really found the group sessions valuable and they helped dampen implicit bias and build relationships.”
One potential limitation of this randomized controlled trial is that the providers were the same for both group and individual care, potentially causing some confounding, Dr. Pluym noted. But the study does have one clear clinical message, she said.
“My take away is more prenatal care is better – individual or group,” Dr. Pluym said. “Every clinic should evaluate their own structure and see if group care would be feasible for their patient population. There may be a benefit globally, but is it is not the ‘silver bullet,’ as they said, for lowering preterm birth or growth restriction.”
The research was funded by the Institute of Child Health and Development. The study researchers and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.
Group prenatal care did not reduce preterm birth among low-income patients compared to patients receiving individual prenatal care, but the different care models did shrink racial disparities in low-birth-weight and preterm births, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Patients who attended more group prenatal care visits also had better outcomes, reported Amy Crockett, MD, professor of ob.gyn. and director of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellowship Program at the University of South Carolina in Greenville.
Though the results did not show group prenatal care to be the “silver bullet” they might have hoped for in reducing preterm birth and low birth weight among Black women, the study did show group prenatal care to have some clinical effect, Dr. Crockett suggested.
Ilina Pluym, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, said that preterm birth and low birth weight are complex problems that cannot be solved by a single fix.
“In terms of the racial disparities, it is difficult to prove that 9 months of good access to prenatal care will undo the years of limited health care and life stressors that, as a whole, possibly contribute more to the overall risk profile of the patient,” Dr. Pluym said. “But as providers, we want to intervene and help in the portion that we can, and optimizing prenatal care is one tangible thing we can try.”
The racial disparities that exist in preterm birth, low birth weight, and infant and maternal mortality are not caused by biologic or genetic factors, Dr. Crockett told attendees.
”Rather, they are the result of long-standing systemic racism and discrimination deeply embedded in the culture of the United States,” she said. “To achieve racial equity, we need reform at the societal level.” But she noted that it might be possible for individual practices to play a role as well, which led her to design a study comparing outcomes from group versus individual prenatal care.
The group care model used for the study is called Centering Pregnancy, in which 8-10 pregnant patients who are due in the same month attend 10 two-hour prenatal care sessions together. Dr. Crockett noted that other research has identified potential reductions in preterm birth with group care models, but some are underpowered while others are observational and limited by confounding, selection bias, or small sample sizes.
The researchers aimed to recruit 3,160 patients to ensure an adequately powered study after estimated losses to follow-up, but they were able to recruit only 2,350 patients, resulting in potentially underpowered results. All the patients were receiving care at a single obstetric practice for a medically low-risk singleton pregnancy of 20 or fewer weeks gestation. A total of 1,176 patients were randomly assigned to attend group prenatal care appointments, and 1,174 patients were assigned to individual prenatal care.
The patients in both groups were an average age of 25 with a prepregnancy body mass index of 29. A similar proportion in both the group and individual care were married (24%) patients and had a government payer (96%-97%). Approximately 41%were Black patients, 37% were White patients, and 21% were Hispanic patients in both groups. Rates of chronic hypertension, smoking, vaginal infection in pregnancy, parity, cervix length, and use of cerclage were similar in both groups.
Gestational age outcomes were available for 1,099 group care patients (94%) and 1,120 individual care patients (95%), and birth weight outcomes were available for 1,028 group care patients (87%) and 1,044 individual care patients (89%).
In the individual care group, 8.7% of the patients had a preterm birth, compared to 10.4% who attended group prenatal care, but the findings did not reach significance (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.63). The difference between the 9.6% of group care patients and 8.9% of individual care patients who had babies with low birth weights were not significantly different.
While no significant difference in preterm birth occurred between the groups, the secondary outcome looking at racial disparities yielded one statistically significant result. Black women receiving individual prenatal care were twice as likely as were White women to have an infant with a low birth weight (OR, 2.1; 95% CI: 1.29-3.5). Among those receiving group care, however, the 12.5% of Black women and 8.9% of White women whose infants had a low birth weight were not significantly different.
There was a trend toward narrower disparities in preterm birth in the group versus individual care groups. Among those receiving group care, 11.4% of Black women and 10.8% of White women had a preterm birth, compared to 10.2% of Black women and 7.7% of White women in the individual care group.
Then the researchers compared the groups with regard to compliance while adjusting for baseline differences. “We saw decreasing rates of preterm birth for Black patients relative to White patients, particularly after attending five or more sessions in the group care arm with the rates of preterm birth narrowing and the disparity becoming nonsignificant with more exposure to group care,” Dr. Crockett said. “In individual care, the rate of preterm birth remained the highest for Black women regardless of the number of visits attended.”
The idea of trying group prenatal care is appealing, Dr. Pluym said in an interview, though both models have their advantages.
”The strength of individual care is the focus on the patient exam and individual patient questions,” Dr. Pluym said. “The strengths of group prenatal care are the consolidation of the patient education aspect of prenatal care that is uniform for all patients, the sense of community patients feel, and the opportunity to hear other patients questions that you may not have thought of. It sounds like, anecdotally, patients and providers really found the group sessions valuable and they helped dampen implicit bias and build relationships.”
One potential limitation of this randomized controlled trial is that the providers were the same for both group and individual care, potentially causing some confounding, Dr. Pluym noted. But the study does have one clear clinical message, she said.
“My take away is more prenatal care is better – individual or group,” Dr. Pluym said. “Every clinic should evaluate their own structure and see if group care would be feasible for their patient population. There may be a benefit globally, but is it is not the ‘silver bullet,’ as they said, for lowering preterm birth or growth restriction.”
The research was funded by the Institute of Child Health and Development. The study researchers and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.
Group prenatal care did not reduce preterm birth among low-income patients compared to patients receiving individual prenatal care, but the different care models did shrink racial disparities in low-birth-weight and preterm births, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Patients who attended more group prenatal care visits also had better outcomes, reported Amy Crockett, MD, professor of ob.gyn. and director of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellowship Program at the University of South Carolina in Greenville.
Though the results did not show group prenatal care to be the “silver bullet” they might have hoped for in reducing preterm birth and low birth weight among Black women, the study did show group prenatal care to have some clinical effect, Dr. Crockett suggested.
Ilina Pluym, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, said that preterm birth and low birth weight are complex problems that cannot be solved by a single fix.
“In terms of the racial disparities, it is difficult to prove that 9 months of good access to prenatal care will undo the years of limited health care and life stressors that, as a whole, possibly contribute more to the overall risk profile of the patient,” Dr. Pluym said. “But as providers, we want to intervene and help in the portion that we can, and optimizing prenatal care is one tangible thing we can try.”
The racial disparities that exist in preterm birth, low birth weight, and infant and maternal mortality are not caused by biologic or genetic factors, Dr. Crockett told attendees.
”Rather, they are the result of long-standing systemic racism and discrimination deeply embedded in the culture of the United States,” she said. “To achieve racial equity, we need reform at the societal level.” But she noted that it might be possible for individual practices to play a role as well, which led her to design a study comparing outcomes from group versus individual prenatal care.
The group care model used for the study is called Centering Pregnancy, in which 8-10 pregnant patients who are due in the same month attend 10 two-hour prenatal care sessions together. Dr. Crockett noted that other research has identified potential reductions in preterm birth with group care models, but some are underpowered while others are observational and limited by confounding, selection bias, or small sample sizes.
The researchers aimed to recruit 3,160 patients to ensure an adequately powered study after estimated losses to follow-up, but they were able to recruit only 2,350 patients, resulting in potentially underpowered results. All the patients were receiving care at a single obstetric practice for a medically low-risk singleton pregnancy of 20 or fewer weeks gestation. A total of 1,176 patients were randomly assigned to attend group prenatal care appointments, and 1,174 patients were assigned to individual prenatal care.
The patients in both groups were an average age of 25 with a prepregnancy body mass index of 29. A similar proportion in both the group and individual care were married (24%) patients and had a government payer (96%-97%). Approximately 41%were Black patients, 37% were White patients, and 21% were Hispanic patients in both groups. Rates of chronic hypertension, smoking, vaginal infection in pregnancy, parity, cervix length, and use of cerclage were similar in both groups.
Gestational age outcomes were available for 1,099 group care patients (94%) and 1,120 individual care patients (95%), and birth weight outcomes were available for 1,028 group care patients (87%) and 1,044 individual care patients (89%).
In the individual care group, 8.7% of the patients had a preterm birth, compared to 10.4% who attended group prenatal care, but the findings did not reach significance (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.63). The difference between the 9.6% of group care patients and 8.9% of individual care patients who had babies with low birth weights were not significantly different.
While no significant difference in preterm birth occurred between the groups, the secondary outcome looking at racial disparities yielded one statistically significant result. Black women receiving individual prenatal care were twice as likely as were White women to have an infant with a low birth weight (OR, 2.1; 95% CI: 1.29-3.5). Among those receiving group care, however, the 12.5% of Black women and 8.9% of White women whose infants had a low birth weight were not significantly different.
There was a trend toward narrower disparities in preterm birth in the group versus individual care groups. Among those receiving group care, 11.4% of Black women and 10.8% of White women had a preterm birth, compared to 10.2% of Black women and 7.7% of White women in the individual care group.
Then the researchers compared the groups with regard to compliance while adjusting for baseline differences. “We saw decreasing rates of preterm birth for Black patients relative to White patients, particularly after attending five or more sessions in the group care arm with the rates of preterm birth narrowing and the disparity becoming nonsignificant with more exposure to group care,” Dr. Crockett said. “In individual care, the rate of preterm birth remained the highest for Black women regardless of the number of visits attended.”
The idea of trying group prenatal care is appealing, Dr. Pluym said in an interview, though both models have their advantages.
”The strength of individual care is the focus on the patient exam and individual patient questions,” Dr. Pluym said. “The strengths of group prenatal care are the consolidation of the patient education aspect of prenatal care that is uniform for all patients, the sense of community patients feel, and the opportunity to hear other patients questions that you may not have thought of. It sounds like, anecdotally, patients and providers really found the group sessions valuable and they helped dampen implicit bias and build relationships.”
One potential limitation of this randomized controlled trial is that the providers were the same for both group and individual care, potentially causing some confounding, Dr. Pluym noted. But the study does have one clear clinical message, she said.
“My take away is more prenatal care is better – individual or group,” Dr. Pluym said. “Every clinic should evaluate their own structure and see if group care would be feasible for their patient population. There may be a benefit globally, but is it is not the ‘silver bullet,’ as they said, for lowering preterm birth or growth restriction.”
The research was funded by the Institute of Child Health and Development. The study researchers and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.
FROM THE PREGNANCY MEETING
Patients are interrupting DMARD use well into the COVID-19 pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases who stopped taking their disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the percentage who interrupted DMARD treatment increased later in the pandemic, according to speakers at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“People seem to be less anxious, but they’re interrupting their DMARD therapy more, more recently than in the pits of COVID, if you will,” said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS.
Dr. Kavanaugh and his copresenter Jack Cush, MD, were discussing the results of a recent study published in Arthritis Care & Research that evaluated 2,424 patients with rheumatic diseases who completed a baseline and at least one follow-up survey issued by patient organizations between March 2020 and May 2021, with a median of five follow-up surveys completed. The patients included in the study were aged a mean of 57 years, 86.6% were women, 90.5% were White, 41.8% had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 14.8% had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and 12.4% had psoriatic arthritis. Overall, 52.6% were on biologics or a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, 30.0% were receiving methotrexate, 21.4% were taking hydroxychloroquine, and 28.6% were receiving low-dose (24.0%) or high-dose (4.6%) glucocorticoids.
Patients’ T-scores on the anxiety short form Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey significantly decreased from a score of 58.7 in April 2020 to a score of 53.7 in May 2021 (P < .001), but there was a significant decrease in the interruption of DMARD treatment between April and December 2020 (11.2% vs. 7.5%; P < .001). This percentage rose significantly to 14.0% by May 2021 (P < .001). Patients who stopped using DMARDs were significantly associated with predicted incidence of severe flare in the next survey in adjusted models (12.9% vs. 8.0%; odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36).
The results tell us “that we as a discipline are not doing a good job educating our patients,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, Tex., and executive editor of RheumNow.com.
“I wish we – and I’m really talking about myself – but myself and my practice were more proactive when COVID happened [in] sending out regular bulletins: ‘Don’t stop your therapy; these are the things you get; get the test that you need to get done,’ ” he said. “We let a lot of things go on autopilot with the patient driving throughout COVID. Even now, it’s happening. And this is a problem, and there are going to be consequences to this.”
Dr. Kavanaugh agreed with Dr. Cush’s assessment, suggesting that the pandemic came up quickly enough that it was difficult to be proactive with the situation.
Patients on JAK inhibitors as new COVID-19 risk group?
Another standout study on COVID-19 from 2021 was an analysis of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry that examined risk of COVID-19 severity for patients with RA taking biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), which was presented at the 2021 EULAR congress and later published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
The researchers evaluated 2,869 patients March 2020 and April 2021 who were receiving abatacept (237 patients), rituximab (364 patients), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (317 patients), JAK inhibitors (563 patients), or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors such as infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab (1,388 patients) before developing COVID-19. Data about biologics or tsDMARDs were collected as a drug class. Patients in the study were mostly White (69.0%) women (80.8%) with a mean age of 56.7 years who lived in Europe (51.8%) or North America (35.0%). The researchers examined the severity of COVID-19 among all patients studied and calculated odds ratios based on drug class, with the TNF inhibitor group serving as a reference.
“[I]n this case, they said that the baseline use of rituximab was associated with more severity, and you see the severity being hospitalization and ICU and deaths. They found a signal for the JAK inhibitors that is not found in the other studies,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.
Overall, they found 21% of patients in the registry were hospitalized and 5.5% died, with rituximab (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.16-5.44) and JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.60-2.65) associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, rituximab was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 3.32-6.18), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.03-4.06), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 3.08-5.33), and mortality (OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 3.32-9.01), compared with TNF inhibitors. For JAK inhibitors, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.78-3.24), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.62), and mortality (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.65), compared with the TNF inhibitors group. Associations between COVID-19 severity and abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors were not identified.
Commenting on the study in a question-and-answer session, Roy Fleischmann, MD, said the part of the study that identified a signal for JAK inhibitors was “very interesting.” He called attention to a rapid response comment to the study, which questioned if it was the drug class itself that caused the risk for severe disease. “This is very important, because actually, the patients who stop the JAK [inhibitor], that’s what drove the illness. The patients [who] continued the JAK [inhibitor], very few of them had illness,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, Tex.
Confusion among patients during COVID-19
Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, asked the copresenters during the Q&A session whether they had any clinical pearls for the audience on how they manage treatment of patients with rheumatic disease with potential COVID-19 risk. “I think the confusion with our patients and COVID is what the ACR has put out with their guidelines,” said Dr. Wells, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc.
Dr. Cush said he has three rules he follows: lower and discontinue steroids, avoid rituximab as a starting treatment and negotiate if patients are already taking it, and don’t stop any therapy.
“I want disease control. I think being under control is what keeps you away from risk of COVID and hospitalization,” Dr. Cush said. “I think being uncontrolled and inflamed, whether it’s our [patients with] inflammatory arthritis or lupus or, worse, vasculitis [or] myositis, those are the ones at high risk of progression from being just infected to being sick and in the hospital.”
Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, posed the question of getting somewhat back to normal during COVID-19 with regard to recently infected patients presenting at infusion centers, whether patients are more likely to continue testing positive, and when patients are cleared to come back. Dr. Ruderman said his center has a 20-day rule for returning after having COVID-19, while Dr. Cush said his center allows patients to come in if they test negative after 7-10 days.
“One of the things we’re struggling with is our infusion center, and one of the questions that keeps coming up is when can people come back after a COVID infection?” he said. “If you’re on a drug at home, that’s up to you and the patient. But in the infusion [center], then you have other people sitting around there.”
Dr. Kavanaugh said there is no current data for how long patients with rheumatic disease shed virus, or how long a positive test can be measured. “You definitely will continue to shed, and you’ll be detectable for a while,” he said.
Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases who stopped taking their disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the percentage who interrupted DMARD treatment increased later in the pandemic, according to speakers at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“People seem to be less anxious, but they’re interrupting their DMARD therapy more, more recently than in the pits of COVID, if you will,” said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS.
Dr. Kavanaugh and his copresenter Jack Cush, MD, were discussing the results of a recent study published in Arthritis Care & Research that evaluated 2,424 patients with rheumatic diseases who completed a baseline and at least one follow-up survey issued by patient organizations between March 2020 and May 2021, with a median of five follow-up surveys completed. The patients included in the study were aged a mean of 57 years, 86.6% were women, 90.5% were White, 41.8% had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 14.8% had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and 12.4% had psoriatic arthritis. Overall, 52.6% were on biologics or a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, 30.0% were receiving methotrexate, 21.4% were taking hydroxychloroquine, and 28.6% were receiving low-dose (24.0%) or high-dose (4.6%) glucocorticoids.
Patients’ T-scores on the anxiety short form Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey significantly decreased from a score of 58.7 in April 2020 to a score of 53.7 in May 2021 (P < .001), but there was a significant decrease in the interruption of DMARD treatment between April and December 2020 (11.2% vs. 7.5%; P < .001). This percentage rose significantly to 14.0% by May 2021 (P < .001). Patients who stopped using DMARDs were significantly associated with predicted incidence of severe flare in the next survey in adjusted models (12.9% vs. 8.0%; odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36).
The results tell us “that we as a discipline are not doing a good job educating our patients,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, Tex., and executive editor of RheumNow.com.
“I wish we – and I’m really talking about myself – but myself and my practice were more proactive when COVID happened [in] sending out regular bulletins: ‘Don’t stop your therapy; these are the things you get; get the test that you need to get done,’ ” he said. “We let a lot of things go on autopilot with the patient driving throughout COVID. Even now, it’s happening. And this is a problem, and there are going to be consequences to this.”
Dr. Kavanaugh agreed with Dr. Cush’s assessment, suggesting that the pandemic came up quickly enough that it was difficult to be proactive with the situation.
Patients on JAK inhibitors as new COVID-19 risk group?
Another standout study on COVID-19 from 2021 was an analysis of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry that examined risk of COVID-19 severity for patients with RA taking biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), which was presented at the 2021 EULAR congress and later published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
The researchers evaluated 2,869 patients March 2020 and April 2021 who were receiving abatacept (237 patients), rituximab (364 patients), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (317 patients), JAK inhibitors (563 patients), or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors such as infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab (1,388 patients) before developing COVID-19. Data about biologics or tsDMARDs were collected as a drug class. Patients in the study were mostly White (69.0%) women (80.8%) with a mean age of 56.7 years who lived in Europe (51.8%) or North America (35.0%). The researchers examined the severity of COVID-19 among all patients studied and calculated odds ratios based on drug class, with the TNF inhibitor group serving as a reference.
“[I]n this case, they said that the baseline use of rituximab was associated with more severity, and you see the severity being hospitalization and ICU and deaths. They found a signal for the JAK inhibitors that is not found in the other studies,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.
Overall, they found 21% of patients in the registry were hospitalized and 5.5% died, with rituximab (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.16-5.44) and JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.60-2.65) associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, rituximab was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 3.32-6.18), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.03-4.06), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 3.08-5.33), and mortality (OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 3.32-9.01), compared with TNF inhibitors. For JAK inhibitors, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.78-3.24), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.62), and mortality (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.65), compared with the TNF inhibitors group. Associations between COVID-19 severity and abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors were not identified.
Commenting on the study in a question-and-answer session, Roy Fleischmann, MD, said the part of the study that identified a signal for JAK inhibitors was “very interesting.” He called attention to a rapid response comment to the study, which questioned if it was the drug class itself that caused the risk for severe disease. “This is very important, because actually, the patients who stop the JAK [inhibitor], that’s what drove the illness. The patients [who] continued the JAK [inhibitor], very few of them had illness,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, Tex.
Confusion among patients during COVID-19
Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, asked the copresenters during the Q&A session whether they had any clinical pearls for the audience on how they manage treatment of patients with rheumatic disease with potential COVID-19 risk. “I think the confusion with our patients and COVID is what the ACR has put out with their guidelines,” said Dr. Wells, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc.
Dr. Cush said he has three rules he follows: lower and discontinue steroids, avoid rituximab as a starting treatment and negotiate if patients are already taking it, and don’t stop any therapy.
“I want disease control. I think being under control is what keeps you away from risk of COVID and hospitalization,” Dr. Cush said. “I think being uncontrolled and inflamed, whether it’s our [patients with] inflammatory arthritis or lupus or, worse, vasculitis [or] myositis, those are the ones at high risk of progression from being just infected to being sick and in the hospital.”
Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, posed the question of getting somewhat back to normal during COVID-19 with regard to recently infected patients presenting at infusion centers, whether patients are more likely to continue testing positive, and when patients are cleared to come back. Dr. Ruderman said his center has a 20-day rule for returning after having COVID-19, while Dr. Cush said his center allows patients to come in if they test negative after 7-10 days.
“One of the things we’re struggling with is our infusion center, and one of the questions that keeps coming up is when can people come back after a COVID infection?” he said. “If you’re on a drug at home, that’s up to you and the patient. But in the infusion [center], then you have other people sitting around there.”
Dr. Kavanaugh said there is no current data for how long patients with rheumatic disease shed virus, or how long a positive test can be measured. “You definitely will continue to shed, and you’ll be detectable for a while,” he said.
Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases who stopped taking their disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the percentage who interrupted DMARD treatment increased later in the pandemic, according to speakers at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“People seem to be less anxious, but they’re interrupting their DMARD therapy more, more recently than in the pits of COVID, if you will,” said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS.
Dr. Kavanaugh and his copresenter Jack Cush, MD, were discussing the results of a recent study published in Arthritis Care & Research that evaluated 2,424 patients with rheumatic diseases who completed a baseline and at least one follow-up survey issued by patient organizations between March 2020 and May 2021, with a median of five follow-up surveys completed. The patients included in the study were aged a mean of 57 years, 86.6% were women, 90.5% were White, 41.8% had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 14.8% had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and 12.4% had psoriatic arthritis. Overall, 52.6% were on biologics or a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, 30.0% were receiving methotrexate, 21.4% were taking hydroxychloroquine, and 28.6% were receiving low-dose (24.0%) or high-dose (4.6%) glucocorticoids.
Patients’ T-scores on the anxiety short form Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey significantly decreased from a score of 58.7 in April 2020 to a score of 53.7 in May 2021 (P < .001), but there was a significant decrease in the interruption of DMARD treatment between April and December 2020 (11.2% vs. 7.5%; P < .001). This percentage rose significantly to 14.0% by May 2021 (P < .001). Patients who stopped using DMARDs were significantly associated with predicted incidence of severe flare in the next survey in adjusted models (12.9% vs. 8.0%; odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36).
The results tell us “that we as a discipline are not doing a good job educating our patients,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, Tex., and executive editor of RheumNow.com.
“I wish we – and I’m really talking about myself – but myself and my practice were more proactive when COVID happened [in] sending out regular bulletins: ‘Don’t stop your therapy; these are the things you get; get the test that you need to get done,’ ” he said. “We let a lot of things go on autopilot with the patient driving throughout COVID. Even now, it’s happening. And this is a problem, and there are going to be consequences to this.”
Dr. Kavanaugh agreed with Dr. Cush’s assessment, suggesting that the pandemic came up quickly enough that it was difficult to be proactive with the situation.
Patients on JAK inhibitors as new COVID-19 risk group?
Another standout study on COVID-19 from 2021 was an analysis of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry that examined risk of COVID-19 severity for patients with RA taking biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), which was presented at the 2021 EULAR congress and later published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
The researchers evaluated 2,869 patients March 2020 and April 2021 who were receiving abatacept (237 patients), rituximab (364 patients), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (317 patients), JAK inhibitors (563 patients), or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors such as infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab (1,388 patients) before developing COVID-19. Data about biologics or tsDMARDs were collected as a drug class. Patients in the study were mostly White (69.0%) women (80.8%) with a mean age of 56.7 years who lived in Europe (51.8%) or North America (35.0%). The researchers examined the severity of COVID-19 among all patients studied and calculated odds ratios based on drug class, with the TNF inhibitor group serving as a reference.
“[I]n this case, they said that the baseline use of rituximab was associated with more severity, and you see the severity being hospitalization and ICU and deaths. They found a signal for the JAK inhibitors that is not found in the other studies,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.
Overall, they found 21% of patients in the registry were hospitalized and 5.5% died, with rituximab (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.16-5.44) and JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.60-2.65) associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, rituximab was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 3.32-6.18), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.03-4.06), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 3.08-5.33), and mortality (OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 3.32-9.01), compared with TNF inhibitors. For JAK inhibitors, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.78-3.24), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.62), and mortality (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.65), compared with the TNF inhibitors group. Associations between COVID-19 severity and abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors were not identified.
Commenting on the study in a question-and-answer session, Roy Fleischmann, MD, said the part of the study that identified a signal for JAK inhibitors was “very interesting.” He called attention to a rapid response comment to the study, which questioned if it was the drug class itself that caused the risk for severe disease. “This is very important, because actually, the patients who stop the JAK [inhibitor], that’s what drove the illness. The patients [who] continued the JAK [inhibitor], very few of them had illness,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, Tex.
Confusion among patients during COVID-19
Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, asked the copresenters during the Q&A session whether they had any clinical pearls for the audience on how they manage treatment of patients with rheumatic disease with potential COVID-19 risk. “I think the confusion with our patients and COVID is what the ACR has put out with their guidelines,” said Dr. Wells, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc.
Dr. Cush said he has three rules he follows: lower and discontinue steroids, avoid rituximab as a starting treatment and negotiate if patients are already taking it, and don’t stop any therapy.
“I want disease control. I think being under control is what keeps you away from risk of COVID and hospitalization,” Dr. Cush said. “I think being uncontrolled and inflamed, whether it’s our [patients with] inflammatory arthritis or lupus or, worse, vasculitis [or] myositis, those are the ones at high risk of progression from being just infected to being sick and in the hospital.”
Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, posed the question of getting somewhat back to normal during COVID-19 with regard to recently infected patients presenting at infusion centers, whether patients are more likely to continue testing positive, and when patients are cleared to come back. Dr. Ruderman said his center has a 20-day rule for returning after having COVID-19, while Dr. Cush said his center allows patients to come in if they test negative after 7-10 days.
“One of the things we’re struggling with is our infusion center, and one of the questions that keeps coming up is when can people come back after a COVID infection?” he said. “If you’re on a drug at home, that’s up to you and the patient. But in the infusion [center], then you have other people sitting around there.”
Dr. Kavanaugh said there is no current data for how long patients with rheumatic disease shed virus, or how long a positive test can be measured. “You definitely will continue to shed, and you’ll be detectable for a while,” he said.
Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
FROM RWCS 2022