MUNICH – The increased risk of major GI bleeding documented with dual-antiplatelet therapy using rivaroxaban and aspirin when compared with aspirin alone for vascular protection in the previously reported massive COMPASS trial may turn out to be a blessing in disguise.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Although overall cancer rates were similar in the three treatment groups [rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin at 100 mg/day, rivaroxaban monotherapy at 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin alone at 100 mg/day], the early increase in GI bleeding with rivaroxaban-based therapy resulted in earlier diagnosis of GI cancer in these patients. By reducing major cardiovascular events and mortality, the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin already produces a clear net benefit, and by unmasking GI cancers at an earlier stage, the combination could potentially lead to the added benefit of improved GI cancer outcomes,” commented Dr. Eikelboom, a hematologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., and lead investigator of the previously published COMPASS trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30).

This possibility that unmasking of occult GI cancer might result in improved survival deserves to be a high research priority in light of the enormous death toll caused by colorectal cancer. Planned longer-term follow-up of the COMPASS participants should be helpful in this regard, he added.

This new COMPASS finding effectively makes a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. When the primary outcomes of COMPASS were announced, many physicians reasoned that if the other commercially available DOACs also outperform warfarin but don’t pose a significantly increased threat of serious bleeding events, why not preferentially turn to them rather than rivaroxaban in patients with high HAS-BLED scores? But now rivaroxaban’s increased GI bleeding risk has begun to look like a potentially important advantage.

Discussant Lars C. Wallentin, MD, concurred. He called it a wake-up call for cardiologists to broaden their horizons and recognize that their elderly patients with vascular disease also are at substantial competing risk for major noncardiovascular diseases – and that his colleagues may have an important role to play in earlier cancer diagnoses.

bjancin@mdedge.com

MUNICH – The increased risk of major GI bleeding documented with dual-antiplatelet therapy using rivaroxaban and aspirin when compared with aspirin alone for vascular protection in the previously reported massive COMPASS trial may turn out to be a blessing in disguise.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Although overall cancer rates were similar in the three treatment groups [rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin at 100 mg/day, rivaroxaban monotherapy at 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin alone at 100 mg/day], the early increase in GI bleeding with rivaroxaban-based therapy resulted in earlier diagnosis of GI cancer in these patients. By reducing major cardiovascular events and mortality, the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin already produces a clear net benefit, and by unmasking GI cancers at an earlier stage, the combination could potentially lead to the added benefit of improved GI cancer outcomes,” commented Dr. Eikelboom, a hematologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., and lead investigator of the previously published COMPASS trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30).

This possibility that unmasking of occult GI cancer might result in improved survival deserves to be a high research priority in light of the enormous death toll caused by colorectal cancer. Planned longer-term follow-up of the COMPASS participants should be helpful in this regard, he added.

This new COMPASS finding effectively makes a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. When the primary outcomes of COMPASS were announced, many physicians reasoned that if the other commercially available DOACs also outperform warfarin but don’t pose a significantly increased threat of serious bleeding events, why not preferentially turn to them rather than rivaroxaban in patients with high HAS-BLED scores? But now rivaroxaban’s increased GI bleeding risk has begun to look like a potentially important advantage.

Discussant Lars C. Wallentin, MD, concurred. He called it a wake-up call for cardiologists to broaden their horizons and recognize that their elderly patients with vascular disease also are at substantial competing risk for major noncardiovascular diseases – and that his colleagues may have an important role to play in earlier cancer diagnoses.

bjancin@mdedge.com

MUNICH – The increased risk of major GI bleeding documented with dual-antiplatelet therapy using rivaroxaban and aspirin when compared with aspirin alone for vascular protection in the previously reported massive COMPASS trial may turn out to be a blessing in disguise.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Although overall cancer rates were similar in the three treatment groups [rivaroxaban at 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin at 100 mg/day, rivaroxaban monotherapy at 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin alone at 100 mg/day], the early increase in GI bleeding with rivaroxaban-based therapy resulted in earlier diagnosis of GI cancer in these patients. By reducing major cardiovascular events and mortality, the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin already produces a clear net benefit, and by unmasking GI cancers at an earlier stage, the combination could potentially lead to the added benefit of improved GI cancer outcomes,” commented Dr. Eikelboom, a hematologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., and lead investigator of the previously published COMPASS trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30).

This possibility that unmasking of occult GI cancer might result in improved survival deserves to be a high research priority in light of the enormous death toll caused by colorectal cancer. Planned longer-term follow-up of the COMPASS participants should be helpful in this regard, he added.

This new COMPASS finding effectively makes a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. When the primary outcomes of COMPASS were announced, many physicians reasoned that if the other commercially available DOACs also outperform warfarin but don’t pose a significantly increased threat of serious bleeding events, why not preferentially turn to them rather than rivaroxaban in patients with high HAS-BLED scores? But now rivaroxaban’s increased GI bleeding risk has begun to look like a potentially important advantage.

Discussant Lars C. Wallentin, MD, concurred. He called it a wake-up call for cardiologists to broaden their horizons and recognize that their elderly patients with vascular disease also are at substantial competing risk for major noncardiovascular diseases – and that his colleagues may have an important role to play in earlier cancer diagnoses.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) and less-expensive bare-metal stents (BMSs) performed equally well in patients with failed saphenous vein grafts after coronary artery bypass graft surgery, based on an analysis of patients in the DIVA trial.

The findings run counter to those of previous clinical trials, which had found drug-eluting stents perform better than bare-metal stents in these situations. “The study results have important economic implications in countries with high DES prices, such as the USA, because they suggest that the lower-cost BMS can be used in SVG [saphenous vein graft] lesions without compromising either safety or efficacy,” lead author Emmanouil S. Brilakis, MD, PhD, of Minneapolis Heart Institute and his coauthors said in reporting the results for the DIVA trial investigators in the Lancet.

The DIVA trial was a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial done at 25 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs centers. Researchers randomly assigned 599 patients who had previous coronary artery bypass surgery to either the DES or BMS groups, and the study reported data from 597 patients. The combined endpoint comprised cardiac death, target vessel MI, or target vessel revascularization at 12 months and then over the entire length of follow-up, which ranged from 2 to 7 years. Operators used the DES or BMS of their choice.

While BMSs are presumed to be less expensive than DESs, the study authors did not provide prices or price ranges for the stents. Dr. Brilakis and his coauthors acknowledged that the financial implications depend on local stent pricing practices.

The cost-effectiveness of using DESs vs. BMSs has been controversial, with many studies reporting that BMS are cost-effective over the long-term because of the lower incidence of revascularization and later hospitalization. These studies did not differentiate between SVG and native vessels, however. Multiple studies have reported that the overall costs, including the cost for reintervention, are lower for DESs than for BMSs in native vessels. A Wake Forest study reported the average per procedure cost was $1,846 higher for a DES but the cost was offset after 3 years by lower revascularization rates (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.110.960187)

A recent Korean study found the total cost of DESs was about 5% higher (Yonsei Med J. 2014 Nov;55[6]:1533-41). A French study reported BMSs resulted in a cost reduction $217 per case (Open Heart. 2016 Aug 25;3[2]:e000445). But few, if any, studies have directly compared prices hospitals pay for DESs and BMSs.

SOURCE: Brilakis ES et al. Lancet. 2018 May 19;391(10134);1997-2007.

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) and less-expensive bare-metal stents (BMSs) performed equally well in patients with failed saphenous vein grafts after coronary artery bypass graft surgery, based on an analysis of patients in the DIVA trial.

The findings run counter to those of previous clinical trials, which had found drug-eluting stents perform better than bare-metal stents in these situations. “The study results have important economic implications in countries with high DES prices, such as the USA, because they suggest that the lower-cost BMS can be used in SVG [saphenous vein graft] lesions without compromising either safety or efficacy,” lead author Emmanouil S. Brilakis, MD, PhD, of Minneapolis Heart Institute and his coauthors said in reporting the results for the DIVA trial investigators in the Lancet.

The DIVA trial was a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial done at 25 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs centers. Researchers randomly assigned 599 patients who had previous coronary artery bypass surgery to either the DES or BMS groups, and the study reported data from 597 patients. The combined endpoint comprised cardiac death, target vessel MI, or target vessel revascularization at 12 months and then over the entire length of follow-up, which ranged from 2 to 7 years. Operators used the DES or BMS of their choice.

While BMSs are presumed to be less expensive than DESs, the study authors did not provide prices or price ranges for the stents. Dr. Brilakis and his coauthors acknowledged that the financial implications depend on local stent pricing practices.

The cost-effectiveness of using DESs vs. BMSs has been controversial, with many studies reporting that BMS are cost-effective over the long-term because of the lower incidence of revascularization and later hospitalization. These studies did not differentiate between SVG and native vessels, however. Multiple studies have reported that the overall costs, including the cost for reintervention, are lower for DESs than for BMSs in native vessels. A Wake Forest study reported the average per procedure cost was $1,846 higher for a DES but the cost was offset after 3 years by lower revascularization rates (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.110.960187)

A recent Korean study found the total cost of DESs was about 5% higher (Yonsei Med J. 2014 Nov;55[6]:1533-41). A French study reported BMSs resulted in a cost reduction $217 per case (Open Heart. 2016 Aug 25;3[2]:e000445). But few, if any, studies have directly compared prices hospitals pay for DESs and BMSs.

SOURCE: Brilakis ES et al. Lancet. 2018 May 19;391(10134);1997-2007.

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) and less-expensive bare-metal stents (BMSs) performed equally well in patients with failed saphenous vein grafts after coronary artery bypass graft surgery, based on an analysis of patients in the DIVA trial.

The findings run counter to those of previous clinical trials, which had found drug-eluting stents perform better than bare-metal stents in these situations. “The study results have important economic implications in countries with high DES prices, such as the USA, because they suggest that the lower-cost BMS can be used in SVG [saphenous vein graft] lesions without compromising either safety or efficacy,” lead author Emmanouil S. Brilakis, MD, PhD, of Minneapolis Heart Institute and his coauthors said in reporting the results for the DIVA trial investigators in the Lancet.

The DIVA trial was a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial done at 25 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs centers. Researchers randomly assigned 599 patients who had previous coronary artery bypass surgery to either the DES or BMS groups, and the study reported data from 597 patients. The combined endpoint comprised cardiac death, target vessel MI, or target vessel revascularization at 12 months and then over the entire length of follow-up, which ranged from 2 to 7 years. Operators used the DES or BMS of their choice.

While BMSs are presumed to be less expensive than DESs, the study authors did not provide prices or price ranges for the stents. Dr. Brilakis and his coauthors acknowledged that the financial implications depend on local stent pricing practices.

The cost-effectiveness of using DESs vs. BMSs has been controversial, with many studies reporting that BMS are cost-effective over the long-term because of the lower incidence of revascularization and later hospitalization. These studies did not differentiate between SVG and native vessels, however. Multiple studies have reported that the overall costs, including the cost for reintervention, are lower for DESs than for BMSs in native vessels. A Wake Forest study reported the average per procedure cost was $1,846 higher for a DES but the cost was offset after 3 years by lower revascularization rates (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.110.960187)

A recent Korean study found the total cost of DESs was about 5% higher (Yonsei Med J. 2014 Nov;55[6]:1533-41). A French study reported BMSs resulted in a cost reduction $217 per case (Open Heart. 2016 Aug 25;3[2]:e000445). But few, if any, studies have directly compared prices hospitals pay for DESs and BMSs.

SOURCE: Brilakis ES et al. Lancet. 2018 May 19;391(10134);1997-2007.

SAN FRANCISCO – Partial nephrectomy for localized renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) is on the rise, but the procedure is still less commonly performed than radical nephrectomy and more commonly performed at high-volume surgical centers.

About half of localized renal tumors are excised through partial nephrectomy, based on results from a new analysis of The National Cancer Database. The study also indicated that patient mortality rates were lower at high volume centers, those in the top 10 percentile of treatment volume, said David Cahn, DO, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

The study looked at surgeries among 142,000 patients with pT1a-T2b RCCs (no involvement of lymph nodes or metastases) who underwent procedures during 2004-2014.

Overall, 41% of patients had partial nephrectomies, 58% had radical nephrectomies, and 1% received ablative therapy. The frequency of partial nephrectomies rose markedly over the course of the study, increasing from 24% of cases in 2004 to 53% in 2014. The vast majority of partial nephrectomies, 81%, were performed for pT1a tumors; 24% of pT1b tumors also were excised using partial nephrectomy.

Compared with the reference point of T1a tumors, T1b tumors (odds ratio, 0.22; P less than .0001), T2a (OR, 0.06; P less than .0001), and T2b tumors (OR, 0.03; P less than .0001) were progressively less likely to be treated with partial nephrectomy. A multivariate analysis showed that patients at a high volume center were significantly more likely to undergo partial nephrectomy (OR, 1.89; P less than .0001). Overall mortality was lower at high volume centers (hazard ratio, 0.92; P = .012).

SOURCE: AUA Annual Meeting, Abstract PD07-04.

SAN FRANCISCO – Partial nephrectomy for localized renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) is on the rise, but the procedure is still less commonly performed than radical nephrectomy and more commonly performed at high-volume surgical centers.

About half of localized renal tumors are excised through partial nephrectomy, based on results from a new analysis of The National Cancer Database. The study also indicated that patient mortality rates were lower at high volume centers, those in the top 10 percentile of treatment volume, said David Cahn, DO, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

The study looked at surgeries among 142,000 patients with pT1a-T2b RCCs (no involvement of lymph nodes or metastases) who underwent procedures during 2004-2014.

Overall, 41% of patients had partial nephrectomies, 58% had radical nephrectomies, and 1% received ablative therapy. The frequency of partial nephrectomies rose markedly over the course of the study, increasing from 24% of cases in 2004 to 53% in 2014. The vast majority of partial nephrectomies, 81%, were performed for pT1a tumors; 24% of pT1b tumors also were excised using partial nephrectomy.

Compared with the reference point of T1a tumors, T1b tumors (odds ratio, 0.22; P less than .0001), T2a (OR, 0.06; P less than .0001), and T2b tumors (OR, 0.03; P less than .0001) were progressively less likely to be treated with partial nephrectomy. A multivariate analysis showed that patients at a high volume center were significantly more likely to undergo partial nephrectomy (OR, 1.89; P less than .0001). Overall mortality was lower at high volume centers (hazard ratio, 0.92; P = .012).

SOURCE: AUA Annual Meeting, Abstract PD07-04.

SAN FRANCISCO – Partial nephrectomy for localized renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) is on the rise, but the procedure is still less commonly performed than radical nephrectomy and more commonly performed at high-volume surgical centers.

About half of localized renal tumors are excised through partial nephrectomy, based on results from a new analysis of The National Cancer Database. The study also indicated that patient mortality rates were lower at high volume centers, those in the top 10 percentile of treatment volume, said David Cahn, DO, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association.

The study looked at surgeries among 142,000 patients with pT1a-T2b RCCs (no involvement of lymph nodes or metastases) who underwent procedures during 2004-2014.

Overall, 41% of patients had partial nephrectomies, 58% had radical nephrectomies, and 1% received ablative therapy. The frequency of partial nephrectomies rose markedly over the course of the study, increasing from 24% of cases in 2004 to 53% in 2014. The vast majority of partial nephrectomies, 81%, were performed for pT1a tumors; 24% of pT1b tumors also were excised using partial nephrectomy.

Compared with the reference point of T1a tumors, T1b tumors (odds ratio, 0.22; P less than .0001), T2a (OR, 0.06; P less than .0001), and T2b tumors (OR, 0.03; P less than .0001) were progressively less likely to be treated with partial nephrectomy. A multivariate analysis showed that patients at a high volume center were significantly more likely to undergo partial nephrectomy (OR, 1.89; P less than .0001). Overall mortality was lower at high volume centers (hazard ratio, 0.92; P = .012).

SOURCE: AUA Annual Meeting, Abstract PD07-04.

Ulipristal acetate reduces breakthrough bleeding in women with etonogestrel implants, according to new findings.

After 30 days, patients treated with ulipristal were more satisfied with their bleeding profiles than were those given placebo, reported Rachel E. Zigler, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University in St. Louis and her colleagues.

About half of women experience unscheduled bleeding within the first 6 months of etonogestrel implantation, causing many to discontinue treatment. The etiology of this phenomenon is poorly understood.

“One leading theory is that sustained exposure to a progestin can lead to endometrial angiogenesis disruption, resulting in the development of a dense venous network that is fragile and prone to bleeding,” the researchers wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Ulipristal acetate is a selective progesterone receptor modulator approved for emergency contraception in the United States. Outside the United States, it is used to treat abnormal uterine bleeding in cases of uterine leiomyoma. Ulipristal acts directly upon myometrial and endometrial tissue and “may also displace local progestin within the uterus to counteract bleeding secondary to … a dense, fragile venous network.”

The double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 65 women aged 18-45 years with etonogestrel implants. Eligibility required that implants be in place for more than 90 days and less than 3 years and that participants experienced more than one bleeding episode over a 24-day time frame.

Patients received either 15 mg ulipristal (n = 32) or placebo (n = 33) daily for 7 days. From the first day of treatment until 30 days, patients self-reported bleeding events. Weekly phone questionnaires also were conducted to determine satisfaction with medication and side effects.

SOURCE: Zigler RE et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:888-94.

Ulipristal acetate reduces breakthrough bleeding in women with etonogestrel implants, according to new findings.

After 30 days, patients treated with ulipristal were more satisfied with their bleeding profiles than were those given placebo, reported Rachel E. Zigler, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University in St. Louis and her colleagues.

About half of women experience unscheduled bleeding within the first 6 months of etonogestrel implantation, causing many to discontinue treatment. The etiology of this phenomenon is poorly understood.

“One leading theory is that sustained exposure to a progestin can lead to endometrial angiogenesis disruption, resulting in the development of a dense venous network that is fragile and prone to bleeding,” the researchers wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Ulipristal acetate is a selective progesterone receptor modulator approved for emergency contraception in the United States. Outside the United States, it is used to treat abnormal uterine bleeding in cases of uterine leiomyoma. Ulipristal acts directly upon myometrial and endometrial tissue and “may also displace local progestin within the uterus to counteract bleeding secondary to … a dense, fragile venous network.”

The double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 65 women aged 18-45 years with etonogestrel implants. Eligibility required that implants be in place for more than 90 days and less than 3 years and that participants experienced more than one bleeding episode over a 24-day time frame.

Patients received either 15 mg ulipristal (n = 32) or placebo (n = 33) daily for 7 days. From the first day of treatment until 30 days, patients self-reported bleeding events. Weekly phone questionnaires also were conducted to determine satisfaction with medication and side effects.

SOURCE: Zigler RE et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:888-94.

Ulipristal acetate reduces breakthrough bleeding in women with etonogestrel implants, according to new findings.

After 30 days, patients treated with ulipristal were more satisfied with their bleeding profiles than were those given placebo, reported Rachel E. Zigler, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University in St. Louis and her colleagues.

About half of women experience unscheduled bleeding within the first 6 months of etonogestrel implantation, causing many to discontinue treatment. The etiology of this phenomenon is poorly understood.

“One leading theory is that sustained exposure to a progestin can lead to endometrial angiogenesis disruption, resulting in the development of a dense venous network that is fragile and prone to bleeding,” the researchers wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Ulipristal acetate is a selective progesterone receptor modulator approved for emergency contraception in the United States. Outside the United States, it is used to treat abnormal uterine bleeding in cases of uterine leiomyoma. Ulipristal acts directly upon myometrial and endometrial tissue and “may also displace local progestin within the uterus to counteract bleeding secondary to … a dense, fragile venous network.”

The double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 65 women aged 18-45 years with etonogestrel implants. Eligibility required that implants be in place for more than 90 days and less than 3 years and that participants experienced more than one bleeding episode over a 24-day time frame.

Patients received either 15 mg ulipristal (n = 32) or placebo (n = 33) daily for 7 days. From the first day of treatment until 30 days, patients self-reported bleeding events. Weekly phone questionnaires also were conducted to determine satisfaction with medication and side effects.

SOURCE: Zigler RE et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:888-94.

Severe influenza is an independent risk factor for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis with an accompanying increased mortality in the ICU, according to a multicenter retrospective cohort study at seven tertiary centers in Belgium and the Netherlands.

Wikimedia Commons

SOURCE: Schauwvlieghe AFAD et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Jul 31. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30274-1

Severe influenza is an independent risk factor for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis with an accompanying increased mortality in the ICU, according to a multicenter retrospective cohort study at seven tertiary centers in Belgium and the Netherlands.

Wikimedia Commons

SOURCE: Schauwvlieghe AFAD et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Jul 31. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30274-1

Severe influenza is an independent risk factor for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis with an accompanying increased mortality in the ICU, according to a multicenter retrospective cohort study at seven tertiary centers in Belgium and the Netherlands.

Wikimedia Commons

SOURCE: Schauwvlieghe AFAD et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Jul 31. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30274-1

mycosis fungoides

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for mogamulizumab (Poteligeo).

Kyowa Kirin Limited is seeking European Commission (EC) approval for mogamulizumab as a treatment for adults with mycosis fungoides (MF) or Sézary syndrome (SS) who have received at least one prior systemic therapy.

The CHMP’s recommendation to approve mogamulizumab will be reviewed by the EC, and the EC is expected to make its decision about the drug by the end of this year.

The decision will apply to the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The CHMP’s recommendation for mogamulizumab is supported by the phase 3 MAVORIC trial. Results from this trial were published in The Lancet Oncology in August.

MAVORIC was a comparison of mogamulizumab and vorinostat in 372 adults with MF or SS who had received at least one prior systemic therapy.

Mogamulizumab provided a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), the study’s primary endpoint.

According to investigators, the median PFS was 7.7 months with mogamulizumab and 3.1 months with vorinostat (hazard ratio=0.53, P<0.0001).

According to independent review, the median PFS was 6.7 months and 3.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio=0.64, P<0.0007).

There was a significant improvement in overall response rate (ORR) with mogamulizumab.

According to independent review, the global ORR was 23% (43/186) in the mogamulizumab arm and 4% (7/186) in the vorinostat arm (risk ratio=19.4, P<0.0001).

According to investigators, the global ORR was 28% (52/186) and 5% (9/186), respectively (risk ratio=23.1, P<0.0001).

For patients with MF, the investigator-assessed ORR was 21% (22/105) with mogamulizumab and 7% (7/99) with vorinostat.

For SS patients, the investigator-assessed ORR was 37% (30/81) and 2% (2/87), respectively.

Grade 3 adverse events (AEs) in the mogamulizumab arm included drug eruptions (n=8), hypertension (n=8), pneumonia (n=6), fatigue (n=3), cellulitis (n=3), infusion-related reactions (n=3), sepsis (n=2), decreased appetite (n=2), AST increase (n=2), weight decrease (n=1), pyrexia (n=1), constipation (n=1), nausea (n=1), and diarrhea (n=1).

Grade 4 AEs with mogamulizumab were cellulitis (n=1) and pneumonia (n=1). Grade 5 AEs included pneumonia (n=1) and sepsis (n=1).

mycosis fungoides

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for mogamulizumab (Poteligeo).

Kyowa Kirin Limited is seeking European Commission (EC) approval for mogamulizumab as a treatment for adults with mycosis fungoides (MF) or Sézary syndrome (SS) who have received at least one prior systemic therapy.

The CHMP’s recommendation to approve mogamulizumab will be reviewed by the EC, and the EC is expected to make its decision about the drug by the end of this year.

The decision will apply to the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The CHMP’s recommendation for mogamulizumab is supported by the phase 3 MAVORIC trial. Results from this trial were published in The Lancet Oncology in August.

MAVORIC was a comparison of mogamulizumab and vorinostat in 372 adults with MF or SS who had received at least one prior systemic therapy.

Mogamulizumab provided a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), the study’s primary endpoint.

According to investigators, the median PFS was 7.7 months with mogamulizumab and 3.1 months with vorinostat (hazard ratio=0.53, P<0.0001).

According to independent review, the median PFS was 6.7 months and 3.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio=0.64, P<0.0007).

There was a significant improvement in overall response rate (ORR) with mogamulizumab.

According to independent review, the global ORR was 23% (43/186) in the mogamulizumab arm and 4% (7/186) in the vorinostat arm (risk ratio=19.4, P<0.0001).

According to investigators, the global ORR was 28% (52/186) and 5% (9/186), respectively (risk ratio=23.1, P<0.0001).

For patients with MF, the investigator-assessed ORR was 21% (22/105) with mogamulizumab and 7% (7/99) with vorinostat.

For SS patients, the investigator-assessed ORR was 37% (30/81) and 2% (2/87), respectively.

Grade 3 adverse events (AEs) in the mogamulizumab arm included drug eruptions (n=8), hypertension (n=8), pneumonia (n=6), fatigue (n=3), cellulitis (n=3), infusion-related reactions (n=3), sepsis (n=2), decreased appetite (n=2), AST increase (n=2), weight decrease (n=1), pyrexia (n=1), constipation (n=1), nausea (n=1), and diarrhea (n=1).

Grade 4 AEs with mogamulizumab were cellulitis (n=1) and pneumonia (n=1). Grade 5 AEs included pneumonia (n=1) and sepsis (n=1).

mycosis fungoides

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for mogamulizumab (Poteligeo).

Kyowa Kirin Limited is seeking European Commission (EC) approval for mogamulizumab as a treatment for adults with mycosis fungoides (MF) or Sézary syndrome (SS) who have received at least one prior systemic therapy.

The CHMP’s recommendation to approve mogamulizumab will be reviewed by the EC, and the EC is expected to make its decision about the drug by the end of this year.

The decision will apply to the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The CHMP’s recommendation for mogamulizumab is supported by the phase 3 MAVORIC trial. Results from this trial were published in The Lancet Oncology in August.

MAVORIC was a comparison of mogamulizumab and vorinostat in 372 adults with MF or SS who had received at least one prior systemic therapy.

Mogamulizumab provided a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), the study’s primary endpoint.

According to investigators, the median PFS was 7.7 months with mogamulizumab and 3.1 months with vorinostat (hazard ratio=0.53, P<0.0001).

According to independent review, the median PFS was 6.7 months and 3.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio=0.64, P<0.0007).

There was a significant improvement in overall response rate (ORR) with mogamulizumab.

According to independent review, the global ORR was 23% (43/186) in the mogamulizumab arm and 4% (7/186) in the vorinostat arm (risk ratio=19.4, P<0.0001).

According to investigators, the global ORR was 28% (52/186) and 5% (9/186), respectively (risk ratio=23.1, P<0.0001).

For patients with MF, the investigator-assessed ORR was 21% (22/105) with mogamulizumab and 7% (7/99) with vorinostat.

For SS patients, the investigator-assessed ORR was 37% (30/81) and 2% (2/87), respectively.

Grade 3 adverse events (AEs) in the mogamulizumab arm included drug eruptions (n=8), hypertension (n=8), pneumonia (n=6), fatigue (n=3), cellulitis (n=3), infusion-related reactions (n=3), sepsis (n=2), decreased appetite (n=2), AST increase (n=2), weight decrease (n=1), pyrexia (n=1), constipation (n=1), nausea (n=1), and diarrhea (n=1).

Grade 4 AEs with mogamulizumab were cellulitis (n=1) and pneumonia (n=1). Grade 5 AEs included pneumonia (n=1) and sepsis (n=1).

PARIS – A novel kinder, gentler topical retinoid met all of its primary and secondary endpoints in two identical phase 3 randomized trials totaling 2,420 patients with moderate acne vulgaris on both the face and trunk.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Trifarotene cream 50 mcg/g selectively targets the gamma retinoic acid receptor. This unique selectivity for just one of the three retinoic acid receptors results in less of the classic retinoid side effects – redness, scaling, dryness, stinging, burning – that can limit the clinical utility of existing retinoids. This was borne out by the high completion rates in trifarotene-treated participants in the two 12-week trials: 88.2% in the PERFECT 1 trial and 92.7% in PERFECT 2, compared with rates of 89.8% and 93.9% in vehicle-treated controls, Jerry K.L. Tan, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Most adverse events involved local intolerance occurring at application sites and were mild and transient,” Dr. Tan, a dermatologist at the University of Western Ontario, Windsor, and head of Windsor Clinical Research, reported.

PERFECT 1 and 2 were multicenter, double-blind, randomized, vehicle-controlled, 12-week phase 3 trials. Of note, these were the first-ever large-scale randomized trials to simultaneously evaluate a topical therapy for treatment of both facial and truncal acne. This ambitious goal created some unique challenges, which Dr. Tan described.

Participants, all of whom had moderate acne vulgaris on the face and trunk, ranged in age from 9 to 58 years, with a mean age of 19 years. They were randomized to once-daily application of trifarotene cream 50 mcg/g or its vehicle in the evening.
 

Primary and secondary outcomes

One major efficacy endpoint on the face was achievement of Investigator Global Assessment success as defined by a score of 0 or 1, meaning clear or almost clear, coupled with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline to week 12. In PERFECT 1 and 2 this was achieved by 29.7% and 42.8% of trifarotene cream-treated patients, response rates significantly better than the 20% and 25.8% in vehicle-treated controls.

Another endpoint for facial therapy were the absolute reductions from baseline in facial inflammatory and noninflammatory acne lesions. The mean reduction in inflammatory lesion count in trifarotene-treated patients was 19.6% in PERFECT 1 and 24.6% in PERFECT 2, both significantly better than the mean 15.8% and 19.6% decreases in controls. Noninflammatory facial lesion counts dropped by 26.7% and 30.4% with trifarotene, versus 18.9% and 22.3% with vehicle.

The efficacy yardsticks utilized on the trunk were the same as on the face except that Physician Global Assessment was the terminology utilized in lieu of Investigator Global Assessment. Physician Global Assessment success on the trunk was achieved by 35.8% and 41.1% of trifarotene-treated patients in the two trials, as compared with 25.7% and 30.1% of controls.

The mean reductions in truncal inflammatory lesion count obtained with trifarotene cream were 22% and 26.1%, both significantly better than the 18.8% and 20.3% rates with vehicle.

Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to study discontinuation occurred in 1.9% of trifarotene-treated patients in one trial and 1% in the other.

One audience member commented that the vehicle response rates looked too strong for that compound to be inert. Dr. Tan agreed. “The vehicle looks really good. One of the issues with vehicles is that many of them have to contain products to prevent decay, fermentation, and proliferation of yeast and bacteria. So I quite agree: I think many of our vehicles do have active ingredients,” he replied. “If you look at the topical dapsone trials, the vehicles look amazing.”

“The other possibility is that there’s what we call ‘investigator creep,’” the dermatologist continued. “It’s the notion that you have no idea what the patients are getting, but they look like maybe they’re getting better, so you grade it as better.”

Dr. Tan reported serving as an advisor and consultant to, speaker for, and recipient of research grants from Galderma, which sponsored the two phase 3 trials. The company is also developing trifarotene for the treatment of lamellar ichthyosis.

bjancin@mdedge.com

PARIS – A novel kinder, gentler topical retinoid met all of its primary and secondary endpoints in two identical phase 3 randomized trials totaling 2,420 patients with moderate acne vulgaris on both the face and trunk.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Trifarotene cream 50 mcg/g selectively targets the gamma retinoic acid receptor. This unique selectivity for just one of the three retinoic acid receptors results in less of the classic retinoid side effects – redness, scaling, dryness, stinging, burning – that can limit the clinical utility of existing retinoids. This was borne out by the high completion rates in trifarotene-treated participants in the two 12-week trials: 88.2% in the PERFECT 1 trial and 92.7% in PERFECT 2, compared with rates of 89.8% and 93.9% in vehicle-treated controls, Jerry K.L. Tan, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Most adverse events involved local intolerance occurring at application sites and were mild and transient,” Dr. Tan, a dermatologist at the University of Western Ontario, Windsor, and head of Windsor Clinical Research, reported.

PERFECT 1 and 2 were multicenter, double-blind, randomized, vehicle-controlled, 12-week phase 3 trials. Of note, these were the first-ever large-scale randomized trials to simultaneously evaluate a topical therapy for treatment of both facial and truncal acne. This ambitious goal created some unique challenges, which Dr. Tan described.

Participants, all of whom had moderate acne vulgaris on the face and trunk, ranged in age from 9 to 58 years, with a mean age of 19 years. They were randomized to once-daily application of trifarotene cream 50 mcg/g or its vehicle in the evening.
 

Primary and secondary outcomes

One major efficacy endpoint on the face was achievement of Investigator Global Assessment success as defined by a score of 0 or 1, meaning clear or almost clear, coupled with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline to week 12. In PERFECT 1 and 2 this was achieved by 29.7% and 42.8% of trifarotene cream-treated patients, response rates significantly better than the 20% and 25.8% in vehicle-treated controls.

Another endpoint for facial therapy were the absolute reductions from baseline in facial inflammatory and noninflammatory acne lesions. The mean reduction in inflammatory lesion count in trifarotene-treated patients was 19.6% in PERFECT 1 and 24.6% in PERFECT 2, both significantly better than the mean 15.8% and 19.6% decreases in controls. Noninflammatory facial lesion counts dropped by 26.7% and 30.4% with trifarotene, versus 18.9% and 22.3% with vehicle.

The efficacy yardsticks utilized on the trunk were the same as on the face except that Physician Global Assessment was the terminology utilized in lieu of Investigator Global Assessment. Physician Global Assessment success on the trunk was achieved by 35.8% and 41.1% of trifarotene-treated patients in the two trials, as compared with 25.7% and 30.1% of controls.

The mean reductions in truncal inflammatory lesion count obtained with trifarotene cream were 22% and 26.1%, both significantly better than the 18.8% and 20.3% rates with vehicle.

Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to study discontinuation occurred in 1.9% of trifarotene-treated patients in one trial and 1% in the other.

One audience member commented that the vehicle response rates looked too strong for that compound to be inert. Dr. Tan agreed. “The vehicle looks really good. One of the issues with vehicles is that many of them have to contain products to prevent decay, fermentation, and proliferation of yeast and bacteria. So I quite agree: I think many of our vehicles do have active ingredients,” he replied. “If you look at the topical dapsone trials, the vehicles look amazing.”

“The other possibility is that there’s what we call ‘investigator creep,’” the dermatologist continued. “It’s the notion that you have no idea what the patients are getting, but they look like maybe they’re getting better, so you grade it as better.”

Dr. Tan reported serving as an advisor and consultant to, speaker for, and recipient of research grants from Galderma, which sponsored the two phase 3 trials. The company is also developing trifarotene for the treatment of lamellar ichthyosis.

bjancin@mdedge.com

PARIS – A novel kinder, gentler topical retinoid met all of its primary and secondary endpoints in two identical phase 3 randomized trials totaling 2,420 patients with moderate acne vulgaris on both the face and trunk.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Trifarotene cream 50 mcg/g selectively targets the gamma retinoic acid receptor. This unique selectivity for just one of the three retinoic acid receptors results in less of the classic retinoid side effects – redness, scaling, dryness, stinging, burning – that can limit the clinical utility of existing retinoids. This was borne out by the high completion rates in trifarotene-treated participants in the two 12-week trials: 88.2% in the PERFECT 1 trial and 92.7% in PERFECT 2, compared with rates of 89.8% and 93.9% in vehicle-treated controls, Jerry K.L. Tan, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Most adverse events involved local intolerance occurring at application sites and were mild and transient,” Dr. Tan, a dermatologist at the University of Western Ontario, Windsor, and head of Windsor Clinical Research, reported.

PERFECT 1 and 2 were multicenter, double-blind, randomized, vehicle-controlled, 12-week phase 3 trials. Of note, these were the first-ever large-scale randomized trials to simultaneously evaluate a topical therapy for treatment of both facial and truncal acne. This ambitious goal created some unique challenges, which Dr. Tan described.

Participants, all of whom had moderate acne vulgaris on the face and trunk, ranged in age from 9 to 58 years, with a mean age of 19 years. They were randomized to once-daily application of trifarotene cream 50 mcg/g or its vehicle in the evening.
 

Primary and secondary outcomes

One major efficacy endpoint on the face was achievement of Investigator Global Assessment success as defined by a score of 0 or 1, meaning clear or almost clear, coupled with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline to week 12. In PERFECT 1 and 2 this was achieved by 29.7% and 42.8% of trifarotene cream-treated patients, response rates significantly better than the 20% and 25.8% in vehicle-treated controls.

Another endpoint for facial therapy were the absolute reductions from baseline in facial inflammatory and noninflammatory acne lesions. The mean reduction in inflammatory lesion count in trifarotene-treated patients was 19.6% in PERFECT 1 and 24.6% in PERFECT 2, both significantly better than the mean 15.8% and 19.6% decreases in controls. Noninflammatory facial lesion counts dropped by 26.7% and 30.4% with trifarotene, versus 18.9% and 22.3% with vehicle.

The efficacy yardsticks utilized on the trunk were the same as on the face except that Physician Global Assessment was the terminology utilized in lieu of Investigator Global Assessment. Physician Global Assessment success on the trunk was achieved by 35.8% and 41.1% of trifarotene-treated patients in the two trials, as compared with 25.7% and 30.1% of controls.

The mean reductions in truncal inflammatory lesion count obtained with trifarotene cream were 22% and 26.1%, both significantly better than the 18.8% and 20.3% rates with vehicle.

Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to study discontinuation occurred in 1.9% of trifarotene-treated patients in one trial and 1% in the other.

One audience member commented that the vehicle response rates looked too strong for that compound to be inert. Dr. Tan agreed. “The vehicle looks really good. One of the issues with vehicles is that many of them have to contain products to prevent decay, fermentation, and proliferation of yeast and bacteria. So I quite agree: I think many of our vehicles do have active ingredients,” he replied. “If you look at the topical dapsone trials, the vehicles look amazing.”

“The other possibility is that there’s what we call ‘investigator creep,’” the dermatologist continued. “It’s the notion that you have no idea what the patients are getting, but they look like maybe they’re getting better, so you grade it as better.”

Dr. Tan reported serving as an advisor and consultant to, speaker for, and recipient of research grants from Galderma, which sponsored the two phase 3 trials. The company is also developing trifarotene for the treatment of lamellar ichthyosis.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – The United States is more ethnically diverse than ever before, creating an added challenge for dermatologists to identify skin types in patients considering aesthetic procedures.

“Unfortunately, one’s ethnic background is not always clear,” Ashish C. Bhatia, MD, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “There’s a lot more blending, a lot more difficulty figuring out what people’s ethnicity is and how their skin is going to respond to different treatments.”

When consulting with patients, Dr. Bhatia, director of dermatologic and cosmetic surgery at Oak Dermatology, outside of Chicago, determines their Fitzpatrick skin type and asks about their heritage. “Some people who are adopted don’t know their heritage,” he said. “We also ask about their history of keloids, hypertrophic scars, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation or postinflammatory erythema.”

He also makes it a point to ask patients about blemishes. “If they get pimples, how long do the marks last, and what do they look like?” is one question he asks patients. “That dialogue gives you a lot of useful information. If they get hyperpigmentation, that’s one thing. But many times, people just get postinflammatory erythema, which is often a lot easier to treat.”

In his clinical experience, challenges and risks of performing aesthetic procedures on ethnic skin include postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation, depigmentation, keloids, and hypertrophic scars. He explained that patients with darker skin types have bigger melanin granules and melanosomes, and more of them are deposited into keratinocytes.

“There’s a complex interaction that occurs between the melanocytes and the keratinocytes, where they phagocytize the ends and take up the melanosomes,” said Dr. Bhatia, also of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “There’s an opportunity to block tyrosinase to prevent the production of melanin, but once the melanin is produced, what we really worry about is where that melanin ends up. It may end up in the epidermis in the form of light brown pigment. You can see this enhanced if you look at it with a Wood’s light. But if it ends up in the dermis, you don’t get enhancement and clinically it’s more of a bluish-gray pigment. The deeper melanin is much more difficult to treat. Often the postinflammatory hyperpigmentation people get is a combination of these two.”

To reduce the risks of hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation from procedures, he generally advises against the use of intense pulsed light (IPL), fractional ablative lasers, shorter-wavelength lasers, and cryotherapy. “It’s not to say you can’t use them, but you have to be very careful,” he said. For clinicians with less experience treating skin of color, he recommends using procedures that spare the epidermis and the dermal/epidermal junction altogether. “This includes lasers with longer wavelengths such as the 1,064-nm Nd:YAG, always using generous cooling to avoid injury or trauma to the dermal/epidermal junction and using longer pulse durations.”

Nonlaser procedures to consider using for darker-skinned patients include superficial chemical peels, radiofrequency (RF) microneedling with semi-insulated needles, microfocused ultrasound, and noninvasive RF procedures that spare or cool the epidermis. “You should never be afraid to do a test spot,” he said. Adjunctive therapies to consider using include hydroquinone and other tyrosinase-receptor blockers, and preprocedural preparatory formulas. “Always advise sun protection and avoidance and administer HSV [herpes simplex virus] prophylaxis as indicated,” he added. “Ample evidence exists to show that currently available fillers and neuromodulators are safe to use in darker skin types. The issue here is more with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, which can occur from needle punctures, so small-gauge needles and linear threading versus serial puncture is preferred.”

Adjunctive postprocedure preventative therapies include hydroquinone and other tyrosinase-receptor blockers; high-potency topical steroids such as clobetasol twice a day for 3 days and tapering to once a day for 3 days before halting; and postprocedural recovery/healing formulas.

Dr. Bhatia said that hypopigmentation can be treated with UV therapy, with bimatoprost topically combined with needling or low-density fractional lasers, as well as with epidermal microsuction grafting such as the CelluTome Epidermal Harvesting System. Hyperpigmentation can be treated with tyrosinase inhibitors, retinoids, chemical peels, and with microdermal/dermal infusion.

As for cosmeceuticals, sunscreens are necessary for keeping skin tone even. Retinoids are also helpful for maintenance, “but irritation can lead to postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, so go slow,” he said. Hyperpigmentation can be treated with hydroquinone, azelaic acid (Finacea), as well as many other preparations.

“Don’t be afraid to treat these patients,” Dr. Bhatia concluded. “As you get more used to performing procedures on people with darker skin types, you discover the limits of what you can and can’t do. But in general, we can do a lot to make these patients happy.”

Dr. Bhatia reported having research and financial ties to numerous pharmaceutical and device companies.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – The United States is more ethnically diverse than ever before, creating an added challenge for dermatologists to identify skin types in patients considering aesthetic procedures.

“Unfortunately, one’s ethnic background is not always clear,” Ashish C. Bhatia, MD, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “There’s a lot more blending, a lot more difficulty figuring out what people’s ethnicity is and how their skin is going to respond to different treatments.”

When consulting with patients, Dr. Bhatia, director of dermatologic and cosmetic surgery at Oak Dermatology, outside of Chicago, determines their Fitzpatrick skin type and asks about their heritage. “Some people who are adopted don’t know their heritage,” he said. “We also ask about their history of keloids, hypertrophic scars, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation or postinflammatory erythema.”

He also makes it a point to ask patients about blemishes. “If they get pimples, how long do the marks last, and what do they look like?” is one question he asks patients. “That dialogue gives you a lot of useful information. If they get hyperpigmentation, that’s one thing. But many times, people just get postinflammatory erythema, which is often a lot easier to treat.”

In his clinical experience, challenges and risks of performing aesthetic procedures on ethnic skin include postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation, depigmentation, keloids, and hypertrophic scars. He explained that patients with darker skin types have bigger melanin granules and melanosomes, and more of them are deposited into keratinocytes.

“There’s a complex interaction that occurs between the melanocytes and the keratinocytes, where they phagocytize the ends and take up the melanosomes,” said Dr. Bhatia, also of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “There’s an opportunity to block tyrosinase to prevent the production of melanin, but once the melanin is produced, what we really worry about is where that melanin ends up. It may end up in the epidermis in the form of light brown pigment. You can see this enhanced if you look at it with a Wood’s light. But if it ends up in the dermis, you don’t get enhancement and clinically it’s more of a bluish-gray pigment. The deeper melanin is much more difficult to treat. Often the postinflammatory hyperpigmentation people get is a combination of these two.”

To reduce the risks of hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation from procedures, he generally advises against the use of intense pulsed light (IPL), fractional ablative lasers, shorter-wavelength lasers, and cryotherapy. “It’s not to say you can’t use them, but you have to be very careful,” he said. For clinicians with less experience treating skin of color, he recommends using procedures that spare the epidermis and the dermal/epidermal junction altogether. “This includes lasers with longer wavelengths such as the 1,064-nm Nd:YAG, always using generous cooling to avoid injury or trauma to the dermal/epidermal junction and using longer pulse durations.”

Nonlaser procedures to consider using for darker-skinned patients include superficial chemical peels, radiofrequency (RF) microneedling with semi-insulated needles, microfocused ultrasound, and noninvasive RF procedures that spare or cool the epidermis. “You should never be afraid to do a test spot,” he said. Adjunctive therapies to consider using include hydroquinone and other tyrosinase-receptor blockers, and preprocedural preparatory formulas. “Always advise sun protection and avoidance and administer HSV [herpes simplex virus] prophylaxis as indicated,” he added. “Ample evidence exists to show that currently available fillers and neuromodulators are safe to use in darker skin types. The issue here is more with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, which can occur from needle punctures, so small-gauge needles and linear threading versus serial puncture is preferred.”

Adjunctive postprocedure preventative therapies include hydroquinone and other tyrosinase-receptor blockers; high-potency topical steroids such as clobetasol twice a day for 3 days and tapering to once a day for 3 days before halting; and postprocedural recovery/healing formulas.

Dr. Bhatia said that hypopigmentation can be treated with UV therapy, with bimatoprost topically combined with needling or low-density fractional lasers, as well as with epidermal microsuction grafting such as the CelluTome Epidermal Harvesting System. Hyperpigmentation can be treated with tyrosinase inhibitors, retinoids, chemical peels, and with microdermal/dermal infusion.

As for cosmeceuticals, sunscreens are necessary for keeping skin tone even. Retinoids are also helpful for maintenance, “but irritation can lead to postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, so go slow,” he said. Hyperpigmentation can be treated with hydroquinone, azelaic acid (Finacea), as well as many other preparations.

“Don’t be afraid to treat these patients,” Dr. Bhatia concluded. “As you get more used to performing procedures on people with darker skin types, you discover the limits of what you can and can’t do. But in general, we can do a lot to make these patients happy.”

Dr. Bhatia reported having research and financial ties to numerous pharmaceutical and device companies.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – The United States is more ethnically diverse than ever before, creating an added challenge for dermatologists to identify skin types in patients considering aesthetic procedures.

“Unfortunately, one’s ethnic background is not always clear,” Ashish C. Bhatia, MD, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “There’s a lot more blending, a lot more difficulty figuring out what people’s ethnicity is and how their skin is going to respond to different treatments.”

When consulting with patients, Dr. Bhatia, director of dermatologic and cosmetic surgery at Oak Dermatology, outside of Chicago, determines their Fitzpatrick skin type and asks about their heritage. “Some people who are adopted don’t know their heritage,” he said. “We also ask about their history of keloids, hypertrophic scars, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation or postinflammatory erythema.”

He also makes it a point to ask patients about blemishes. “If they get pimples, how long do the marks last, and what do they look like?” is one question he asks patients. “That dialogue gives you a lot of useful information. If they get hyperpigmentation, that’s one thing. But many times, people just get postinflammatory erythema, which is often a lot easier to treat.”

In his clinical experience, challenges and risks of performing aesthetic procedures on ethnic skin include postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation, depigmentation, keloids, and hypertrophic scars. He explained that patients with darker skin types have bigger melanin granules and melanosomes, and more of them are deposited into keratinocytes.

“There’s a complex interaction that occurs between the melanocytes and the keratinocytes, where they phagocytize the ends and take up the melanosomes,” said Dr. Bhatia, also of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “There’s an opportunity to block tyrosinase to prevent the production of melanin, but once the melanin is produced, what we really worry about is where that melanin ends up. It may end up in the epidermis in the form of light brown pigment. You can see this enhanced if you look at it with a Wood’s light. But if it ends up in the dermis, you don’t get enhancement and clinically it’s more of a bluish-gray pigment. The deeper melanin is much more difficult to treat. Often the postinflammatory hyperpigmentation people get is a combination of these two.”

To reduce the risks of hyperpigmentation and hypopigmentation from procedures, he generally advises against the use of intense pulsed light (IPL), fractional ablative lasers, shorter-wavelength lasers, and cryotherapy. “It’s not to say you can’t use them, but you have to be very careful,” he said. For clinicians with less experience treating skin of color, he recommends using procedures that spare the epidermis and the dermal/epidermal junction altogether. “This includes lasers with longer wavelengths such as the 1,064-nm Nd:YAG, always using generous cooling to avoid injury or trauma to the dermal/epidermal junction and using longer pulse durations.”

Nonlaser procedures to consider using for darker-skinned patients include superficial chemical peels, radiofrequency (RF) microneedling with semi-insulated needles, microfocused ultrasound, and noninvasive RF procedures that spare or cool the epidermis. “You should never be afraid to do a test spot,” he said. Adjunctive therapies to consider using include hydroquinone and other tyrosinase-receptor blockers, and preprocedural preparatory formulas. “Always advise sun protection and avoidance and administer HSV [herpes simplex virus] prophylaxis as indicated,” he added. “Ample evidence exists to show that currently available fillers and neuromodulators are safe to use in darker skin types. The issue here is more with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, which can occur from needle punctures, so small-gauge needles and linear threading versus serial puncture is preferred.”

Adjunctive postprocedure preventative therapies include hydroquinone and other tyrosinase-receptor blockers; high-potency topical steroids such as clobetasol twice a day for 3 days and tapering to once a day for 3 days before halting; and postprocedural recovery/healing formulas.

Dr. Bhatia said that hypopigmentation can be treated with UV therapy, with bimatoprost topically combined with needling or low-density fractional lasers, as well as with epidermal microsuction grafting such as the CelluTome Epidermal Harvesting System. Hyperpigmentation can be treated with tyrosinase inhibitors, retinoids, chemical peels, and with microdermal/dermal infusion.

As for cosmeceuticals, sunscreens are necessary for keeping skin tone even. Retinoids are also helpful for maintenance, “but irritation can lead to postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, so go slow,” he said. Hyperpigmentation can be treated with hydroquinone, azelaic acid (Finacea), as well as many other preparations.

“Don’t be afraid to treat these patients,” Dr. Bhatia concluded. “As you get more used to performing procedures on people with darker skin types, you discover the limits of what you can and can’t do. But in general, we can do a lot to make these patients happy.”

Dr. Bhatia reported having research and financial ties to numerous pharmaceutical and device companies.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – The development of ablative fractional lasers has revolutionized how dermatologists treat scars, according to Jill S. Waibel, MD.

“I tell patients it’s like boiling water in a tea kettle and watching the vapor form,” Dr. Waibel, a dermatologist with the Miami Dermatology and Laser Institute, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “You literally ‘steam off’ their bad scar and the human body will heal that wound to almost normal skin. It’s the closest thing we have to a magic wand.”

In the not-too-distant past, dermatologists “were treating scars just to make them look better,” she said. However, thanks to groundbreaking work by clinicians at Naval Medical Center San Diego, the use of ablative fractional lasers to treat scars was found to improve range of motion in patients, as well as their pain and pruritus. “It represents a major innovation that heals in ways not previously possible,” said Dr. Waibel, who is also chief of dermatology at Baptist Hospital in Miami. “We’re not just healing the scar; we’re healing the skin back to its physiological normal place. A lot of these patients suffer quite a bit.”

Dr. Waibel likened her scar treatment approach to a three-course meal. Lesion color drives her choice of what device to use as an “appetizer” treatment. Most scars are either red (erythematous), brown (hyperpigmented), or white (hypopigmented). Though every scar is unique and individually evaluated for treatment, typically she uses pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light, or broadband light therapy to treat erythematous/early scars; nonablative fractional lasers to treat atrophic scars, and the thulium or 1,470-nm laser to treat hyperpigmented scars. The “main course” device in her practice is an ablative fractional erbium or CO₂ laser.

“Once I treat the scar three to five times, I might switch to a nonablative laser, but I’m really an ablative fractional user,” Dr. Waibel said. “Dessert” can be whatever adjunctive therapies you need, she continued. This may include triamcinolone acetonide, 5-fluorouracil, poly-l-lactic acid, hyaluronidase, Z-plasty, punch biopsies, shave biopsies, compression, chemical reconstruction of skin scars (CROSS), and subcision.

For erythematous surgical and trauma scars, she uses a combination of pulsed dye laser and ablative fractional laser. “Same day, same treatment; one after each other,” she said. She favors using intense pulsed light for donor sites because it has filters that address both melanin and hemosiderin, superiority for scar erythema, and deeper penetration with greater speed to treat large surface areas.

One recent advance in the vascular arena is the new 595-nm pulsed dye laser by Candela, known as the VBeam Prima. It features increased energy, a 15-nm spot size, a zoom hand piece, once-a-day calibration, and contact cooling, which may be better for pigmented and possibly microvascular structures. The device is cleared for treating conditions like rosacea, acne, spider veins, port-wine stains, wrinkles, warts and stretch marks, as well as photoaging and benign pigmented lesions.

Dr. Waibel’s go-to device for treating a hypertrophic, hyperpigmented surgical scar is a 1927-nm or 1470-nm nonablative fractional laser, followed by a fractional ablative laser and injection of 1-2 ccs of 5-fluorouracil only to elevated areas. Hypopigmented scars are “by far the toughest to treat,” she said. However, she has a formula for these, too, and recently conducted a trial comparing the efficacy of nonablative fractional laser, ablative fractional laser, and ablative fractional laser followed by laser-assisted delivery of bimatoprost (Latisse) to treat hypopigmentation.

Surgical scars get better on their own in many cases, but sometimes early intervention is warranted. “Most surgeons will tell patients, ‘Wait a year. What you have [in terms of scar formation] is what you have,’” Dr. Waibel said. “If a surgical scar becomes hypertrophic, it does so within a month of surgery. I don’t prophylactically treat surgical scars unless the patient has had multiple surgeries in the same location with trouble healing. But if it’s been 6 months to a year, or if the patient is developing hypertrophic scars, then I will treat.”

Acne scars are challenging, because patients want to look good right away. “With deep scars, it takes several treatments to see good improvements,” she said. “I tell all my acne scar patients it takes a year [to get good results].”

Most burn patients require three to six treatment sessions, “but sometimes you get remarkable improvement sooner,” she said. “That’s due to the patient’s healing.” She and her associates recently completed an unpublished study that examined early intervention of fractional ablative laser versus control in 20 subjects with acute burn injuries who ranged in age from 18 to 80 years. The subjects underwent treatment with an ablative fractional CO₂ laser within 3 months of sustaining the burn injury, leaving an untreated control area for comparison. According to Dr. Waibel, 100% of the blinded physician evaluators graded the laser-treated area correctly, compared with the control area. In addition, a significant improvement in all points of the Manchester Scar Scale was observed in the laser-treated area. “The earlier you treat burn and trauma patients, the easier it is to get them back to normal,” she said.

Dr. Waibel disclosed that she has conducted clinical research for Aquavit, Cytrellis, Lumenis, Lutronic, Michelson Diagnostics, RegenX, Sciton, Sebacia, and Syneron/Candela. She is also a consultant for RegenX, Strata, and Syneron/Candela and is a member of the advisory board for Dominion Technologies, Sciton, and Sebacia.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – The development of ablative fractional lasers has revolutionized how dermatologists treat scars, according to Jill S. Waibel, MD.

“I tell patients it’s like boiling water in a tea kettle and watching the vapor form,” Dr. Waibel, a dermatologist with the Miami Dermatology and Laser Institute, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “You literally ‘steam off’ their bad scar and the human body will heal that wound to almost normal skin. It’s the closest thing we have to a magic wand.”

In the not-too-distant past, dermatologists “were treating scars just to make them look better,” she said. However, thanks to groundbreaking work by clinicians at Naval Medical Center San Diego, the use of ablative fractional lasers to treat scars was found to improve range of motion in patients, as well as their pain and pruritus. “It represents a major innovation that heals in ways not previously possible,” said Dr. Waibel, who is also chief of dermatology at Baptist Hospital in Miami. “We’re not just healing the scar; we’re healing the skin back to its physiological normal place. A lot of these patients suffer quite a bit.”

Dr. Waibel likened her scar treatment approach to a three-course meal. Lesion color drives her choice of what device to use as an “appetizer” treatment. Most scars are either red (erythematous), brown (hyperpigmented), or white (hypopigmented). Though every scar is unique and individually evaluated for treatment, typically she uses pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light, or broadband light therapy to treat erythematous/early scars; nonablative fractional lasers to treat atrophic scars, and the thulium or 1,470-nm laser to treat hyperpigmented scars. The “main course” device in her practice is an ablative fractional erbium or CO₂ laser.

“Once I treat the scar three to five times, I might switch to a nonablative laser, but I’m really an ablative fractional user,” Dr. Waibel said. “Dessert” can be whatever adjunctive therapies you need, she continued. This may include triamcinolone acetonide, 5-fluorouracil, poly-l-lactic acid, hyaluronidase, Z-plasty, punch biopsies, shave biopsies, compression, chemical reconstruction of skin scars (CROSS), and subcision.

For erythematous surgical and trauma scars, she uses a combination of pulsed dye laser and ablative fractional laser. “Same day, same treatment; one after each other,” she said. She favors using intense pulsed light for donor sites because it has filters that address both melanin and hemosiderin, superiority for scar erythema, and deeper penetration with greater speed to treat large surface areas.

One recent advance in the vascular arena is the new 595-nm pulsed dye laser by Candela, known as the VBeam Prima. It features increased energy, a 15-nm spot size, a zoom hand piece, once-a-day calibration, and contact cooling, which may be better for pigmented and possibly microvascular structures. The device is cleared for treating conditions like rosacea, acne, spider veins, port-wine stains, wrinkles, warts and stretch marks, as well as photoaging and benign pigmented lesions.

Dr. Waibel’s go-to device for treating a hypertrophic, hyperpigmented surgical scar is a 1927-nm or 1470-nm nonablative fractional laser, followed by a fractional ablative laser and injection of 1-2 ccs of 5-fluorouracil only to elevated areas. Hypopigmented scars are “by far the toughest to treat,” she said. However, she has a formula for these, too, and recently conducted a trial comparing the efficacy of nonablative fractional laser, ablative fractional laser, and ablative fractional laser followed by laser-assisted delivery of bimatoprost (Latisse) to treat hypopigmentation.

Surgical scars get better on their own in many cases, but sometimes early intervention is warranted. “Most surgeons will tell patients, ‘Wait a year. What you have [in terms of scar formation] is what you have,’” Dr. Waibel said. “If a surgical scar becomes hypertrophic, it does so within a month of surgery. I don’t prophylactically treat surgical scars unless the patient has had multiple surgeries in the same location with trouble healing. But if it’s been 6 months to a year, or if the patient is developing hypertrophic scars, then I will treat.”

Acne scars are challenging, because patients want to look good right away. “With deep scars, it takes several treatments to see good improvements,” she said. “I tell all my acne scar patients it takes a year [to get good results].”

Most burn patients require three to six treatment sessions, “but sometimes you get remarkable improvement sooner,” she said. “That’s due to the patient’s healing.” She and her associates recently completed an unpublished study that examined early intervention of fractional ablative laser versus control in 20 subjects with acute burn injuries who ranged in age from 18 to 80 years. The subjects underwent treatment with an ablative fractional CO₂ laser within 3 months of sustaining the burn injury, leaving an untreated control area for comparison. According to Dr. Waibel, 100% of the blinded physician evaluators graded the laser-treated area correctly, compared with the control area. In addition, a significant improvement in all points of the Manchester Scar Scale was observed in the laser-treated area. “The earlier you treat burn and trauma patients, the easier it is to get them back to normal,” she said.

Dr. Waibel disclosed that she has conducted clinical research for Aquavit, Cytrellis, Lumenis, Lutronic, Michelson Diagnostics, RegenX, Sciton, Sebacia, and Syneron/Candela. She is also a consultant for RegenX, Strata, and Syneron/Candela and is a member of the advisory board for Dominion Technologies, Sciton, and Sebacia.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – The development of ablative fractional lasers has revolutionized how dermatologists treat scars, according to Jill S. Waibel, MD.

“I tell patients it’s like boiling water in a tea kettle and watching the vapor form,” Dr. Waibel, a dermatologist with the Miami Dermatology and Laser Institute, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “You literally ‘steam off’ their bad scar and the human body will heal that wound to almost normal skin. It’s the closest thing we have to a magic wand.”

In the not-too-distant past, dermatologists “were treating scars just to make them look better,” she said. However, thanks to groundbreaking work by clinicians at Naval Medical Center San Diego, the use of ablative fractional lasers to treat scars was found to improve range of motion in patients, as well as their pain and pruritus. “It represents a major innovation that heals in ways not previously possible,” said Dr. Waibel, who is also chief of dermatology at Baptist Hospital in Miami. “We’re not just healing the scar; we’re healing the skin back to its physiological normal place. A lot of these patients suffer quite a bit.”

Dr. Waibel likened her scar treatment approach to a three-course meal. Lesion color drives her choice of what device to use as an “appetizer” treatment. Most scars are either red (erythematous), brown (hyperpigmented), or white (hypopigmented). Though every scar is unique and individually evaluated for treatment, typically she uses pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light, or broadband light therapy to treat erythematous/early scars; nonablative fractional lasers to treat atrophic scars, and the thulium or 1,470-nm laser to treat hyperpigmented scars. The “main course” device in her practice is an ablative fractional erbium or CO₂ laser.

“Once I treat the scar three to five times, I might switch to a nonablative laser, but I’m really an ablative fractional user,” Dr. Waibel said. “Dessert” can be whatever adjunctive therapies you need, she continued. This may include triamcinolone acetonide, 5-fluorouracil, poly-l-lactic acid, hyaluronidase, Z-plasty, punch biopsies, shave biopsies, compression, chemical reconstruction of skin scars (CROSS), and subcision.

For erythematous surgical and trauma scars, she uses a combination of pulsed dye laser and ablative fractional laser. “Same day, same treatment; one after each other,” she said. She favors using intense pulsed light for donor sites because it has filters that address both melanin and hemosiderin, superiority for scar erythema, and deeper penetration with greater speed to treat large surface areas.

One recent advance in the vascular arena is the new 595-nm pulsed dye laser by Candela, known as the VBeam Prima. It features increased energy, a 15-nm spot size, a zoom hand piece, once-a-day calibration, and contact cooling, which may be better for pigmented and possibly microvascular structures. The device is cleared for treating conditions like rosacea, acne, spider veins, port-wine stains, wrinkles, warts and stretch marks, as well as photoaging and benign pigmented lesions.

Dr. Waibel’s go-to device for treating a hypertrophic, hyperpigmented surgical scar is a 1927-nm or 1470-nm nonablative fractional laser, followed by a fractional ablative laser and injection of 1-2 ccs of 5-fluorouracil only to elevated areas. Hypopigmented scars are “by far the toughest to treat,” she said. However, she has a formula for these, too, and recently conducted a trial comparing the efficacy of nonablative fractional laser, ablative fractional laser, and ablative fractional laser followed by laser-assisted delivery of bimatoprost (Latisse) to treat hypopigmentation.

Surgical scars get better on their own in many cases, but sometimes early intervention is warranted. “Most surgeons will tell patients, ‘Wait a year. What you have [in terms of scar formation] is what you have,’” Dr. Waibel said. “If a surgical scar becomes hypertrophic, it does so within a month of surgery. I don’t prophylactically treat surgical scars unless the patient has had multiple surgeries in the same location with trouble healing. But if it’s been 6 months to a year, or if the patient is developing hypertrophic scars, then I will treat.”

Acne scars are challenging, because patients want to look good right away. “With deep scars, it takes several treatments to see good improvements,” she said. “I tell all my acne scar patients it takes a year [to get good results].”

Most burn patients require three to six treatment sessions, “but sometimes you get remarkable improvement sooner,” she said. “That’s due to the patient’s healing.” She and her associates recently completed an unpublished study that examined early intervention of fractional ablative laser versus control in 20 subjects with acute burn injuries who ranged in age from 18 to 80 years. The subjects underwent treatment with an ablative fractional CO₂ laser within 3 months of sustaining the burn injury, leaving an untreated control area for comparison. According to Dr. Waibel, 100% of the blinded physician evaluators graded the laser-treated area correctly, compared with the control area. In addition, a significant improvement in all points of the Manchester Scar Scale was observed in the laser-treated area. “The earlier you treat burn and trauma patients, the easier it is to get them back to normal,” she said.

Dr. Waibel disclosed that she has conducted clinical research for Aquavit, Cytrellis, Lumenis, Lutronic, Michelson Diagnostics, RegenX, Sciton, Sebacia, and Syneron/Candela. She is also a consultant for RegenX, Strata, and Syneron/Candela and is a member of the advisory board for Dominion Technologies, Sciton, and Sebacia.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

PARIS – High relative troponin I concentrations in the blood of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been found to be a remarkably powerful predictor of all-cause mortality even after researchers adjusted for all major cardiovascular and COPD prognostic indicators, according to a late-breaker presentation at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Troponin I is detectable in the plasma of most patients with COPD, but relative increases in troponin I correlate with greater relative increases in most cardiovascular and COPD risk factors, according to Benjamin Waschki, MD, Pulmonary Research Institute, LungenClinic, Grosshansdorf, Germany.

The relationship between increased troponin I and increased all-cause mortality was observed in an on-going prospective multicenter cohort of COPD patients followed at 31 centers in Germany. The cohort is called COSYCONET and it began in 2010. The current analysis evaluated 2,020 COPD patients without regard to stage of disease.

There were 136 deaths over the course of follow-up. Without adjustment, the hazard ratio (HR) for death was more than twofold higher in the highest quartile of troponin I (equal to or greater than 6.6 ng/mL), when compared with the lowest (under 2.5 ng/mL) (HR, 2.42; P less than .001). Graphically, the mortality curves for each of the quartiles began to separate at about 12 months, widening in a stepwise manner for greater likelihood of death from the lowest to highest quartiles.

The risk of death from any cause remained elevated for the highest relative to lowest troponin I quartiles after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and after adjusting for COPD severity. Again, there was a distinct stepwise separation of the mortality curves for each higher troponin quartile,

Of particular importance, troponin I remained predictive beyond the BODE index, which is a currently employed prognostic mortality predictor in COPD, according to Dr. Waschki. When defining elevated troponin as greater than 6 ng/ML and a high BODE score as greater than 4, mortality was higher for those with a high BODE and low troponin than a high troponin and low BODE, (P less than .001), but a high troponin I was associated with a higher risk of mortality when BODE was low (P less than .001). Moreover, when both troponin I and BODE were elevated, all-cause mortality was more than doubled, relative to those without either risk factor (HR, 2.56; P = .003), Dr. Waschki reported.

After researchers adjusted for major cardiovascular risk factors, such as history of MI and renal impairment, and for major COPD risk factors, such as 6-minute walk test and BODE index, those in the highest quartile had a more than 50% greater risk of death relative to those in the lower quartile over the 3 years of follow-up (HR, 1.69; P = .007), according to Dr. Waschki.

Although troponin I is best known for its diagnostic role in MI, it is now being evaluated as a risk stratifier for many chronic diseases, such as heart failure and chronic kidney disease, explained Dr. Waschki in providing background for this study. He reported that many groups are looking at this as a marker of risk in a variety of chronic diseases.

In fact, a group working independently published a study in COPD just weeks before the ERS Congress that was complementary to those presented by Dr. Waschki. In this study, the goal was to evaluate troponin I as a predictor of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death (Adamson PD et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;72:1126-37). Performed as a subgroup analysis of 1,599 COPD patients participating in a large treatment trial, there was an almost fourfold increase in the risk of cardiovascular events (HR, 3.7; P = .012) when those in the highest quintile of troponin I (greater than 7.7 ng/ML) were compared with those in the lowest quintile (less than 2.3 ng/mL).

When compared for cardiovascular death, the highest quintile, relative to the lowest quintile, had a more than 20-fold increased risk of cardiovascular death (HR 20.1; P = .005). In the Adamson et al. study, which evaluated inhaled therapies for COPD, treatment response had no impact on troponin I levels or on the risk of cardiovascular events or death.

Based on this study and his own data, Dr. Waschki believes troponin I, which is readily ordered laboratory value, appears to be a useful tool for identifying COPD patients at high risk of death.

“The major message is that after adjusting for all known COPD and cardiovascular risk factors, troponin I remains a significant independent predictor of mortality,” he said.

Dr. Waschki reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

PARIS – High relative troponin I concentrations in the blood of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been found to be a remarkably powerful predictor of all-cause mortality even after researchers adjusted for all major cardiovascular and COPD prognostic indicators, according to a late-breaker presentation at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Troponin I is detectable in the plasma of most patients with COPD, but relative increases in troponin I correlate with greater relative increases in most cardiovascular and COPD risk factors, according to Benjamin Waschki, MD, Pulmonary Research Institute, LungenClinic, Grosshansdorf, Germany.

The relationship between increased troponin I and increased all-cause mortality was observed in an on-going prospective multicenter cohort of COPD patients followed at 31 centers in Germany. The cohort is called COSYCONET and it began in 2010. The current analysis evaluated 2,020 COPD patients without regard to stage of disease.

There were 136 deaths over the course of follow-up. Without adjustment, the hazard ratio (HR) for death was more than twofold higher in the highest quartile of troponin I (equal to or greater than 6.6 ng/mL), when compared with the lowest (under 2.5 ng/mL) (HR, 2.42; P less than .001). Graphically, the mortality curves for each of the quartiles began to separate at about 12 months, widening in a stepwise manner for greater likelihood of death from the lowest to highest quartiles.

The risk of death from any cause remained elevated for the highest relative to lowest troponin I quartiles after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and after adjusting for COPD severity. Again, there was a distinct stepwise separation of the mortality curves for each higher troponin quartile,

Of particular importance, troponin I remained predictive beyond the BODE index, which is a currently employed prognostic mortality predictor in COPD, according to Dr. Waschki. When defining elevated troponin as greater than 6 ng/ML and a high BODE score as greater than 4, mortality was higher for those with a high BODE and low troponin than a high troponin and low BODE, (P less than .001), but a high troponin I was associated with a higher risk of mortality when BODE was low (P less than .001). Moreover, when both troponin I and BODE were elevated, all-cause mortality was more than doubled, relative to those without either risk factor (HR, 2.56; P = .003), Dr. Waschki reported.

After researchers adjusted for major cardiovascular risk factors, such as history of MI and renal impairment, and for major COPD risk factors, such as 6-minute walk test and BODE index, those in the highest quartile had a more than 50% greater risk of death relative to those in the lower quartile over the 3 years of follow-up (HR, 1.69; P = .007), according to Dr. Waschki.

Although troponin I is best known for its diagnostic role in MI, it is now being evaluated as a risk stratifier for many chronic diseases, such as heart failure and chronic kidney disease, explained Dr. Waschki in providing background for this study. He reported that many groups are looking at this as a marker of risk in a variety of chronic diseases.

In fact, a group working independently published a study in COPD just weeks before the ERS Congress that was complementary to those presented by Dr. Waschki. In this study, the goal was to evaluate troponin I as a predictor of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death (Adamson PD et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;72:1126-37). Performed as a subgroup analysis of 1,599 COPD patients participating in a large treatment trial, there was an almost fourfold increase in the risk of cardiovascular events (HR, 3.7; P = .012) when those in the highest quintile of troponin I (greater than 7.7 ng/ML) were compared with those in the lowest quintile (less than 2.3 ng/mL).

When compared for cardiovascular death, the highest quintile, relative to the lowest quintile, had a more than 20-fold increased risk of cardiovascular death (HR 20.1; P = .005). In the Adamson et al. study, which evaluated inhaled therapies for COPD, treatment response had no impact on troponin I levels or on the risk of cardiovascular events or death.

Based on this study and his own data, Dr. Waschki believes troponin I, which is readily ordered laboratory value, appears to be a useful tool for identifying COPD patients at high risk of death.

“The major message is that after adjusting for all known COPD and cardiovascular risk factors, troponin I remains a significant independent predictor of mortality,” he said.

Dr. Waschki reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

PARIS – High relative troponin I concentrations in the blood of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been found to be a remarkably powerful predictor of all-cause mortality even after researchers adjusted for all major cardiovascular and COPD prognostic indicators, according to a late-breaker presentation at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Troponin I is detectable in the plasma of most patients with COPD, but relative increases in troponin I correlate with greater relative increases in most cardiovascular and COPD risk factors, according to Benjamin Waschki, MD, Pulmonary Research Institute, LungenClinic, Grosshansdorf, Germany.

The relationship between increased troponin I and increased all-cause mortality was observed in an on-going prospective multicenter cohort of COPD patients followed at 31 centers in Germany. The cohort is called COSYCONET and it began in 2010. The current analysis evaluated 2,020 COPD patients without regard to stage of disease.

There were 136 deaths over the course of follow-up. Without adjustment, the hazard ratio (HR) for death was more than twofold higher in the highest quartile of troponin I (equal to or greater than 6.6 ng/mL), when compared with the lowest (under 2.5 ng/mL) (HR, 2.42; P less than .001). Graphically, the mortality curves for each of the quartiles began to separate at about 12 months, widening in a stepwise manner for greater likelihood of death from the lowest to highest quartiles.

The risk of death from any cause remained elevated for the highest relative to lowest troponin I quartiles after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and after adjusting for COPD severity. Again, there was a distinct stepwise separation of the mortality curves for each higher troponin quartile,

Of particular importance, troponin I remained predictive beyond the BODE index, which is a currently employed prognostic mortality predictor in COPD, according to Dr. Waschki. When defining elevated troponin as greater than 6 ng/ML and a high BODE score as greater than 4, mortality was higher for those with a high BODE and low troponin than a high troponin and low BODE, (P less than .001), but a high troponin I was associated with a higher risk of mortality when BODE was low (P less than .001). Moreover, when both troponin I and BODE were elevated, all-cause mortality was more than doubled, relative to those without either risk factor (HR, 2.56; P = .003), Dr. Waschki reported.

After researchers adjusted for major cardiovascular risk factors, such as history of MI and renal impairment, and for major COPD risk factors, such as 6-minute walk test and BODE index, those in the highest quartile had a more than 50% greater risk of death relative to those in the lower quartile over the 3 years of follow-up (HR, 1.69; P = .007), according to Dr. Waschki.

Although troponin I is best known for its diagnostic role in MI, it is now being evaluated as a risk stratifier for many chronic diseases, such as heart failure and chronic kidney disease, explained Dr. Waschki in providing background for this study. He reported that many groups are looking at this as a marker of risk in a variety of chronic diseases.

In fact, a group working independently published a study in COPD just weeks before the ERS Congress that was complementary to those presented by Dr. Waschki. In this study, the goal was to evaluate troponin I as a predictor of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death (Adamson PD et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;72:1126-37). Performed as a subgroup analysis of 1,599 COPD patients participating in a large treatment trial, there was an almost fourfold increase in the risk of cardiovascular events (HR, 3.7; P = .012) when those in the highest quintile of troponin I (greater than 7.7 ng/ML) were compared with those in the lowest quintile (less than 2.3 ng/mL).

When compared for cardiovascular death, the highest quintile, relative to the lowest quintile, had a more than 20-fold increased risk of cardiovascular death (HR 20.1; P = .005). In the Adamson et al. study, which evaluated inhaled therapies for COPD, treatment response had no impact on troponin I levels or on the risk of cardiovascular events or death.

Based on this study and his own data, Dr. Waschki believes troponin I, which is readily ordered laboratory value, appears to be a useful tool for identifying COPD patients at high risk of death.

“The major message is that after adjusting for all known COPD and cardiovascular risk factors, troponin I remains a significant independent predictor of mortality,” he said.

Dr. Waschki reports no relevant conflicts of interest.