Rheumatology News

The prices of two new drugs that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of lupus nephritis are in “reasonable alignment” with the drugs’ estimated benefits for patients with the disease, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review has determined.

“Both belimumab [Benlysta] and voclosporin [Lupkynis] are important new treatment options,” Steven Pearson, MD, president of ICER, observed in a summary of the report’s findings.

“Despite remaining uncertainty about both treatments’ longer-term outcomes, their estimated net prices appear to be aligned with their anticipated clinical benefits. ... For patients and clinicians to have responsibly priced options specifically indicated for lupus nephritis is a win for patients and the entire health system,” Dr. Pearson added.

The estimated annual price of belimumab is approximately $43,000 per patient; the estimated annual price for voclosporin is approximately $92,000 per patient.

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for belimumab is approximately $90,0000 per quality-adjusted life-year; the corresponding value for voclosporin is higher, at approximately $149,000 per QALY, the ICER authors noted.

The report was published by ICER in April 2021.

Large unmet need for treatment of lupus nephritis

In their report, the ICER reviewed belimumab, a parenteral B-lymphocyte inhibitor, as well as voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, as initial treatment of patients with lupus nephritis. Lupus nephritis is a serious complication of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Belimumab was first approved for the treatment of lupus in adults in the United States in March 2011. In April 2019, it was approved for use for the same indication for children aged 5 years and older. The FDA expanded the indication in December 2020 to include adults with active lupus nephritis who are receiving standard therapy.

Voclosporin was approved for the treatment of lupus nephritis in January 2021.

In the pivotal trials for the two agents, each drug was added to standard induction therapy for lupus nephritis, which consisted of high-dose corticosteroids combined with either mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or cyclophosphamide.

Compared with standard therapy alone, belimumab increased the complete renal response and the primary efficacy renal response at 2 years. With voclosporin, complete response was nearly doubled, and there was marked increased in partial response at 1 year, compared with standard therapy alone.

Neither drug appeared to increase the adverse-event rate or the rate of discontinuations, compared with standard therapy, although the FDA did add a black box warning regarding the possible risk for serious infections and malignancies with voclosporin use.

“There is a very large unmet need for the treatment of lupus nephritis,” Chris Phillips, MD, of Paducah (Ky.) Rheumatology said in an interview.

“A very large percentage of patients who do not achieve complete remission on traditional treatments have side effects or contraindications to these treatments, so we’ve needed new ones for sure,” he stressed.

The ICER authors made it clear that there is considerable uncertainty as to how short-term assessment of each of the two drugs’ performance might translate into meaningful long-term outcomes for patients, especially given that SLE is a lifelong illness.

On the other hand, “there are a lot of attributes for both of these new drugs that suggest there is potential for kidney benefit over time,” Brad Rovin, MD, professor of medicine and pathology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

For example, data from the BLISS-LN study, reported by Dr. Rovin during a meeting last year, suggest that belimumab reduces the flare rate and appears to stabilize kidney function over time, compared with standard therapy alone.

“BLISS-LN was 2 years long, so it gave us an opportunity to look at kidney function over a longer period of time than most of our prior trials in lupus nephritis,” he explained.

“The stabilization of kidney function is important, because it suggests that belimumab has a kidney protective effect, while a decrease in lupus nephritis flares is also important, because each time the disease flares, you can accumulate chronic tissue damage, which can eventually cause end-stage renal disease [ESRD],” he said.

Dr. Rovin also pointed out that the BLISS-LN trial results indicate that patients who achieve a urine protein level less than 700 mg/d after the first year of treatment do very well on long-term follow-up – another hint that belimumab may have long-term benefits for kidney function.

Voclosporin is a calcineurin inhibitor, which are protective of podocytes. “When you start to lose too many podocytes, the kidney can again progress onto ESRD, so this is again an extra benefit of the calcineurin inhibitors in the context of kidney disease that affects the glomeruli,” he noted.

“So both of these drugs have these interesting attributes that go beyond, or at least are maybe tied to, their immunosuppressive actions, but they do offer some kidney protective effects,” he reaffirmed.
 

Black patients underrepresented in trials

The ICER authors voiced concern over the fact that individuals most at risk for SLE – mostly Black patients, but also patients of other racial groups – were underrepresented in clinical trials that evaluated both agents.

“We cannot stress enough that the results are highly uncertain due to the small numbers of Black patients in the available clinical trials and the lack of data on differences among subgroups in long-term outcomes,” they stated.

This is not an academic issue, Dr. Phillips pointed out. Responses to both MMF and cyclophosphamide differ among persons of different races, “so it’s not unreasonable to consider that there could be racial differences in treatment responses to both drugs, and these definitely need to be investigated.”

This is not an academic issue, Dr. Phillips said, because there are racial disparities in how patients respond to both MMF and cyclophosphamide – “so it’s not unreasonable to consider that there could be racial differences in treatment responses to both drugs, and these definitely need to be investigated.”

The ICER authors appear to agree. They urged the manufacturers of the two new agents to expand their research to include adequate representation of lupus nephritis patients from Black and other non-White communities.

However, it is somewhat reassuring that the pivotal voclosporin trial enrolled about 30% of Hispanic patients and that about 17% of participants in the BLISS-LN trial were also Hispanic, Dr. Rovin pointed out.

This is important because Hispanic patients can have very aggressive disease, as can Black patients, he noted. There is some evidence to suggest both drugs are effective in aggressive disease.

The ICER also pointed out that the length of time that both drugs can be used prior to tapering of treatment, after which patients receive standard maintenance therapy alone, has yet to be established.

This is important, Dr. Rovin and Dr. Phillips agreed, because calcineurin inhibitors are known to be nephrotoxic, and both drugs are immunosuppressive. At least with respect to voclosporin, there is some cause of concern regarding prolonged use of the drug for patients with kidney disease.

“We don’t want patients to be on an immunosuppressive drug forever if they don’t need to be,” Dr. Rovin emphasized.

“But we are seeing really long-term remission in the setting of other inflammatory diseases, like vasculitis with rituximab. So there is hope that we can achieve the same thing in lupus. If we use drugs that target T cells in the immune system, like voclosporin, or B cells, like belimumab, maybe we can ‘reset’ the immune system and get rid of potentially autoreactive cells that could allow long-lasting disease remission, which is an unanswered question but an intriguing possibility,” he concluded.

Dr. Rovin has served as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Phillips disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The prices of two new drugs that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of lupus nephritis are in “reasonable alignment” with the drugs’ estimated benefits for patients with the disease, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review has determined.

“Both belimumab [Benlysta] and voclosporin [Lupkynis] are important new treatment options,” Steven Pearson, MD, president of ICER, observed in a summary of the report’s findings.

“Despite remaining uncertainty about both treatments’ longer-term outcomes, their estimated net prices appear to be aligned with their anticipated clinical benefits. ... For patients and clinicians to have responsibly priced options specifically indicated for lupus nephritis is a win for patients and the entire health system,” Dr. Pearson added.

The estimated annual price of belimumab is approximately $43,000 per patient; the estimated annual price for voclosporin is approximately $92,000 per patient.

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for belimumab is approximately $90,0000 per quality-adjusted life-year; the corresponding value for voclosporin is higher, at approximately $149,000 per QALY, the ICER authors noted.

The report was published by ICER in April 2021.

Large unmet need for treatment of lupus nephritis

In their report, the ICER reviewed belimumab, a parenteral B-lymphocyte inhibitor, as well as voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, as initial treatment of patients with lupus nephritis. Lupus nephritis is a serious complication of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Belimumab was first approved for the treatment of lupus in adults in the United States in March 2011. In April 2019, it was approved for use for the same indication for children aged 5 years and older. The FDA expanded the indication in December 2020 to include adults with active lupus nephritis who are receiving standard therapy.

Voclosporin was approved for the treatment of lupus nephritis in January 2021.

In the pivotal trials for the two agents, each drug was added to standard induction therapy for lupus nephritis, which consisted of high-dose corticosteroids combined with either mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or cyclophosphamide.

Compared with standard therapy alone, belimumab increased the complete renal response and the primary efficacy renal response at 2 years. With voclosporin, complete response was nearly doubled, and there was marked increased in partial response at 1 year, compared with standard therapy alone.

Neither drug appeared to increase the adverse-event rate or the rate of discontinuations, compared with standard therapy, although the FDA did add a black box warning regarding the possible risk for serious infections and malignancies with voclosporin use.

“There is a very large unmet need for the treatment of lupus nephritis,” Chris Phillips, MD, of Paducah (Ky.) Rheumatology said in an interview.

“A very large percentage of patients who do not achieve complete remission on traditional treatments have side effects or contraindications to these treatments, so we’ve needed new ones for sure,” he stressed.

The ICER authors made it clear that there is considerable uncertainty as to how short-term assessment of each of the two drugs’ performance might translate into meaningful long-term outcomes for patients, especially given that SLE is a lifelong illness.

On the other hand, “there are a lot of attributes for both of these new drugs that suggest there is potential for kidney benefit over time,” Brad Rovin, MD, professor of medicine and pathology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

For example, data from the BLISS-LN study, reported by Dr. Rovin during a meeting last year, suggest that belimumab reduces the flare rate and appears to stabilize kidney function over time, compared with standard therapy alone.

“BLISS-LN was 2 years long, so it gave us an opportunity to look at kidney function over a longer period of time than most of our prior trials in lupus nephritis,” he explained.

“The stabilization of kidney function is important, because it suggests that belimumab has a kidney protective effect, while a decrease in lupus nephritis flares is also important, because each time the disease flares, you can accumulate chronic tissue damage, which can eventually cause end-stage renal disease [ESRD],” he said.

Dr. Rovin also pointed out that the BLISS-LN trial results indicate that patients who achieve a urine protein level less than 700 mg/d after the first year of treatment do very well on long-term follow-up – another hint that belimumab may have long-term benefits for kidney function.

Voclosporin is a calcineurin inhibitor, which are protective of podocytes. “When you start to lose too many podocytes, the kidney can again progress onto ESRD, so this is again an extra benefit of the calcineurin inhibitors in the context of kidney disease that affects the glomeruli,” he noted.

“So both of these drugs have these interesting attributes that go beyond, or at least are maybe tied to, their immunosuppressive actions, but they do offer some kidney protective effects,” he reaffirmed.
 

Black patients underrepresented in trials

The ICER authors voiced concern over the fact that individuals most at risk for SLE – mostly Black patients, but also patients of other racial groups – were underrepresented in clinical trials that evaluated both agents.

“We cannot stress enough that the results are highly uncertain due to the small numbers of Black patients in the available clinical trials and the lack of data on differences among subgroups in long-term outcomes,” they stated.

This is not an academic issue, Dr. Phillips pointed out. Responses to both MMF and cyclophosphamide differ among persons of different races, “so it’s not unreasonable to consider that there could be racial differences in treatment responses to both drugs, and these definitely need to be investigated.”

This is not an academic issue, Dr. Phillips said, because there are racial disparities in how patients respond to both MMF and cyclophosphamide – “so it’s not unreasonable to consider that there could be racial differences in treatment responses to both drugs, and these definitely need to be investigated.”

The ICER authors appear to agree. They urged the manufacturers of the two new agents to expand their research to include adequate representation of lupus nephritis patients from Black and other non-White communities.

However, it is somewhat reassuring that the pivotal voclosporin trial enrolled about 30% of Hispanic patients and that about 17% of participants in the BLISS-LN trial were also Hispanic, Dr. Rovin pointed out.

This is important because Hispanic patients can have very aggressive disease, as can Black patients, he noted. There is some evidence to suggest both drugs are effective in aggressive disease.

The ICER also pointed out that the length of time that both drugs can be used prior to tapering of treatment, after which patients receive standard maintenance therapy alone, has yet to be established.

This is important, Dr. Rovin and Dr. Phillips agreed, because calcineurin inhibitors are known to be nephrotoxic, and both drugs are immunosuppressive. At least with respect to voclosporin, there is some cause of concern regarding prolonged use of the drug for patients with kidney disease.

“We don’t want patients to be on an immunosuppressive drug forever if they don’t need to be,” Dr. Rovin emphasized.

“But we are seeing really long-term remission in the setting of other inflammatory diseases, like vasculitis with rituximab. So there is hope that we can achieve the same thing in lupus. If we use drugs that target T cells in the immune system, like voclosporin, or B cells, like belimumab, maybe we can ‘reset’ the immune system and get rid of potentially autoreactive cells that could allow long-lasting disease remission, which is an unanswered question but an intriguing possibility,” he concluded.

Dr. Rovin has served as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Phillips disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The prices of two new drugs that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of lupus nephritis are in “reasonable alignment” with the drugs’ estimated benefits for patients with the disease, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review has determined.

“Both belimumab [Benlysta] and voclosporin [Lupkynis] are important new treatment options,” Steven Pearson, MD, president of ICER, observed in a summary of the report’s findings.

“Despite remaining uncertainty about both treatments’ longer-term outcomes, their estimated net prices appear to be aligned with their anticipated clinical benefits. ... For patients and clinicians to have responsibly priced options specifically indicated for lupus nephritis is a win for patients and the entire health system,” Dr. Pearson added.

The estimated annual price of belimumab is approximately $43,000 per patient; the estimated annual price for voclosporin is approximately $92,000 per patient.

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for belimumab is approximately $90,0000 per quality-adjusted life-year; the corresponding value for voclosporin is higher, at approximately $149,000 per QALY, the ICER authors noted.

The report was published by ICER in April 2021.

Large unmet need for treatment of lupus nephritis

In their report, the ICER reviewed belimumab, a parenteral B-lymphocyte inhibitor, as well as voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, as initial treatment of patients with lupus nephritis. Lupus nephritis is a serious complication of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Belimumab was first approved for the treatment of lupus in adults in the United States in March 2011. In April 2019, it was approved for use for the same indication for children aged 5 years and older. The FDA expanded the indication in December 2020 to include adults with active lupus nephritis who are receiving standard therapy.

Voclosporin was approved for the treatment of lupus nephritis in January 2021.

In the pivotal trials for the two agents, each drug was added to standard induction therapy for lupus nephritis, which consisted of high-dose corticosteroids combined with either mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or cyclophosphamide.

Compared with standard therapy alone, belimumab increased the complete renal response and the primary efficacy renal response at 2 years. With voclosporin, complete response was nearly doubled, and there was marked increased in partial response at 1 year, compared with standard therapy alone.

Neither drug appeared to increase the adverse-event rate or the rate of discontinuations, compared with standard therapy, although the FDA did add a black box warning regarding the possible risk for serious infections and malignancies with voclosporin use.

“There is a very large unmet need for the treatment of lupus nephritis,” Chris Phillips, MD, of Paducah (Ky.) Rheumatology said in an interview.

“A very large percentage of patients who do not achieve complete remission on traditional treatments have side effects or contraindications to these treatments, so we’ve needed new ones for sure,” he stressed.

The ICER authors made it clear that there is considerable uncertainty as to how short-term assessment of each of the two drugs’ performance might translate into meaningful long-term outcomes for patients, especially given that SLE is a lifelong illness.

On the other hand, “there are a lot of attributes for both of these new drugs that suggest there is potential for kidney benefit over time,” Brad Rovin, MD, professor of medicine and pathology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

For example, data from the BLISS-LN study, reported by Dr. Rovin during a meeting last year, suggest that belimumab reduces the flare rate and appears to stabilize kidney function over time, compared with standard therapy alone.

“BLISS-LN was 2 years long, so it gave us an opportunity to look at kidney function over a longer period of time than most of our prior trials in lupus nephritis,” he explained.

“The stabilization of kidney function is important, because it suggests that belimumab has a kidney protective effect, while a decrease in lupus nephritis flares is also important, because each time the disease flares, you can accumulate chronic tissue damage, which can eventually cause end-stage renal disease [ESRD],” he said.

Dr. Rovin also pointed out that the BLISS-LN trial results indicate that patients who achieve a urine protein level less than 700 mg/d after the first year of treatment do very well on long-term follow-up – another hint that belimumab may have long-term benefits for kidney function.

Voclosporin is a calcineurin inhibitor, which are protective of podocytes. “When you start to lose too many podocytes, the kidney can again progress onto ESRD, so this is again an extra benefit of the calcineurin inhibitors in the context of kidney disease that affects the glomeruli,” he noted.

“So both of these drugs have these interesting attributes that go beyond, or at least are maybe tied to, their immunosuppressive actions, but they do offer some kidney protective effects,” he reaffirmed.
 

Black patients underrepresented in trials

The ICER authors voiced concern over the fact that individuals most at risk for SLE – mostly Black patients, but also patients of other racial groups – were underrepresented in clinical trials that evaluated both agents.

“We cannot stress enough that the results are highly uncertain due to the small numbers of Black patients in the available clinical trials and the lack of data on differences among subgroups in long-term outcomes,” they stated.

This is not an academic issue, Dr. Phillips pointed out. Responses to both MMF and cyclophosphamide differ among persons of different races, “so it’s not unreasonable to consider that there could be racial differences in treatment responses to both drugs, and these definitely need to be investigated.”

This is not an academic issue, Dr. Phillips said, because there are racial disparities in how patients respond to both MMF and cyclophosphamide – “so it’s not unreasonable to consider that there could be racial differences in treatment responses to both drugs, and these definitely need to be investigated.”

The ICER authors appear to agree. They urged the manufacturers of the two new agents to expand their research to include adequate representation of lupus nephritis patients from Black and other non-White communities.

However, it is somewhat reassuring that the pivotal voclosporin trial enrolled about 30% of Hispanic patients and that about 17% of participants in the BLISS-LN trial were also Hispanic, Dr. Rovin pointed out.

This is important because Hispanic patients can have very aggressive disease, as can Black patients, he noted. There is some evidence to suggest both drugs are effective in aggressive disease.

The ICER also pointed out that the length of time that both drugs can be used prior to tapering of treatment, after which patients receive standard maintenance therapy alone, has yet to be established.

This is important, Dr. Rovin and Dr. Phillips agreed, because calcineurin inhibitors are known to be nephrotoxic, and both drugs are immunosuppressive. At least with respect to voclosporin, there is some cause of concern regarding prolonged use of the drug for patients with kidney disease.

“We don’t want patients to be on an immunosuppressive drug forever if they don’t need to be,” Dr. Rovin emphasized.

“But we are seeing really long-term remission in the setting of other inflammatory diseases, like vasculitis with rituximab. So there is hope that we can achieve the same thing in lupus. If we use drugs that target T cells in the immune system, like voclosporin, or B cells, like belimumab, maybe we can ‘reset’ the immune system and get rid of potentially autoreactive cells that could allow long-lasting disease remission, which is an unanswered question but an intriguing possibility,” he concluded.

Dr. Rovin has served as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Phillips disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 is linked to novel seizures and subsequent adverse outcomes, including death, in patients without a previous history of epilepsy, new research shows. In a retrospective study of more than 900 patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19, those without a known history of epilepsy had three times greater odds of experiencing novel seizures than those with a known history of epilepsy.

In addition, among patients with new-onset seizures, hospital stays were about 15 days longer – and mortality rates were significantly higher.

“We’re finding that there are many neurological consequences that can happen with COVID-19 infections, and it’s important for clinicians to keep that in mind as they monitor people long term,” said study investigator Neeraj Singh, MD, neurologist and epileptologist with Northwell Health System, Great Neck, New York.

Dr. Singh noted that although seizures “might not be the most common thing we see in people with COVID-19, they seem to be new seizures and not just a seizure we knew would happen in someone with epilepsy.”

“So there’s definitely a need now for more prospective research and following people over time to fully understand all the different things that might be newly a problem for them in the long term,” he added.

Dr. Singh and Hardik Bhaskar, an undergraduate student at Hunter College, New York, presented the study findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Largest sample to date

“This study explores the relationship between the incidences of COVID-19 infections and [novel] epileptic seizures in the largest sample to date in a single New York–based hospital system,” the investigators noted. Novel seizures included both new-onset and breakthrough seizures.

Dr. Singh told meeting attendees that the “early epicenter” of the COVID pandemic was in New York and occurred from Feb. 29, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Patients with COVID-19 “had multiple neurological sequelae, including seizures, strokes, and encephalopathy,” he said.

However, the effects of COVID-19 on individuals with epilepsy “remain unclear,” Dr. Singh said.

For their study, the researchers assessed 917 patients in 13 New York City metropolitan hospitals. All participants had received a confirmed positive test result on PCR for COVID and had received an antiepileptic medication upon admission. The patients were admitted between Feb. 14 and June 14, 2020.

For the study, the patients were first divided into two groups: those with a history of epilepsy (n = 451), and those without such a history (n = 466).

The first group was further divided on the basis of those who presented with breakthrough seizures and those who presented without them. The second group was further divided on the basis of those who presented with new-onset seizures and those who presented without them.
 

Significant adverse outcomes

Results showed that 27% of the patients without a history of epilepsy experienced a novel/new-onset seizure and that 11% of the patients with a history of epilepsy experienced a novel/breakthrough seizure (odds ratio, 3.15; P < .0001).

In addition, participants with new-onset seizures had a longer stay in the hospital (mean, 26.9 days) than the subgroup with a history of epilepsy and no breakthrough seizures (10.9 days) and the subgroup with a history of epilepsy who did experience breakthrough seizures (12.8 days; P < .0001 for both comparisons).

In the group of patients with a history of epilepsy, there were no significant differences in lengths of stay between those with and those without breakthrough seizures (P = .68).

Although mortality rates did not differ significantly between the full group with a history of epilepsy versus the full group without epilepsy (23% vs. 25%; OR, 0.9), the mortality rate was significantly higher among patients who experienced novel seizures than among those who did not experience such seizures (29% vs. 23%; OR, 1.4; P = .045).

Mr. Bhaskar noted that there are “many hypotheses for the mechanism by which COVID-19 might cause seizures.” Those mechanisms include proinflammatory cytokine storms, which may increase the rate of apoptosis, neuronal necrosis, and glutamate concentrations and may disrupt the blood-brain barrier. Another hypothesis is that SARS-CoV-2 infection may lead to hypoxia and abnormal coagulation, resulting in stroke and a subsequent increase in the risk for seizures.

Interestingly, “the presence of antiepileptic medications in patients with epilepsy may confer a protective effect against breakthrough seizures,” Dr. Singh said. “However, some subclinical seizures may be misdiagnosed as encephalopathy when patients present with COVID-19 infections.”

He added that further research is needed into the mechanisms linking these infections and new-onset seizures and to “identify subclinical seizures in encephalopathic patients.”

Asked during the question-and-answer session whether the investigators had assessed differences by demographics, such as age or sex, Dr. Singh said, “We have not subdivided them that way yet,” but he said he would like to do so in the future. He also plans to look further into which specific medications were used by the participants.

The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 is linked to novel seizures and subsequent adverse outcomes, including death, in patients without a previous history of epilepsy, new research shows. In a retrospective study of more than 900 patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19, those without a known history of epilepsy had three times greater odds of experiencing novel seizures than those with a known history of epilepsy.

In addition, among patients with new-onset seizures, hospital stays were about 15 days longer – and mortality rates were significantly higher.

“We’re finding that there are many neurological consequences that can happen with COVID-19 infections, and it’s important for clinicians to keep that in mind as they monitor people long term,” said study investigator Neeraj Singh, MD, neurologist and epileptologist with Northwell Health System, Great Neck, New York.

Dr. Singh noted that although seizures “might not be the most common thing we see in people with COVID-19, they seem to be new seizures and not just a seizure we knew would happen in someone with epilepsy.”

“So there’s definitely a need now for more prospective research and following people over time to fully understand all the different things that might be newly a problem for them in the long term,” he added.

Dr. Singh and Hardik Bhaskar, an undergraduate student at Hunter College, New York, presented the study findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Largest sample to date

“This study explores the relationship between the incidences of COVID-19 infections and [novel] epileptic seizures in the largest sample to date in a single New York–based hospital system,” the investigators noted. Novel seizures included both new-onset and breakthrough seizures.

Dr. Singh told meeting attendees that the “early epicenter” of the COVID pandemic was in New York and occurred from Feb. 29, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Patients with COVID-19 “had multiple neurological sequelae, including seizures, strokes, and encephalopathy,” he said.

However, the effects of COVID-19 on individuals with epilepsy “remain unclear,” Dr. Singh said.

For their study, the researchers assessed 917 patients in 13 New York City metropolitan hospitals. All participants had received a confirmed positive test result on PCR for COVID and had received an antiepileptic medication upon admission. The patients were admitted between Feb. 14 and June 14, 2020.

For the study, the patients were first divided into two groups: those with a history of epilepsy (n = 451), and those without such a history (n = 466).

The first group was further divided on the basis of those who presented with breakthrough seizures and those who presented without them. The second group was further divided on the basis of those who presented with new-onset seizures and those who presented without them.
 

Significant adverse outcomes

Results showed that 27% of the patients without a history of epilepsy experienced a novel/new-onset seizure and that 11% of the patients with a history of epilepsy experienced a novel/breakthrough seizure (odds ratio, 3.15; P < .0001).

In addition, participants with new-onset seizures had a longer stay in the hospital (mean, 26.9 days) than the subgroup with a history of epilepsy and no breakthrough seizures (10.9 days) and the subgroup with a history of epilepsy who did experience breakthrough seizures (12.8 days; P < .0001 for both comparisons).

In the group of patients with a history of epilepsy, there were no significant differences in lengths of stay between those with and those without breakthrough seizures (P = .68).

Although mortality rates did not differ significantly between the full group with a history of epilepsy versus the full group without epilepsy (23% vs. 25%; OR, 0.9), the mortality rate was significantly higher among patients who experienced novel seizures than among those who did not experience such seizures (29% vs. 23%; OR, 1.4; P = .045).

Mr. Bhaskar noted that there are “many hypotheses for the mechanism by which COVID-19 might cause seizures.” Those mechanisms include proinflammatory cytokine storms, which may increase the rate of apoptosis, neuronal necrosis, and glutamate concentrations and may disrupt the blood-brain barrier. Another hypothesis is that SARS-CoV-2 infection may lead to hypoxia and abnormal coagulation, resulting in stroke and a subsequent increase in the risk for seizures.

Interestingly, “the presence of antiepileptic medications in patients with epilepsy may confer a protective effect against breakthrough seizures,” Dr. Singh said. “However, some subclinical seizures may be misdiagnosed as encephalopathy when patients present with COVID-19 infections.”

He added that further research is needed into the mechanisms linking these infections and new-onset seizures and to “identify subclinical seizures in encephalopathic patients.”

Asked during the question-and-answer session whether the investigators had assessed differences by demographics, such as age or sex, Dr. Singh said, “We have not subdivided them that way yet,” but he said he would like to do so in the future. He also plans to look further into which specific medications were used by the participants.

The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 is linked to novel seizures and subsequent adverse outcomes, including death, in patients without a previous history of epilepsy, new research shows. In a retrospective study of more than 900 patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19, those without a known history of epilepsy had three times greater odds of experiencing novel seizures than those with a known history of epilepsy.

In addition, among patients with new-onset seizures, hospital stays were about 15 days longer – and mortality rates were significantly higher.

“We’re finding that there are many neurological consequences that can happen with COVID-19 infections, and it’s important for clinicians to keep that in mind as they monitor people long term,” said study investigator Neeraj Singh, MD, neurologist and epileptologist with Northwell Health System, Great Neck, New York.

Dr. Singh noted that although seizures “might not be the most common thing we see in people with COVID-19, they seem to be new seizures and not just a seizure we knew would happen in someone with epilepsy.”

“So there’s definitely a need now for more prospective research and following people over time to fully understand all the different things that might be newly a problem for them in the long term,” he added.

Dr. Singh and Hardik Bhaskar, an undergraduate student at Hunter College, New York, presented the study findings at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Largest sample to date

“This study explores the relationship between the incidences of COVID-19 infections and [novel] epileptic seizures in the largest sample to date in a single New York–based hospital system,” the investigators noted. Novel seizures included both new-onset and breakthrough seizures.

Dr. Singh told meeting attendees that the “early epicenter” of the COVID pandemic was in New York and occurred from Feb. 29, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Patients with COVID-19 “had multiple neurological sequelae, including seizures, strokes, and encephalopathy,” he said.

However, the effects of COVID-19 on individuals with epilepsy “remain unclear,” Dr. Singh said.

For their study, the researchers assessed 917 patients in 13 New York City metropolitan hospitals. All participants had received a confirmed positive test result on PCR for COVID and had received an antiepileptic medication upon admission. The patients were admitted between Feb. 14 and June 14, 2020.

For the study, the patients were first divided into two groups: those with a history of epilepsy (n = 451), and those without such a history (n = 466).

The first group was further divided on the basis of those who presented with breakthrough seizures and those who presented without them. The second group was further divided on the basis of those who presented with new-onset seizures and those who presented without them.
 

Significant adverse outcomes

Results showed that 27% of the patients without a history of epilepsy experienced a novel/new-onset seizure and that 11% of the patients with a history of epilepsy experienced a novel/breakthrough seizure (odds ratio, 3.15; P < .0001).

In addition, participants with new-onset seizures had a longer stay in the hospital (mean, 26.9 days) than the subgroup with a history of epilepsy and no breakthrough seizures (10.9 days) and the subgroup with a history of epilepsy who did experience breakthrough seizures (12.8 days; P < .0001 for both comparisons).

In the group of patients with a history of epilepsy, there were no significant differences in lengths of stay between those with and those without breakthrough seizures (P = .68).

Although mortality rates did not differ significantly between the full group with a history of epilepsy versus the full group without epilepsy (23% vs. 25%; OR, 0.9), the mortality rate was significantly higher among patients who experienced novel seizures than among those who did not experience such seizures (29% vs. 23%; OR, 1.4; P = .045).

Mr. Bhaskar noted that there are “many hypotheses for the mechanism by which COVID-19 might cause seizures.” Those mechanisms include proinflammatory cytokine storms, which may increase the rate of apoptosis, neuronal necrosis, and glutamate concentrations and may disrupt the blood-brain barrier. Another hypothesis is that SARS-CoV-2 infection may lead to hypoxia and abnormal coagulation, resulting in stroke and a subsequent increase in the risk for seizures.

Interestingly, “the presence of antiepileptic medications in patients with epilepsy may confer a protective effect against breakthrough seizures,” Dr. Singh said. “However, some subclinical seizures may be misdiagnosed as encephalopathy when patients present with COVID-19 infections.”

He added that further research is needed into the mechanisms linking these infections and new-onset seizures and to “identify subclinical seizures in encephalopathic patients.”

Asked during the question-and-answer session whether the investigators had assessed differences by demographics, such as age or sex, Dr. Singh said, “We have not subdivided them that way yet,” but he said he would like to do so in the future. He also plans to look further into which specific medications were used by the participants.

The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The remarkable efficacy of biologics for moderate to severe psoriasis has led some to ask if biologics should be used for milder cases.

The issue was tackled in a debate at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Taking the con side, Kenneth Gordon, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, argued that, with the high cost of biologics, availability of many alternatives, and other issues, “we should just say no. ... There is no good reason that we need to expand the use of biologics in patients with limited disease.”

On the pro side, Richard Langley, MD, professor of dermatology at Dalhousie University Halifax, N.S, argued for a nuanced approach. He noted that patients with smaller patches of disease can be just as miserable as patients who hit traditional benchmarks of increased severity, such as high body surface area involvement – especially if those small areas are in sensitive locations like the scalp, palms, or genitals.

The decision to use a biologic should hinge on how badly patients and their quality of life are affected, not on “some artificial and limiting definition” of severity, Dr. Langley said.

Dr. Gordon didn’t disagree, noting that current use criteria include objective measures as well as disease in sensitive areas and failure of alternative treatments.

Rather, he was concerned about “expanding the definition of who is eligible beyond these criteria ... to chase every last bit of” disease. “I don’t think we have” a good rationale for that approach, he said.

Cost is the most important issue, Dr. Gordon said.

With more biologics on the way and prices continuing to go up, “there is going to a be a huge challenge to our use of these expensive medicines over the next few years” from payers. “It is important that we use them smartly in order to make sure we are able to use them for people with severe disease” who really need them. If “we start using biologics for all our patients with psoriasis,” it will be a “cost disaster,” Dr. Gordon said.

In addition, topicals and home phototherapy can be effective as long as patients adhere to them, as can alternative systemic agents, such as methotrexate and apremilast.

Often with biologics, “the issue is mainly convenience” rather than a fundamental problem with the alternatives, and despite the good safety record in trials, “chasing the last bit” of psoriasis with a biologic “is not necessarily” without risk for the patient, Dr. Gordon said.

Still, there can be a “pretty significant disconnect” between how patients perceive their psoriasis and “what physicians are thinking and prescribing” for it based on objective measures, Dr. Langley noted. Sometimes patients who have limited disease but are in significant distress aren’t even receiving treatment or are only given another cream to add to their collection of ones that haven’t worked.

One problem with traditional severity classifications is that they don’t generally take patients’ subjective experience into account, he added. There’s also been a lack of standardization to the point that dermatologists, researchers, and payers can sometimes disagree over severity in a given patient.

There’s movement toward better incorporation of patient experience into severity considerations, but for now at least, a designation of mild psoriasis can underestimate the true severity of disease, Dr. Langley said.

Dr. Gordon and Dr. Langley reported receiving honoraria and/or research support from many pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Pfizer, and Lilly.

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

The remarkable efficacy of biologics for moderate to severe psoriasis has led some to ask if biologics should be used for milder cases.

The issue was tackled in a debate at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Taking the con side, Kenneth Gordon, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, argued that, with the high cost of biologics, availability of many alternatives, and other issues, “we should just say no. ... There is no good reason that we need to expand the use of biologics in patients with limited disease.”

On the pro side, Richard Langley, MD, professor of dermatology at Dalhousie University Halifax, N.S, argued for a nuanced approach. He noted that patients with smaller patches of disease can be just as miserable as patients who hit traditional benchmarks of increased severity, such as high body surface area involvement – especially if those small areas are in sensitive locations like the scalp, palms, or genitals.

The decision to use a biologic should hinge on how badly patients and their quality of life are affected, not on “some artificial and limiting definition” of severity, Dr. Langley said.

Dr. Gordon didn’t disagree, noting that current use criteria include objective measures as well as disease in sensitive areas and failure of alternative treatments.

Rather, he was concerned about “expanding the definition of who is eligible beyond these criteria ... to chase every last bit of” disease. “I don’t think we have” a good rationale for that approach, he said.

Cost is the most important issue, Dr. Gordon said.

With more biologics on the way and prices continuing to go up, “there is going to a be a huge challenge to our use of these expensive medicines over the next few years” from payers. “It is important that we use them smartly in order to make sure we are able to use them for people with severe disease” who really need them. If “we start using biologics for all our patients with psoriasis,” it will be a “cost disaster,” Dr. Gordon said.

In addition, topicals and home phototherapy can be effective as long as patients adhere to them, as can alternative systemic agents, such as methotrexate and apremilast.

Often with biologics, “the issue is mainly convenience” rather than a fundamental problem with the alternatives, and despite the good safety record in trials, “chasing the last bit” of psoriasis with a biologic “is not necessarily” without risk for the patient, Dr. Gordon said.

Still, there can be a “pretty significant disconnect” between how patients perceive their psoriasis and “what physicians are thinking and prescribing” for it based on objective measures, Dr. Langley noted. Sometimes patients who have limited disease but are in significant distress aren’t even receiving treatment or are only given another cream to add to their collection of ones that haven’t worked.

One problem with traditional severity classifications is that they don’t generally take patients’ subjective experience into account, he added. There’s also been a lack of standardization to the point that dermatologists, researchers, and payers can sometimes disagree over severity in a given patient.

There’s movement toward better incorporation of patient experience into severity considerations, but for now at least, a designation of mild psoriasis can underestimate the true severity of disease, Dr. Langley said.

Dr. Gordon and Dr. Langley reported receiving honoraria and/or research support from many pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Pfizer, and Lilly.

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

The remarkable efficacy of biologics for moderate to severe psoriasis has led some to ask if biologics should be used for milder cases.

The issue was tackled in a debate at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Taking the con side, Kenneth Gordon, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, argued that, with the high cost of biologics, availability of many alternatives, and other issues, “we should just say no. ... There is no good reason that we need to expand the use of biologics in patients with limited disease.”

On the pro side, Richard Langley, MD, professor of dermatology at Dalhousie University Halifax, N.S, argued for a nuanced approach. He noted that patients with smaller patches of disease can be just as miserable as patients who hit traditional benchmarks of increased severity, such as high body surface area involvement – especially if those small areas are in sensitive locations like the scalp, palms, or genitals.

The decision to use a biologic should hinge on how badly patients and their quality of life are affected, not on “some artificial and limiting definition” of severity, Dr. Langley said.

Dr. Gordon didn’t disagree, noting that current use criteria include objective measures as well as disease in sensitive areas and failure of alternative treatments.

Rather, he was concerned about “expanding the definition of who is eligible beyond these criteria ... to chase every last bit of” disease. “I don’t think we have” a good rationale for that approach, he said.

Cost is the most important issue, Dr. Gordon said.

With more biologics on the way and prices continuing to go up, “there is going to a be a huge challenge to our use of these expensive medicines over the next few years” from payers. “It is important that we use them smartly in order to make sure we are able to use them for people with severe disease” who really need them. If “we start using biologics for all our patients with psoriasis,” it will be a “cost disaster,” Dr. Gordon said.

In addition, topicals and home phototherapy can be effective as long as patients adhere to them, as can alternative systemic agents, such as methotrexate and apremilast.

Often with biologics, “the issue is mainly convenience” rather than a fundamental problem with the alternatives, and despite the good safety record in trials, “chasing the last bit” of psoriasis with a biologic “is not necessarily” without risk for the patient, Dr. Gordon said.

Still, there can be a “pretty significant disconnect” between how patients perceive their psoriasis and “what physicians are thinking and prescribing” for it based on objective measures, Dr. Langley noted. Sometimes patients who have limited disease but are in significant distress aren’t even receiving treatment or are only given another cream to add to their collection of ones that haven’t worked.

One problem with traditional severity classifications is that they don’t generally take patients’ subjective experience into account, he added. There’s also been a lack of standardization to the point that dermatologists, researchers, and payers can sometimes disagree over severity in a given patient.

There’s movement toward better incorporation of patient experience into severity considerations, but for now at least, a designation of mild psoriasis can underestimate the true severity of disease, Dr. Langley said.

Dr. Gordon and Dr. Langley reported receiving honoraria and/or research support from many pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Pfizer, and Lilly.

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

Researchers are reporting impressive results in a small, open-label trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib in cutaneous sarcoidosis: 6 of 10 patients improved so much that they reached a disease activity level of zero, and all patients improved by an average of 83% via a scoring system.

“Not only did patients get better, but they were in many cases able to come off their baseline immunosuppressive regimen, including prednisone and methotrexate. They’d get off prednisone entirely or, in some cases, decrease it substantially,” study investigator William Damsky, MD, PhD, reported at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Sarcoidosis is a common disease that affects an estimated 1 in 25 Black women and is believed to contribute to the deaths of about 4,000 people in the United States each year, noted Dr. Damsky of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. One famous patient is comedian Bernie Mac, who died from the condition in 2008.

“Approximately one third of patients have cutaneous involvement,” Dr. Damsky said, and skin may be the only manifestation of the disease. There is no Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy for cutaneous sarcoidosis, he added. Prednisone, the first-line therapy in skin manifestations, is approved only for pulmonary sarcoidosis.


“Oftentimes, there’s an attempt to transition either partially or fully to other therapies, including methotrexate and TNF-alpha blockers. But there’s been mixed success in doing that,” he said. This is not always possible, “so a lot of patients end up on prednisone.”

Earlier, a team at Yale prescribed 5 mg tofacitinib (Xeljanz) for several patients with severe cutaneous sarcoidosis and saw impressive results, Dr. Damsky said, including a patient with pulmonary sarcoidosis that also improved. He noted that there are case reports in the medical literature with similar findings.

Those positive results inspired the new study. Researchers recruited 10 patients with cutaneous sarcoidosis (9 with internal organ involvement) with a Cutaneous Sarcoidosis Activity and Morphology Instrument ( CSAMI ) score of 10 or higher. Nine patients were in their 50s, one was aged 63 years, and five were men. Skin colors of the patients ranged from Fitzpatrick skin types I to VI, and all had been taking at least two medications, typically methotrexate and prednisone.

The patients received 5 mg of tofacitinib twice a day for 6 months. “Everyone got better during the study, and six patients had a complete response, which we defined as a CSAMI score of zero activity,” Dr. Damsky said. “It’s really quite remarkable to see that.” Overall, the patients saw an 83% improvement in CSAMI scores.

In regard to safety, “all patients completed the study,” he said. “Tofacitinib was well tolerated, and there were no serious adverse effects or events.”

Tofacitinib is approved for treating rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

A month’s supply of twice-daily 5 mg tofacitinib pills would cost $4,900-$5,100 with free coupons, according to information accessed on April 24, 2021, on GoodRx.com. Generics are not available.

In an interview, Sotonye Imadojemu, MD, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, praised the study, and said “tofacitinib is a reasonable treatment for treatment-refractory or extensive cutaneous sarcoidosis,” although it will be helpful to get results from randomized-controlled trials.

She cautioned that the drug “is a powerful immunosuppressant, so the risk of infection must be discussed with patients before prescribing. Screening for chronic infections such as viral hepatitis, tuberculosis, and HIV should be completed prior to treatment initiation. Blood counts, liver function, and lipid panels should be regularly monitored. The vaccines necessary for those who are immunosuppressed should be administered as able, and age-appropriate cancer screening must be kept up to date.”

The study was funded by Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, and the Yale Department of Dermatology. Dr. Damsky disclosed research support (Pfizer), consulting fees (Eli Lilly, Pfizer, TWi Biotechnology), and licensing fees (EMD Millipore/MillporeSigma). Dr. Imadojemu has no disclosures.

This article was updated 5/5/21.

Researchers are reporting impressive results in a small, open-label trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib in cutaneous sarcoidosis: 6 of 10 patients improved so much that they reached a disease activity level of zero, and all patients improved by an average of 83% via a scoring system.

“Not only did patients get better, but they were in many cases able to come off their baseline immunosuppressive regimen, including prednisone and methotrexate. They’d get off prednisone entirely or, in some cases, decrease it substantially,” study investigator William Damsky, MD, PhD, reported at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Sarcoidosis is a common disease that affects an estimated 1 in 25 Black women and is believed to contribute to the deaths of about 4,000 people in the United States each year, noted Dr. Damsky of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. One famous patient is comedian Bernie Mac, who died from the condition in 2008.

“Approximately one third of patients have cutaneous involvement,” Dr. Damsky said, and skin may be the only manifestation of the disease. There is no Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy for cutaneous sarcoidosis, he added. Prednisone, the first-line therapy in skin manifestations, is approved only for pulmonary sarcoidosis.


“Oftentimes, there’s an attempt to transition either partially or fully to other therapies, including methotrexate and TNF-alpha blockers. But there’s been mixed success in doing that,” he said. This is not always possible, “so a lot of patients end up on prednisone.”

Earlier, a team at Yale prescribed 5 mg tofacitinib (Xeljanz) for several patients with severe cutaneous sarcoidosis and saw impressive results, Dr. Damsky said, including a patient with pulmonary sarcoidosis that also improved. He noted that there are case reports in the medical literature with similar findings.

Those positive results inspired the new study. Researchers recruited 10 patients with cutaneous sarcoidosis (9 with internal organ involvement) with a Cutaneous Sarcoidosis Activity and Morphology Instrument ( CSAMI ) score of 10 or higher. Nine patients were in their 50s, one was aged 63 years, and five were men. Skin colors of the patients ranged from Fitzpatrick skin types I to VI, and all had been taking at least two medications, typically methotrexate and prednisone.

The patients received 5 mg of tofacitinib twice a day for 6 months. “Everyone got better during the study, and six patients had a complete response, which we defined as a CSAMI score of zero activity,” Dr. Damsky said. “It’s really quite remarkable to see that.” Overall, the patients saw an 83% improvement in CSAMI scores.

In regard to safety, “all patients completed the study,” he said. “Tofacitinib was well tolerated, and there were no serious adverse effects or events.”

Tofacitinib is approved for treating rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

A month’s supply of twice-daily 5 mg tofacitinib pills would cost $4,900-$5,100 with free coupons, according to information accessed on April 24, 2021, on GoodRx.com. Generics are not available.

In an interview, Sotonye Imadojemu, MD, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, praised the study, and said “tofacitinib is a reasonable treatment for treatment-refractory or extensive cutaneous sarcoidosis,” although it will be helpful to get results from randomized-controlled trials.

She cautioned that the drug “is a powerful immunosuppressant, so the risk of infection must be discussed with patients before prescribing. Screening for chronic infections such as viral hepatitis, tuberculosis, and HIV should be completed prior to treatment initiation. Blood counts, liver function, and lipid panels should be regularly monitored. The vaccines necessary for those who are immunosuppressed should be administered as able, and age-appropriate cancer screening must be kept up to date.”

The study was funded by Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, and the Yale Department of Dermatology. Dr. Damsky disclosed research support (Pfizer), consulting fees (Eli Lilly, Pfizer, TWi Biotechnology), and licensing fees (EMD Millipore/MillporeSigma). Dr. Imadojemu has no disclosures.

This article was updated 5/5/21.

Researchers are reporting impressive results in a small, open-label trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib in cutaneous sarcoidosis: 6 of 10 patients improved so much that they reached a disease activity level of zero, and all patients improved by an average of 83% via a scoring system.

“Not only did patients get better, but they were in many cases able to come off their baseline immunosuppressive regimen, including prednisone and methotrexate. They’d get off prednisone entirely or, in some cases, decrease it substantially,” study investigator William Damsky, MD, PhD, reported at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Sarcoidosis is a common disease that affects an estimated 1 in 25 Black women and is believed to contribute to the deaths of about 4,000 people in the United States each year, noted Dr. Damsky of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. One famous patient is comedian Bernie Mac, who died from the condition in 2008.

“Approximately one third of patients have cutaneous involvement,” Dr. Damsky said, and skin may be the only manifestation of the disease. There is no Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy for cutaneous sarcoidosis, he added. Prednisone, the first-line therapy in skin manifestations, is approved only for pulmonary sarcoidosis.


“Oftentimes, there’s an attempt to transition either partially or fully to other therapies, including methotrexate and TNF-alpha blockers. But there’s been mixed success in doing that,” he said. This is not always possible, “so a lot of patients end up on prednisone.”

Earlier, a team at Yale prescribed 5 mg tofacitinib (Xeljanz) for several patients with severe cutaneous sarcoidosis and saw impressive results, Dr. Damsky said, including a patient with pulmonary sarcoidosis that also improved. He noted that there are case reports in the medical literature with similar findings.

Those positive results inspired the new study. Researchers recruited 10 patients with cutaneous sarcoidosis (9 with internal organ involvement) with a Cutaneous Sarcoidosis Activity and Morphology Instrument ( CSAMI ) score of 10 or higher. Nine patients were in their 50s, one was aged 63 years, and five were men. Skin colors of the patients ranged from Fitzpatrick skin types I to VI, and all had been taking at least two medications, typically methotrexate and prednisone.

The patients received 5 mg of tofacitinib twice a day for 6 months. “Everyone got better during the study, and six patients had a complete response, which we defined as a CSAMI score of zero activity,” Dr. Damsky said. “It’s really quite remarkable to see that.” Overall, the patients saw an 83% improvement in CSAMI scores.

In regard to safety, “all patients completed the study,” he said. “Tofacitinib was well tolerated, and there were no serious adverse effects or events.”

Tofacitinib is approved for treating rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

A month’s supply of twice-daily 5 mg tofacitinib pills would cost $4,900-$5,100 with free coupons, according to information accessed on April 24, 2021, on GoodRx.com. Generics are not available.

In an interview, Sotonye Imadojemu, MD, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, praised the study, and said “tofacitinib is a reasonable treatment for treatment-refractory or extensive cutaneous sarcoidosis,” although it will be helpful to get results from randomized-controlled trials.

She cautioned that the drug “is a powerful immunosuppressant, so the risk of infection must be discussed with patients before prescribing. Screening for chronic infections such as viral hepatitis, tuberculosis, and HIV should be completed prior to treatment initiation. Blood counts, liver function, and lipid panels should be regularly monitored. The vaccines necessary for those who are immunosuppressed should be administered as able, and age-appropriate cancer screening must be kept up to date.”

The study was funded by Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, and the Yale Department of Dermatology. Dr. Damsky disclosed research support (Pfizer), consulting fees (Eli Lilly, Pfizer, TWi Biotechnology), and licensing fees (EMD Millipore/MillporeSigma). Dr. Imadojemu has no disclosures.

This article was updated 5/5/21.

Secukinumab is the latest adult plaque psoriasis treatment to be bested by a newcomer, the interleukin 17A and 17F blocker bimekizumab.

Rates of complete clearance were substantially higher with bimekizumab in a phase 3 trial with 743 patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, but oral candidiasis (oral thrush) again emerged as a particular issue with the agent.

Clinical improvements seen with bimekizumab have exceeded those with two standard options for adult plaque psoriasis — the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab and the interleukin (IL) 12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab

 — in phase 3 trials from manufacturer UCB Pharma, and it›s under review for the indication by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

The biologic is also being evaluated in phase 3 trials for treating psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.

Results of the trial comparing bimekizumab to secukinumab, dubbed BE RADIANT, were presented at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience and published online concurrently April 23 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results “suggest that inhibition of both interleukin-17A and interleukin-17F with bimekizumab may provide greater clinical benefit for patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis than inhibition of interleukin-17A alone,” as with secukinumab, said the investigators, led by Kristian Reich, MD,  professor of dermatology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany.

The trial randomly assigned 373 adults to bimekizumab 320 mg every 4 weeks to week 16, then rerandomized them to maintenance dosing either every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks to week 48; another 370 adults were randomly assigned to secukinumab 300 mg weekly for the first 4 weeks, then every 4 weeks to week 48. Baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores were about 20 points in both treatment groups.

At the 1-month point, 71% in the bimekizumab group, vs 47.3% on secukinumab, had a 75% or greater reduction from their baseline PASI score. At 4 months, 61.7% of those on bimekizumab but 48.9% in the secukinumab group had complete clearance with a PASI score of 100.

At 48 weeks, 67% of those on bimekizumab had a PASI 100 response — which was numerically similar between the two bimekizumab dosing regimens after week 16 — vs 46.2% of the secukinumab group (P for all < .001).

The incidence of serious adverse events was just under 6% in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation in 3.5% of bimekizumab and 2.7% of secukinumab subjects. The rate of serious infections was similar in both groups.

However, as in past trials, oral candidiasis was an issue, occurring in 19.3% of bimekizumab subjects vs 3% on secukinumab. Half of the 72 bimekizumab cases were classified as mild, and all but two of the rest as moderate. Over 40% of affected subjects reported more than one case, but none led to treatment discontinuation.

More than 85% of oral candidiasis cases in the study were treated with antifungal therapy and resolved during the trial. Inflammatory bowel disease is a concern with IL-17 blockade, but this hasn’t emerged as a particular issue with bimekizumab. There was one case each of ulcerative colitis in both the bimekizumab and secukinumab groups, and just one case of ulcerative colitis in three previous phase 3 bimekizumab trials, according to the investigators.

Among the trial limitations: Patients who had been on bimekizumab or secukinumab previously were excluded, as were patients who had no response to an IL-17 biologic or more than one biologic agent of any other class within the previous 12 weeks. The limitations could reduce generalizability, the investigators said.

Patients in the trial were about 45 years old, on average, and about two thirds were men; over 90% were White.

The study was funded by UCB Pharma. The investigators had numerous disclosures, including Reich who reported grants and personal fees from companies including UCB Pharma. The full list of disclosures can be found with the New England Journal of Medicine article.

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

Secukinumab is the latest adult plaque psoriasis treatment to be bested by a newcomer, the interleukin 17A and 17F blocker bimekizumab.

Rates of complete clearance were substantially higher with bimekizumab in a phase 3 trial with 743 patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, but oral candidiasis (oral thrush) again emerged as a particular issue with the agent.

Clinical improvements seen with bimekizumab have exceeded those with two standard options for adult plaque psoriasis — the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab and the interleukin (IL) 12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab

 — in phase 3 trials from manufacturer UCB Pharma, and it›s under review for the indication by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

The biologic is also being evaluated in phase 3 trials for treating psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.

Results of the trial comparing bimekizumab to secukinumab, dubbed BE RADIANT, were presented at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience and published online concurrently April 23 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results “suggest that inhibition of both interleukin-17A and interleukin-17F with bimekizumab may provide greater clinical benefit for patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis than inhibition of interleukin-17A alone,” as with secukinumab, said the investigators, led by Kristian Reich, MD,  professor of dermatology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany.

The trial randomly assigned 373 adults to bimekizumab 320 mg every 4 weeks to week 16, then rerandomized them to maintenance dosing either every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks to week 48; another 370 adults were randomly assigned to secukinumab 300 mg weekly for the first 4 weeks, then every 4 weeks to week 48. Baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores were about 20 points in both treatment groups.

At the 1-month point, 71% in the bimekizumab group, vs 47.3% on secukinumab, had a 75% or greater reduction from their baseline PASI score. At 4 months, 61.7% of those on bimekizumab but 48.9% in the secukinumab group had complete clearance with a PASI score of 100.

At 48 weeks, 67% of those on bimekizumab had a PASI 100 response — which was numerically similar between the two bimekizumab dosing regimens after week 16 — vs 46.2% of the secukinumab group (P for all < .001).

The incidence of serious adverse events was just under 6% in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation in 3.5% of bimekizumab and 2.7% of secukinumab subjects. The rate of serious infections was similar in both groups.

However, as in past trials, oral candidiasis was an issue, occurring in 19.3% of bimekizumab subjects vs 3% on secukinumab. Half of the 72 bimekizumab cases were classified as mild, and all but two of the rest as moderate. Over 40% of affected subjects reported more than one case, but none led to treatment discontinuation.

More than 85% of oral candidiasis cases in the study were treated with antifungal therapy and resolved during the trial. Inflammatory bowel disease is a concern with IL-17 blockade, but this hasn’t emerged as a particular issue with bimekizumab. There was one case each of ulcerative colitis in both the bimekizumab and secukinumab groups, and just one case of ulcerative colitis in three previous phase 3 bimekizumab trials, according to the investigators.

Among the trial limitations: Patients who had been on bimekizumab or secukinumab previously were excluded, as were patients who had no response to an IL-17 biologic or more than one biologic agent of any other class within the previous 12 weeks. The limitations could reduce generalizability, the investigators said.

Patients in the trial were about 45 years old, on average, and about two thirds were men; over 90% were White.

The study was funded by UCB Pharma. The investigators had numerous disclosures, including Reich who reported grants and personal fees from companies including UCB Pharma. The full list of disclosures can be found with the New England Journal of Medicine article.

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

Secukinumab is the latest adult plaque psoriasis treatment to be bested by a newcomer, the interleukin 17A and 17F blocker bimekizumab.

Rates of complete clearance were substantially higher with bimekizumab in a phase 3 trial with 743 patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, but oral candidiasis (oral thrush) again emerged as a particular issue with the agent.

Clinical improvements seen with bimekizumab have exceeded those with two standard options for adult plaque psoriasis — the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab and the interleukin (IL) 12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab

 — in phase 3 trials from manufacturer UCB Pharma, and it›s under review for the indication by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

The biologic is also being evaluated in phase 3 trials for treating psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.

Results of the trial comparing bimekizumab to secukinumab, dubbed BE RADIANT, were presented at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience and published online concurrently April 23 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results “suggest that inhibition of both interleukin-17A and interleukin-17F with bimekizumab may provide greater clinical benefit for patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis than inhibition of interleukin-17A alone,” as with secukinumab, said the investigators, led by Kristian Reich, MD,  professor of dermatology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany.

The trial randomly assigned 373 adults to bimekizumab 320 mg every 4 weeks to week 16, then rerandomized them to maintenance dosing either every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks to week 48; another 370 adults were randomly assigned to secukinumab 300 mg weekly for the first 4 weeks, then every 4 weeks to week 48. Baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores were about 20 points in both treatment groups.

At the 1-month point, 71% in the bimekizumab group, vs 47.3% on secukinumab, had a 75% or greater reduction from their baseline PASI score. At 4 months, 61.7% of those on bimekizumab but 48.9% in the secukinumab group had complete clearance with a PASI score of 100.

At 48 weeks, 67% of those on bimekizumab had a PASI 100 response — which was numerically similar between the two bimekizumab dosing regimens after week 16 — vs 46.2% of the secukinumab group (P for all < .001).

The incidence of serious adverse events was just under 6% in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation in 3.5% of bimekizumab and 2.7% of secukinumab subjects. The rate of serious infections was similar in both groups.

However, as in past trials, oral candidiasis was an issue, occurring in 19.3% of bimekizumab subjects vs 3% on secukinumab. Half of the 72 bimekizumab cases were classified as mild, and all but two of the rest as moderate. Over 40% of affected subjects reported more than one case, but none led to treatment discontinuation.

More than 85% of oral candidiasis cases in the study were treated with antifungal therapy and resolved during the trial. Inflammatory bowel disease is a concern with IL-17 blockade, but this hasn’t emerged as a particular issue with bimekizumab. There was one case each of ulcerative colitis in both the bimekizumab and secukinumab groups, and just one case of ulcerative colitis in three previous phase 3 bimekizumab trials, according to the investigators.

Among the trial limitations: Patients who had been on bimekizumab or secukinumab previously were excluded, as were patients who had no response to an IL-17 biologic or more than one biologic agent of any other class within the previous 12 weeks. The limitations could reduce generalizability, the investigators said.

Patients in the trial were about 45 years old, on average, and about two thirds were men; over 90% were White.

The study was funded by UCB Pharma. The investigators had numerous disclosures, including Reich who reported grants and personal fees from companies including UCB Pharma. The full list of disclosures can be found with the New England Journal of Medicine article.

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

Use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine should resume in the United States for all adults, the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Contol and Prevention said April 23, although health care providers should warn patients of the risk of developing the rare and serious blood clots that caused the agencies to pause the vaccine’s distribution earlier this month.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

Use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine should resume in the United States for all adults, the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Contol and Prevention said April 23, although health care providers should warn patients of the risk of developing the rare and serious blood clots that caused the agencies to pause the vaccine’s distribution earlier this month.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

Use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine should resume in the United States for all adults, the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Contol and Prevention said April 23, although health care providers should warn patients of the risk of developing the rare and serious blood clots that caused the agencies to pause the vaccine’s distribution earlier this month.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

Female nurses are at significantly greater risk of dying by suicide than physicians in findings that contradict previous research suggesting doctors are at greatest risk.

pondsaksit/Getty Images

Results of a large retrospective cohort study show that nurses of both sexes were 18% more likely to die by suicide, compared with individuals in the general population. In addition, compared with female physicians, the suicide risk among female nurses was 70% higher.

“The main takeaway is that the risk of suicide among nurses is twice that of the general population and even higher than that among physicians, a population known to be at high risk,” lead author Matthew Davis, MPH, PhD, associate professor, department of systems, populations, and leadership, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The study was published online April 14, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Focus on physicians

Compared with the general public, health care workers are at higher risk for suicide, but most studies of suicide have focused on physicians, Dr. Davis said.

Although “there were several older studies hinting that there might be a difference in suicide risk among nurses,” the data were insufficient to “make an overall conclusion,” he noted.

For that reason, his group “set out to make the best estimates possible” by using a large dataset from the National Violent Death Reporting System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spanning the years 2007-2018 and focusing on suicides by individuals aged 30 years and older (n = 159,372 suicides).

Additional workforce data were acquired from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Association of Medical Colleges State Physician Workforce Data.

An important area of focus was method of suicide.

“The reason we looked at this is because people who work in healthcare have easier access to medications and know how to use them to overdose, which also increases their risk,” Dr. Davis said in a press release.
 

Enormous job strain

The researchers identified 2,374 suicides among nurses, 857 suicides among physicians, and 156,141 suicides in the general population.

Compared with the general population, nurses who died by suicide were more likely to be women, less racially diverse (non-Hispanic White), and more likely to have been married.

pondsaksit/Getty Images

Rates of suicide were higher among nurses than among the general population, with a sex-adjusted incidence for 2017-2018 of 23.8 per 100,000 versus 20.1 per 100,000 (relative risk, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.36).

The difference between suicide rates among female nurses and among women in the general population was even more striking: In 2017-2018, the suicide incidence among nurses was 17.1 per 100,000 versus 8.6 per 100,000 in the population at large (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.82-2.18).

“In absolute terms, being a female nurse was associated with an additional 8.5 suicides per 100,000 (7.0-10.0), compared with the general population,” the authors reported.

In contrast, overall physician suicide rates were not statistically different from those of the general population (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30) except during the period 2011-2012 (11.7 per 100,000; 95% CI, 6.6-16.8 vs. 7.5 per 100,000; 95% CI, 7.2-7.7).

Clinicians of both sexes were more likely to use poisoning and less likely to use a firearm, compared with individuals in the general population who died by suicide. For example, 24.9% (23.5%-26.4%) of nurse suicides involved poisoning, compared to 16.8% (16.6%-17.0%) of suicides in the general population.

Toxicology reports showed that the presence of antidepressants, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and opiates was more common in clinician suicides than suicides in the general population.

Dr. Davis suggested the higher risk for suicide among nurses, compared with physicians, might be attributed to “high job demands – for example, nurses provide the majority of bedside care, work long shifts in stressful environments, and have less autonomy.

“Health care workers and friends and family of health care workers need to be aware of mental health issues and suicide risk that can be associated with the job and, most importantly, recognize those who may be struggling and encourage them to get help by calling the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline,” he said.

Other potential contributors include “avoidance of mental health services due to stigma and greater access to the means to commit suicide via medication,” Dr. Davis noted.
 

Benchmark research

Commenting on the study, Constance Guille, MD, MSCR, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, noted that nurses are “predominantly female” and that women tend to be twice as likely as men to experience depression, which is a major risk factor for suicide. Thus, this population is particularly vulnerable.

One reason the investigators did not find that suicide rates were higher among physicians is that the health care professionals whom the researchers studied were older than 30 years. Thus, the study “excludes younger physicians in early practice or training, who likely do have higher suicide rates than the general population,” she suggested.

Dr. Guille, who is the author of an accompanying editorial and was not involved with the study, recommended “taking a public health approach, implementing preventative interventions, identifying people at high risk, providing treatment for health care professionals struggling with mental health problems, and destigmatizing help seeking.”

She encouraged clinicians to “reach out to colleagues who are struggling in a way to help them seek services and check in with them because it’s helpful when peers reach out.”

Dr. Davis noted that these disturbing trends will likely increase in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. “The pandemic has placed enormous strain on the health care workforce, and we fear this may have made the situation even worse.”

The current findings “will serve as a benchmark for future comparisons,” he said.

No source of funding for the study was reported. Dr. Davis has received consulting fees as a statistical reviewer for the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. His coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Guille has received grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the American Foundation on Suicide Prevention, and the Duke Endowment and serves on the advisory board and speakers bureau of Sage Therapeutics.

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

Female nurses are at significantly greater risk of dying by suicide than physicians in findings that contradict previous research suggesting doctors are at greatest risk.

pondsaksit/Getty Images

Results of a large retrospective cohort study show that nurses of both sexes were 18% more likely to die by suicide, compared with individuals in the general population. In addition, compared with female physicians, the suicide risk among female nurses was 70% higher.

“The main takeaway is that the risk of suicide among nurses is twice that of the general population and even higher than that among physicians, a population known to be at high risk,” lead author Matthew Davis, MPH, PhD, associate professor, department of systems, populations, and leadership, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The study was published online April 14, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Focus on physicians

Compared with the general public, health care workers are at higher risk for suicide, but most studies of suicide have focused on physicians, Dr. Davis said.

Although “there were several older studies hinting that there might be a difference in suicide risk among nurses,” the data were insufficient to “make an overall conclusion,” he noted.

For that reason, his group “set out to make the best estimates possible” by using a large dataset from the National Violent Death Reporting System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spanning the years 2007-2018 and focusing on suicides by individuals aged 30 years and older (n = 159,372 suicides).

Additional workforce data were acquired from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Association of Medical Colleges State Physician Workforce Data.

An important area of focus was method of suicide.

“The reason we looked at this is because people who work in healthcare have easier access to medications and know how to use them to overdose, which also increases their risk,” Dr. Davis said in a press release.
 

Enormous job strain

The researchers identified 2,374 suicides among nurses, 857 suicides among physicians, and 156,141 suicides in the general population.

Compared with the general population, nurses who died by suicide were more likely to be women, less racially diverse (non-Hispanic White), and more likely to have been married.

pondsaksit/Getty Images

Rates of suicide were higher among nurses than among the general population, with a sex-adjusted incidence for 2017-2018 of 23.8 per 100,000 versus 20.1 per 100,000 (relative risk, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.36).

The difference between suicide rates among female nurses and among women in the general population was even more striking: In 2017-2018, the suicide incidence among nurses was 17.1 per 100,000 versus 8.6 per 100,000 in the population at large (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.82-2.18).

“In absolute terms, being a female nurse was associated with an additional 8.5 suicides per 100,000 (7.0-10.0), compared with the general population,” the authors reported.

In contrast, overall physician suicide rates were not statistically different from those of the general population (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30) except during the period 2011-2012 (11.7 per 100,000; 95% CI, 6.6-16.8 vs. 7.5 per 100,000; 95% CI, 7.2-7.7).

Clinicians of both sexes were more likely to use poisoning and less likely to use a firearm, compared with individuals in the general population who died by suicide. For example, 24.9% (23.5%-26.4%) of nurse suicides involved poisoning, compared to 16.8% (16.6%-17.0%) of suicides in the general population.

Toxicology reports showed that the presence of antidepressants, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and opiates was more common in clinician suicides than suicides in the general population.

Dr. Davis suggested the higher risk for suicide among nurses, compared with physicians, might be attributed to “high job demands – for example, nurses provide the majority of bedside care, work long shifts in stressful environments, and have less autonomy.

“Health care workers and friends and family of health care workers need to be aware of mental health issues and suicide risk that can be associated with the job and, most importantly, recognize those who may be struggling and encourage them to get help by calling the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline,” he said.

Other potential contributors include “avoidance of mental health services due to stigma and greater access to the means to commit suicide via medication,” Dr. Davis noted.
 

Benchmark research

Commenting on the study, Constance Guille, MD, MSCR, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, noted that nurses are “predominantly female” and that women tend to be twice as likely as men to experience depression, which is a major risk factor for suicide. Thus, this population is particularly vulnerable.

One reason the investigators did not find that suicide rates were higher among physicians is that the health care professionals whom the researchers studied were older than 30 years. Thus, the study “excludes younger physicians in early practice or training, who likely do have higher suicide rates than the general population,” she suggested.

Dr. Guille, who is the author of an accompanying editorial and was not involved with the study, recommended “taking a public health approach, implementing preventative interventions, identifying people at high risk, providing treatment for health care professionals struggling with mental health problems, and destigmatizing help seeking.”

She encouraged clinicians to “reach out to colleagues who are struggling in a way to help them seek services and check in with them because it’s helpful when peers reach out.”

Dr. Davis noted that these disturbing trends will likely increase in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. “The pandemic has placed enormous strain on the health care workforce, and we fear this may have made the situation even worse.”

The current findings “will serve as a benchmark for future comparisons,” he said.

No source of funding for the study was reported. Dr. Davis has received consulting fees as a statistical reviewer for the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. His coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Guille has received grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the American Foundation on Suicide Prevention, and the Duke Endowment and serves on the advisory board and speakers bureau of Sage Therapeutics.

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

Female nurses are at significantly greater risk of dying by suicide than physicians in findings that contradict previous research suggesting doctors are at greatest risk.

pondsaksit/Getty Images

Results of a large retrospective cohort study show that nurses of both sexes were 18% more likely to die by suicide, compared with individuals in the general population. In addition, compared with female physicians, the suicide risk among female nurses was 70% higher.

“The main takeaway is that the risk of suicide among nurses is twice that of the general population and even higher than that among physicians, a population known to be at high risk,” lead author Matthew Davis, MPH, PhD, associate professor, department of systems, populations, and leadership, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The study was published online April 14, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Focus on physicians

Compared with the general public, health care workers are at higher risk for suicide, but most studies of suicide have focused on physicians, Dr. Davis said.

Although “there were several older studies hinting that there might be a difference in suicide risk among nurses,” the data were insufficient to “make an overall conclusion,” he noted.

For that reason, his group “set out to make the best estimates possible” by using a large dataset from the National Violent Death Reporting System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spanning the years 2007-2018 and focusing on suicides by individuals aged 30 years and older (n = 159,372 suicides).

Additional workforce data were acquired from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Association of Medical Colleges State Physician Workforce Data.

An important area of focus was method of suicide.

“The reason we looked at this is because people who work in healthcare have easier access to medications and know how to use them to overdose, which also increases their risk,” Dr. Davis said in a press release.
 

Enormous job strain

The researchers identified 2,374 suicides among nurses, 857 suicides among physicians, and 156,141 suicides in the general population.

Compared with the general population, nurses who died by suicide were more likely to be women, less racially diverse (non-Hispanic White), and more likely to have been married.

pondsaksit/Getty Images

Rates of suicide were higher among nurses than among the general population, with a sex-adjusted incidence for 2017-2018 of 23.8 per 100,000 versus 20.1 per 100,000 (relative risk, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.36).

The difference between suicide rates among female nurses and among women in the general population was even more striking: In 2017-2018, the suicide incidence among nurses was 17.1 per 100,000 versus 8.6 per 100,000 in the population at large (RR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.82-2.18).

“In absolute terms, being a female nurse was associated with an additional 8.5 suicides per 100,000 (7.0-10.0), compared with the general population,” the authors reported.

In contrast, overall physician suicide rates were not statistically different from those of the general population (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30) except during the period 2011-2012 (11.7 per 100,000; 95% CI, 6.6-16.8 vs. 7.5 per 100,000; 95% CI, 7.2-7.7).

Clinicians of both sexes were more likely to use poisoning and less likely to use a firearm, compared with individuals in the general population who died by suicide. For example, 24.9% (23.5%-26.4%) of nurse suicides involved poisoning, compared to 16.8% (16.6%-17.0%) of suicides in the general population.

Toxicology reports showed that the presence of antidepressants, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and opiates was more common in clinician suicides than suicides in the general population.

Dr. Davis suggested the higher risk for suicide among nurses, compared with physicians, might be attributed to “high job demands – for example, nurses provide the majority of bedside care, work long shifts in stressful environments, and have less autonomy.

“Health care workers and friends and family of health care workers need to be aware of mental health issues and suicide risk that can be associated with the job and, most importantly, recognize those who may be struggling and encourage them to get help by calling the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline,” he said.

Other potential contributors include “avoidance of mental health services due to stigma and greater access to the means to commit suicide via medication,” Dr. Davis noted.
 

Benchmark research

Commenting on the study, Constance Guille, MD, MSCR, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, noted that nurses are “predominantly female” and that women tend to be twice as likely as men to experience depression, which is a major risk factor for suicide. Thus, this population is particularly vulnerable.

One reason the investigators did not find that suicide rates were higher among physicians is that the health care professionals whom the researchers studied were older than 30 years. Thus, the study “excludes younger physicians in early practice or training, who likely do have higher suicide rates than the general population,” she suggested.

Dr. Guille, who is the author of an accompanying editorial and was not involved with the study, recommended “taking a public health approach, implementing preventative interventions, identifying people at high risk, providing treatment for health care professionals struggling with mental health problems, and destigmatizing help seeking.”

She encouraged clinicians to “reach out to colleagues who are struggling in a way to help them seek services and check in with them because it’s helpful when peers reach out.”

Dr. Davis noted that these disturbing trends will likely increase in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. “The pandemic has placed enormous strain on the health care workforce, and we fear this may have made the situation even worse.”

The current findings “will serve as a benchmark for future comparisons,” he said.

No source of funding for the study was reported. Dr. Davis has received consulting fees as a statistical reviewer for the journal Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. His coauthors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Guille has received grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the American Foundation on Suicide Prevention, and the Duke Endowment and serves on the advisory board and speakers bureau of Sage Therapeutics.

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

Long-haul COVID-19 patients face many health threats – including a higher chance of dying – up to 6 months after they catch the virus, according to a massive study published in the journal Nature.

Researchers examined more than 87,000 COVID-19 patients and nearly 5 million control patients in a federal database. They found COVID-19 patients had a 59% higher risk of death up to 6 months after infection, compared with noninfected people.

Those findings translate into about 8 extra deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months, because many deaths caused by long-term COVID complications are not recorded as COVID-19 deaths, the researchers said. Among patients who were hospitalized and died after more than 30 days, there were 29 excess deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months.

“As far as total pandemic death toll, these numbers suggest that the deaths we’re counting due to the immediate viral infection are only the tip of the iceberg,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the senior author of the study and a director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, said in a news release from the Washington University, St. Louis.

Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore says more than 3 million people worldwide and about 570,000 people in the United States have died of coronavirus-related reasons.

Long-haul COVID patients also had a much higher chance of getting sick, and not just in the respiratory system, according to the study.

The patients had a high rate of stroke and other nervous system ailments, mental health problems such as depression, the onset of diabetes, heart disease and other coronary problems, diarrhea and digestive disorders, kidney disease, blood clots, joint pain, hair loss, and general fatigue.

Patients often had clusters of these ailments. And the more severe the case of COVID-19, the higher the chance of long-term health problems, the study said.

Researchers based their study on health care databases of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Besides the 87,000 COVID patients, the database included about 5 million patients who didn’t catch COVID. The veterans in the study were about 88% men, but the large sample size included 8,880 women with confirmed cases, the news release said.

Dr. Al-Aly, an assistant professor at Washington University, said the study shows that long-haul COVID-19 could be “America’s next big health crisis.”

“Our study demonstrates that, up to 6 months after diagnosis, the risk of death following even a mild case of COVID-19 is not trivial and increases with disease severity,” he said. “Given that more than 30 million Americans have been infected with this virus, and given that the burden of long COVID-19 is substantial, the lingering effects of this disease will reverberate for many years and even decades.”

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

Long-haul COVID-19 patients face many health threats – including a higher chance of dying – up to 6 months after they catch the virus, according to a massive study published in the journal Nature.

Researchers examined more than 87,000 COVID-19 patients and nearly 5 million control patients in a federal database. They found COVID-19 patients had a 59% higher risk of death up to 6 months after infection, compared with noninfected people.

Those findings translate into about 8 extra deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months, because many deaths caused by long-term COVID complications are not recorded as COVID-19 deaths, the researchers said. Among patients who were hospitalized and died after more than 30 days, there were 29 excess deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months.

“As far as total pandemic death toll, these numbers suggest that the deaths we’re counting due to the immediate viral infection are only the tip of the iceberg,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the senior author of the study and a director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, said in a news release from the Washington University, St. Louis.

Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore says more than 3 million people worldwide and about 570,000 people in the United States have died of coronavirus-related reasons.

Long-haul COVID patients also had a much higher chance of getting sick, and not just in the respiratory system, according to the study.

The patients had a high rate of stroke and other nervous system ailments, mental health problems such as depression, the onset of diabetes, heart disease and other coronary problems, diarrhea and digestive disorders, kidney disease, blood clots, joint pain, hair loss, and general fatigue.

Patients often had clusters of these ailments. And the more severe the case of COVID-19, the higher the chance of long-term health problems, the study said.

Researchers based their study on health care databases of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Besides the 87,000 COVID patients, the database included about 5 million patients who didn’t catch COVID. The veterans in the study were about 88% men, but the large sample size included 8,880 women with confirmed cases, the news release said.

Dr. Al-Aly, an assistant professor at Washington University, said the study shows that long-haul COVID-19 could be “America’s next big health crisis.”

“Our study demonstrates that, up to 6 months after diagnosis, the risk of death following even a mild case of COVID-19 is not trivial and increases with disease severity,” he said. “Given that more than 30 million Americans have been infected with this virus, and given that the burden of long COVID-19 is substantial, the lingering effects of this disease will reverberate for many years and even decades.”

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

Long-haul COVID-19 patients face many health threats – including a higher chance of dying – up to 6 months after they catch the virus, according to a massive study published in the journal Nature.

Researchers examined more than 87,000 COVID-19 patients and nearly 5 million control patients in a federal database. They found COVID-19 patients had a 59% higher risk of death up to 6 months after infection, compared with noninfected people.

Those findings translate into about 8 extra deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months, because many deaths caused by long-term COVID complications are not recorded as COVID-19 deaths, the researchers said. Among patients who were hospitalized and died after more than 30 days, there were 29 excess deaths per 1,000 patients over 6 months.

“As far as total pandemic death toll, these numbers suggest that the deaths we’re counting due to the immediate viral infection are only the tip of the iceberg,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, the senior author of the study and a director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, said in a news release from the Washington University, St. Louis.

Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore says more than 3 million people worldwide and about 570,000 people in the United States have died of coronavirus-related reasons.

Long-haul COVID patients also had a much higher chance of getting sick, and not just in the respiratory system, according to the study.

The patients had a high rate of stroke and other nervous system ailments, mental health problems such as depression, the onset of diabetes, heart disease and other coronary problems, diarrhea and digestive disorders, kidney disease, blood clots, joint pain, hair loss, and general fatigue.

Patients often had clusters of these ailments. And the more severe the case of COVID-19, the higher the chance of long-term health problems, the study said.

Researchers based their study on health care databases of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Besides the 87,000 COVID patients, the database included about 5 million patients who didn’t catch COVID. The veterans in the study were about 88% men, but the large sample size included 8,880 women with confirmed cases, the news release said.

Dr. Al-Aly, an assistant professor at Washington University, said the study shows that long-haul COVID-19 could be “America’s next big health crisis.”

“Our study demonstrates that, up to 6 months after diagnosis, the risk of death following even a mild case of COVID-19 is not trivial and increases with disease severity,” he said. “Given that more than 30 million Americans have been infected with this virus, and given that the burden of long COVID-19 is substantial, the lingering effects of this disease will reverberate for many years and even decades.”

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