Conference Coverage

In patients with acute ischemic stroke who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy, early antihypertensive treatment compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 3 months in the CATIS-2 trial.

The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.

But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”

But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”

Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.

“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.

In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.

Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.

The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.

Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).

The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.

BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).

At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).

The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).

There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).

There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.

Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.

Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with acute ischemic stroke who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy, early antihypertensive treatment compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 3 months in the CATIS-2 trial.

The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.

But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”

But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”

Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.

“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.

In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.

Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.

The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.

Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).

The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.

BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).

At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).

The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).

There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).

There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.

Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.

Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with acute ischemic stroke who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy, early antihypertensive treatment compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 3 months in the CATIS-2 trial.

The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.

But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”

But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”

Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.

“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.

In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.

Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.

The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.

Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).

The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.

BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).

At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).

The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).

There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).

There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.

Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.

Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among Chinese patients with minor nondisabling stroke who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, dual antiplatelet treatment was noninferior to thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase with regard to functional outcome at 90 days in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.

In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.

Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”

She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”

Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.

A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.

This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.

In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.

In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.

The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.

The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).

The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).

“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.

About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.

Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.

Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).

Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.

Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.

In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.

“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.

“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.

In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”

But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”

The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.

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

Among Chinese patients with minor nondisabling stroke who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, dual antiplatelet treatment was noninferior to thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase with regard to functional outcome at 90 days in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.

In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.

Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”

She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”

Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.

A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.

This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.

In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.

In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.

The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.

The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).

The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).

“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.

About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.

Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.

Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).

Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.

Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.

In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.

“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.

“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.

In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”

But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”

The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.

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

Among Chinese patients with minor nondisabling stroke who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, dual antiplatelet treatment was noninferior to thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase with regard to functional outcome at 90 days in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.

In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.

Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”

She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”

Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.

A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.

This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.

In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.

In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.

The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.

The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).

The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).

“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.

About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.

Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.

Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).

Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.

Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.

In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.

“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.

“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.

In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”

But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”

The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.

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

ORLANDO – From differentiating them from mimics to choosing the best treatment course, Molly Hinshaw, MD, reviewed some of the ins and outs of managing nail disorders at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, & Surgical Conference.

Dr. Hinshaw, professor of dermatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, reviewed several disorders and provided guidance on diagnosis, and achieving the best outcomes for patients.

Pyogenic granuloma (PG) in the nail: These are benign vascular tumors that can mimic more serious conditions, Dr. Hinshaw said. In adults, PG requires a histologic diagnosis, she said.

“So these all really should have a biopsy,” because of potential confusion with amelanotic melanoma or squamous cell carcinoma, she said, although in children, a biopsy is likely not necessary.

Treatment with topical beta-blockers can be effective for PG, she said, and avoids the scarring seen with surgical removal. “These are benign conditions – we want them to go away, but we want these patients to have a functional nail thereafter.”

Periungual or subungual warts: For these warts, which are alongside or under the nail, destructive approaches can cause scarring of the nail bed and are far from optimal, she said.

“We’d like to avoid that, of course.” Therefore, treatments such as lasers and liquid nitrogen “would be much further down, if at all, on my list,” she said.

Injections of the antiviral cidofovir, into the dermis right under the wart, can be highly effective, and one or two treatments is often enough, Dr. Hinshaw said. Sometimes, local anesthesia isn’t even needed for the injection, she said. “This is a wonderful option,” she added.

Dr. Hinshaw is co-owner and chief medical officer of Acure.

ORLANDO – From differentiating them from mimics to choosing the best treatment course, Molly Hinshaw, MD, reviewed some of the ins and outs of managing nail disorders at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, & Surgical Conference.

Dr. Hinshaw, professor of dermatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, reviewed several disorders and provided guidance on diagnosis, and achieving the best outcomes for patients.

Pyogenic granuloma (PG) in the nail: These are benign vascular tumors that can mimic more serious conditions, Dr. Hinshaw said. In adults, PG requires a histologic diagnosis, she said.

“So these all really should have a biopsy,” because of potential confusion with amelanotic melanoma or squamous cell carcinoma, she said, although in children, a biopsy is likely not necessary.

Treatment with topical beta-blockers can be effective for PG, she said, and avoids the scarring seen with surgical removal. “These are benign conditions – we want them to go away, but we want these patients to have a functional nail thereafter.”

Periungual or subungual warts: For these warts, which are alongside or under the nail, destructive approaches can cause scarring of the nail bed and are far from optimal, she said.

“We’d like to avoid that, of course.” Therefore, treatments such as lasers and liquid nitrogen “would be much further down, if at all, on my list,” she said.

Injections of the antiviral cidofovir, into the dermis right under the wart, can be highly effective, and one or two treatments is often enough, Dr. Hinshaw said. Sometimes, local anesthesia isn’t even needed for the injection, she said. “This is a wonderful option,” she added.

Dr. Hinshaw is co-owner and chief medical officer of Acure.

ORLANDO – From differentiating them from mimics to choosing the best treatment course, Molly Hinshaw, MD, reviewed some of the ins and outs of managing nail disorders at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic, & Surgical Conference.

Dr. Hinshaw, professor of dermatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, reviewed several disorders and provided guidance on diagnosis, and achieving the best outcomes for patients.

Pyogenic granuloma (PG) in the nail: These are benign vascular tumors that can mimic more serious conditions, Dr. Hinshaw said. In adults, PG requires a histologic diagnosis, she said.

“So these all really should have a biopsy,” because of potential confusion with amelanotic melanoma or squamous cell carcinoma, she said, although in children, a biopsy is likely not necessary.

Treatment with topical beta-blockers can be effective for PG, she said, and avoids the scarring seen with surgical removal. “These are benign conditions – we want them to go away, but we want these patients to have a functional nail thereafter.”

Periungual or subungual warts: For these warts, which are alongside or under the nail, destructive approaches can cause scarring of the nail bed and are far from optimal, she said.

“We’d like to avoid that, of course.” Therefore, treatments such as lasers and liquid nitrogen “would be much further down, if at all, on my list,” she said.

Injections of the antiviral cidofovir, into the dermis right under the wart, can be highly effective, and one or two treatments is often enough, Dr. Hinshaw said. Sometimes, local anesthesia isn’t even needed for the injection, she said. “This is a wonderful option,” she added.

Dr. Hinshaw is co-owner and chief medical officer of Acure.

SAN DIEGO – When parents bring their children to Caroline Piggott, MD, to evaluate a suspicious mole on the scalp or other body location, the vast majority turn out to be benign, because the incidence of melanoma is rare, especially before puberty.

“Only 1%-2% of all melanomas in the world are in children, so most of my job is to provide reassurance,” Dr. Piggott, a pediatric dermatologist at Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Diego, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “Few pediatric studies exist. Why? Because children are excluded from most melanoma clinical trials. Our management is based mainly on adult National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

To help parents identify melanoma, clinicians typically recommend the “ABCDE” rule, for Asymmetry, Border irregularity, Color variation (especially dark or multiple colors), Diameter greater than 6 mm, and Evolving (is it changing, bleeding or painful?).

While Dr. Piggott considers the standard ABCDE rules as important – especially in older children and teenagers – researchers led by Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, proposed a modified ABCD criteria based on evaluating a cohort of 60 children who were diagnosed with melanoma and 10 who were diagnosed with ambiguous melanocytic tumors treated as melanoma before age 20 years at UCSF from 1984 to 2009.

The researchers divided patients into two groups: those aged 0-10 years (19; group A) and those aged 11-19 years (51; group B), and found that 60% of children in group A and 40% of those in group B did not present with conventional ABCDE criteria for children. Of the 60 melanoma patients, 10 died. Of these, 9 were older than age 10, and 70% had amelanotic lesions. Based on their analysis of clinical, histopathologic, and outcomes data, Dr. Cordoro and colleagues proposed additional ABCD criteria in which A stands for stands Amelanotic; B for Bleeding or Bump; C for Color uniformity, and D for De novo or any Diameter.

“This doesn’t mean you throw the old ABCDE criteria out the window,” Dr. Piggott said. “It means that you use this modified criteria in conjunction with the conventional ABCDE rules.”

Risk factors for melanoma in children are like those in adults, and include a family history of melanoma, large/giant congenital nevi, the presence of many atypical appearing nevi, having Fitzpatrick skin types I or II, a history of blistering sunburns, and the presence of genetic anomalies such as xeroderma pigmentosum.

According to an analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, melanoma incidence increased in all individuals in the United States aged 0-19 years from 1973 to 2009. Key risk factors included White race, female sex, and living in a SEER registry categorized as low UVB exposure. Over the study period, boys experienced increased incidence rates of melanoma on the face and trunk, while girls experienced increased incidence rates of melanoma on the lower limbs and hip.

More recently, researchers extracted data from 988,103 cases of invasive melanoma in the 2001-2015 SEER database to determine the age-specific incidence of melanoma in the United States. In 2015, 83,362 cases of invasive melanoma were reported for all ages. Of these, only 67 cases were younger than age 10, while 251 were between the ages of 10 and 19 and 1,973 were young adults between the ages of 20 and 29.

In other findings, between 2006 and 2015, the overall incidence of invasive melanoma for all ages increased from 200 million to 229 cases per million person-years. “However, there were statistically significant decreases in melanoma incidence for individuals aged 10-19 years and for those aged 10-29 years,” said Dr. Piggott, who was not involved with the study. “The hypothesis is that public health efforts encouraging against sun exposure and tanning bed use may be influencing melanoma incidence in younger populations. What is interesting, though, is that young adult women have twice the melanoma risk as young adult men.”

In a separate study, researchers prospectively followed 60 melanoma-prone families for up to 40 years to evaluate the risk of pediatric melanoma in those with and without cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) mutations. Regardless of their CDKN2A status, the percentage of pediatric melanoma cases was 6- to 28-fold higher among melanoma-prone families, compared with the general population. In addition, families who were CDKN2A positive had a significantly higher rate of pediatric melanoma cases compared with those who were CDKN2A negative (11.1% vs. 2.5%; P = .004).

As for treating pediatric melanoma, the standard of care is similar to that for adults: usually wide local surgical excision of the primary lesion, depending on depth. Clinicians typically follow adult parameters for sentinel lymph node biopsy, such as lesion depth and ulceration.

“We know that a positive sentinel node does have prognostic value, but there is great debate on whether to do a lymph node dissection if the sentinel lymph node is positive,” Dr. Piggott said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. “This is determined on a case-by-case basis. We consider factors such as, are the nodes palpable? Is there evidence on ultrasound? But there are no formal guidelines.”

Limited studies of systemic therapy in children exist because this population is excluded from most melanoma clinical trials. “In the past, interferon was sometimes used,” she said. “But in recent years, as with adults, we have started to use targeted immunologic therapy. This is usually managed by a tertiary academic oncology center.”

The chance of surviving pediatric melanoma is good if caught early. As in adults, the stage correlates strongly with survival, and distant metastases carry a poor prognosis.

In 2020, researchers published a retrospective, multicenter review of 38 cases of fatal pediatric melanoma between 1994 and 2017. The analysis was limited to individuals 20 years of age and younger who were cared for at 12 academic medical centers. Of the 38 patients, 42% were male, 58% were female, and 57% were White. In addition, 19% were Hispanic, “which is a larger percentage than fatalities in adult [Hispanic] populations with melanoma,” said Dr. Piggott, who was not involved in the study.

The mean age at diagnosis was 12.7 years, the mean age at death was 15.6 , and the mean survival time after diagnosis was about 35 months. Of the 16 cases with known identifiable subtypes, 50% were nodular, 31% were superficial spreading, and 19% were spitzoid melanoma. In addition, one-quarter of melanomas arose in association with congenital melanocytic nevi.

“The good news is that there are only 38 total cases of fatal pediatric melanoma between 12 academic centers over a 23-year period,” Dr. Piggott said. “Thanks goodness the number is that low.”

Dr. Piggott reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – When parents bring their children to Caroline Piggott, MD, to evaluate a suspicious mole on the scalp or other body location, the vast majority turn out to be benign, because the incidence of melanoma is rare, especially before puberty.

“Only 1%-2% of all melanomas in the world are in children, so most of my job is to provide reassurance,” Dr. Piggott, a pediatric dermatologist at Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Diego, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “Few pediatric studies exist. Why? Because children are excluded from most melanoma clinical trials. Our management is based mainly on adult National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

To help parents identify melanoma, clinicians typically recommend the “ABCDE” rule, for Asymmetry, Border irregularity, Color variation (especially dark or multiple colors), Diameter greater than 6 mm, and Evolving (is it changing, bleeding or painful?).

While Dr. Piggott considers the standard ABCDE rules as important – especially in older children and teenagers – researchers led by Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, proposed a modified ABCD criteria based on evaluating a cohort of 60 children who were diagnosed with melanoma and 10 who were diagnosed with ambiguous melanocytic tumors treated as melanoma before age 20 years at UCSF from 1984 to 2009.

The researchers divided patients into two groups: those aged 0-10 years (19; group A) and those aged 11-19 years (51; group B), and found that 60% of children in group A and 40% of those in group B did not present with conventional ABCDE criteria for children. Of the 60 melanoma patients, 10 died. Of these, 9 were older than age 10, and 70% had amelanotic lesions. Based on their analysis of clinical, histopathologic, and outcomes data, Dr. Cordoro and colleagues proposed additional ABCD criteria in which A stands for stands Amelanotic; B for Bleeding or Bump; C for Color uniformity, and D for De novo or any Diameter.

“This doesn’t mean you throw the old ABCDE criteria out the window,” Dr. Piggott said. “It means that you use this modified criteria in conjunction with the conventional ABCDE rules.”

Risk factors for melanoma in children are like those in adults, and include a family history of melanoma, large/giant congenital nevi, the presence of many atypical appearing nevi, having Fitzpatrick skin types I or II, a history of blistering sunburns, and the presence of genetic anomalies such as xeroderma pigmentosum.

According to an analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, melanoma incidence increased in all individuals in the United States aged 0-19 years from 1973 to 2009. Key risk factors included White race, female sex, and living in a SEER registry categorized as low UVB exposure. Over the study period, boys experienced increased incidence rates of melanoma on the face and trunk, while girls experienced increased incidence rates of melanoma on the lower limbs and hip.

More recently, researchers extracted data from 988,103 cases of invasive melanoma in the 2001-2015 SEER database to determine the age-specific incidence of melanoma in the United States. In 2015, 83,362 cases of invasive melanoma were reported for all ages. Of these, only 67 cases were younger than age 10, while 251 were between the ages of 10 and 19 and 1,973 were young adults between the ages of 20 and 29.

In other findings, between 2006 and 2015, the overall incidence of invasive melanoma for all ages increased from 200 million to 229 cases per million person-years. “However, there were statistically significant decreases in melanoma incidence for individuals aged 10-19 years and for those aged 10-29 years,” said Dr. Piggott, who was not involved with the study. “The hypothesis is that public health efforts encouraging against sun exposure and tanning bed use may be influencing melanoma incidence in younger populations. What is interesting, though, is that young adult women have twice the melanoma risk as young adult men.”

In a separate study, researchers prospectively followed 60 melanoma-prone families for up to 40 years to evaluate the risk of pediatric melanoma in those with and without cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) mutations. Regardless of their CDKN2A status, the percentage of pediatric melanoma cases was 6- to 28-fold higher among melanoma-prone families, compared with the general population. In addition, families who were CDKN2A positive had a significantly higher rate of pediatric melanoma cases compared with those who were CDKN2A negative (11.1% vs. 2.5%; P = .004).

As for treating pediatric melanoma, the standard of care is similar to that for adults: usually wide local surgical excision of the primary lesion, depending on depth. Clinicians typically follow adult parameters for sentinel lymph node biopsy, such as lesion depth and ulceration.

“We know that a positive sentinel node does have prognostic value, but there is great debate on whether to do a lymph node dissection if the sentinel lymph node is positive,” Dr. Piggott said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. “This is determined on a case-by-case basis. We consider factors such as, are the nodes palpable? Is there evidence on ultrasound? But there are no formal guidelines.”

Limited studies of systemic therapy in children exist because this population is excluded from most melanoma clinical trials. “In the past, interferon was sometimes used,” she said. “But in recent years, as with adults, we have started to use targeted immunologic therapy. This is usually managed by a tertiary academic oncology center.”

The chance of surviving pediatric melanoma is good if caught early. As in adults, the stage correlates strongly with survival, and distant metastases carry a poor prognosis.

In 2020, researchers published a retrospective, multicenter review of 38 cases of fatal pediatric melanoma between 1994 and 2017. The analysis was limited to individuals 20 years of age and younger who were cared for at 12 academic medical centers. Of the 38 patients, 42% were male, 58% were female, and 57% were White. In addition, 19% were Hispanic, “which is a larger percentage than fatalities in adult [Hispanic] populations with melanoma,” said Dr. Piggott, who was not involved in the study.

The mean age at diagnosis was 12.7 years, the mean age at death was 15.6 , and the mean survival time after diagnosis was about 35 months. Of the 16 cases with known identifiable subtypes, 50% were nodular, 31% were superficial spreading, and 19% were spitzoid melanoma. In addition, one-quarter of melanomas arose in association with congenital melanocytic nevi.

“The good news is that there are only 38 total cases of fatal pediatric melanoma between 12 academic centers over a 23-year period,” Dr. Piggott said. “Thanks goodness the number is that low.”

Dr. Piggott reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – When parents bring their children to Caroline Piggott, MD, to evaluate a suspicious mole on the scalp or other body location, the vast majority turn out to be benign, because the incidence of melanoma is rare, especially before puberty.

“Only 1%-2% of all melanomas in the world are in children, so most of my job is to provide reassurance,” Dr. Piggott, a pediatric dermatologist at Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center, San Diego, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “Few pediatric studies exist. Why? Because children are excluded from most melanoma clinical trials. Our management is based mainly on adult National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

To help parents identify melanoma, clinicians typically recommend the “ABCDE” rule, for Asymmetry, Border irregularity, Color variation (especially dark or multiple colors), Diameter greater than 6 mm, and Evolving (is it changing, bleeding or painful?).

While Dr. Piggott considers the standard ABCDE rules as important – especially in older children and teenagers – researchers led by Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, proposed a modified ABCD criteria based on evaluating a cohort of 60 children who were diagnosed with melanoma and 10 who were diagnosed with ambiguous melanocytic tumors treated as melanoma before age 20 years at UCSF from 1984 to 2009.

The researchers divided patients into two groups: those aged 0-10 years (19; group A) and those aged 11-19 years (51; group B), and found that 60% of children in group A and 40% of those in group B did not present with conventional ABCDE criteria for children. Of the 60 melanoma patients, 10 died. Of these, 9 were older than age 10, and 70% had amelanotic lesions. Based on their analysis of clinical, histopathologic, and outcomes data, Dr. Cordoro and colleagues proposed additional ABCD criteria in which A stands for stands Amelanotic; B for Bleeding or Bump; C for Color uniformity, and D for De novo or any Diameter.

“This doesn’t mean you throw the old ABCDE criteria out the window,” Dr. Piggott said. “It means that you use this modified criteria in conjunction with the conventional ABCDE rules.”

Risk factors for melanoma in children are like those in adults, and include a family history of melanoma, large/giant congenital nevi, the presence of many atypical appearing nevi, having Fitzpatrick skin types I or II, a history of blistering sunburns, and the presence of genetic anomalies such as xeroderma pigmentosum.

According to an analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, melanoma incidence increased in all individuals in the United States aged 0-19 years from 1973 to 2009. Key risk factors included White race, female sex, and living in a SEER registry categorized as low UVB exposure. Over the study period, boys experienced increased incidence rates of melanoma on the face and trunk, while girls experienced increased incidence rates of melanoma on the lower limbs and hip.

More recently, researchers extracted data from 988,103 cases of invasive melanoma in the 2001-2015 SEER database to determine the age-specific incidence of melanoma in the United States. In 2015, 83,362 cases of invasive melanoma were reported for all ages. Of these, only 67 cases were younger than age 10, while 251 were between the ages of 10 and 19 and 1,973 were young adults between the ages of 20 and 29.

In other findings, between 2006 and 2015, the overall incidence of invasive melanoma for all ages increased from 200 million to 229 cases per million person-years. “However, there were statistically significant decreases in melanoma incidence for individuals aged 10-19 years and for those aged 10-29 years,” said Dr. Piggott, who was not involved with the study. “The hypothesis is that public health efforts encouraging against sun exposure and tanning bed use may be influencing melanoma incidence in younger populations. What is interesting, though, is that young adult women have twice the melanoma risk as young adult men.”

In a separate study, researchers prospectively followed 60 melanoma-prone families for up to 40 years to evaluate the risk of pediatric melanoma in those with and without cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A) mutations. Regardless of their CDKN2A status, the percentage of pediatric melanoma cases was 6- to 28-fold higher among melanoma-prone families, compared with the general population. In addition, families who were CDKN2A positive had a significantly higher rate of pediatric melanoma cases compared with those who were CDKN2A negative (11.1% vs. 2.5%; P = .004).

As for treating pediatric melanoma, the standard of care is similar to that for adults: usually wide local surgical excision of the primary lesion, depending on depth. Clinicians typically follow adult parameters for sentinel lymph node biopsy, such as lesion depth and ulceration.

“We know that a positive sentinel node does have prognostic value, but there is great debate on whether to do a lymph node dissection if the sentinel lymph node is positive,” Dr. Piggott said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. “This is determined on a case-by-case basis. We consider factors such as, are the nodes palpable? Is there evidence on ultrasound? But there are no formal guidelines.”

Limited studies of systemic therapy in children exist because this population is excluded from most melanoma clinical trials. “In the past, interferon was sometimes used,” she said. “But in recent years, as with adults, we have started to use targeted immunologic therapy. This is usually managed by a tertiary academic oncology center.”

The chance of surviving pediatric melanoma is good if caught early. As in adults, the stage correlates strongly with survival, and distant metastases carry a poor prognosis.

In 2020, researchers published a retrospective, multicenter review of 38 cases of fatal pediatric melanoma between 1994 and 2017. The analysis was limited to individuals 20 years of age and younger who were cared for at 12 academic medical centers. Of the 38 patients, 42% were male, 58% were female, and 57% were White. In addition, 19% were Hispanic, “which is a larger percentage than fatalities in adult [Hispanic] populations with melanoma,” said Dr. Piggott, who was not involved in the study.

The mean age at diagnosis was 12.7 years, the mean age at death was 15.6 , and the mean survival time after diagnosis was about 35 months. Of the 16 cases with known identifiable subtypes, 50% were nodular, 31% were superficial spreading, and 19% were spitzoid melanoma. In addition, one-quarter of melanomas arose in association with congenital melanocytic nevi.

“The good news is that there are only 38 total cases of fatal pediatric melanoma between 12 academic centers over a 23-year period,” Dr. Piggott said. “Thanks goodness the number is that low.”

Dr. Piggott reported having no relevant disclosures.

San Diego – The way Benjamin Kelley, MD, sees it, the term dysplastic nevi (DN) suffers from an identity crisis, with different clinicians using different terms to describe a subset of melanocytic nevi that are clinically atypical.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“There’s a confusion in the terminology, a term the late A. Bernard Ackerman, MD, called ‘patho-babel,’ ” Dr. Kelley, a Mohs micrographic surgeon and dermatopathologist in La Jolla, Calif., said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The idea of DN was originally used to describe a clinical melanoma syndrome. Now we use it for individual lesions, not just clinically but histologically. Some dermatologists refer to DN as ‘pre-melanoma,’ which is a negative framing,” he noted.

“We also refer to common nevi as ‘benign,’ which implies that DN are not benign,” he added. “The good news is that regardless of what they are called, the histologic criteria is generally agreed upon. The names can be used interchangeably.”

The bad news, he continued, is that there is less-than-perfect interobserver variability for grading DN lesions and significant variability in the treatment recommendations that pathologists give to clinicians. In one study, a group of pathology experts was asked to review 48 photomicrographs of melanocytic lesions and provide their diagnosis and treatment recommendations based on the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis scheme. For one, which showed a broad lesion with irregular epidermal thinning and thickening, the diagnoses ranged from solar lentigo to melanoma in situ. Treatment recommendations ranged from no treatment to re-excise with appropriate margins.

“This is an extreme example, but it shows you how difficult [establishing a diagnosis] can be,” Dr. Kelley said.

In a more recent study, researchers analyzed interobserver reproducibility in grading 179 DN cases among three observers who applied the 2018 World Health Organization grading criteria. The observers showed moderate to good agreement for most of the architectural features, except for criteria regarding focal continuous basal proliferation of melanocytes, density of non-nested junctional melanocytes, and presence of dyscohesive nests of intraepidermal melanocytes, whereas fair agreement was achieved for the cytological criteria. “So, it sounds to me like there was not a whole lot of agreement,” Dr. Kelley said.

An earlier single-center study titled “Clinicians Are From Mars and Pathologists Are From Venus” found that surgeons misunderstood the pathologist’s report 30% of the time.

In Dr. Kelly’s opinion, management of DNs will be successful if clinicians have a good working relationship with their dermatopathologists, if they biopsy to ensure an adequate, representative specimen, and if that they know what the terminology on the pathology report means and what actions to take. “The biopsy method matters,” he emphasized.

In a 14-year follow-up survey, investigators assessed DN management trends among 703 U.S. dermatologists. One key finding was that 69% of dermatologists in 2015 performed total removals when biopsying DN to achieve clear margins, compared with 86% in 2001.

A subsequent survey of 213 New England–based dermatologists found that the degree of clinical suspicion for melanoma was important in DN biopsy technique, with more respondents favoring shave biopsies for lesions with low suspicion and full-thickness biopsies for highly suspicious lesions.

“Misdiagnosis is more common for melanomas that have been assessed with punch and shave biopsies than with an excisional biopsy,” Dr. Kelley said. “I’m not too much of a stickler. I don’t require everyone to send me a giant excision, but I do want a representative sample.”

What about re-excision of DN considered to be mild or moderate? In 2015, members of the Pigmented Lesion Subcommittee of the Melanoma Prevention Working Group published a consensus statement on DN management recommendations for clinically atypical nevi/DN based on a review of published evidence. The subcommittee members concluded that mildly and moderately DN with clear margins do not need to be re-excised, and that mildly DN biopsied with positive histologic margins without clinical residual pigmentation may be safely observed rather than re-excised.

For moderately DN with positive histologic margins without clinically apparent residual pigmentation, the subcommittee members concluded that observation may be reasonable.

In his own informal analysis, Dr. Kelley compiled data from published studies he could find on DN management and divided them into two groups: the observation group, in which researchers from eight studies biopsied the DN lesion and watched the patients over time to see what happened, and the re-excision group, in which researchers from seven studies biopsied the DN lesion and subsequently re-excised it. There were about 1,500 patients in both groups. No deaths occurred in either group, he said, but 15 patients in the re-excision group developed a melanoma at the site of the original biopsy (1%), compared with 7 in the observation group (0.5%).

Six of seven melanomas in the observation group came from one article conducted at a VA clinic. In the study, 6 of 304 observed DN subsequently developed melanoma at the site of the lesion. “However, five of six that developed melanoma had an original biopsy that was a partial biopsy with grossly positive margins; I think that’s where the problem lies,” Dr. Kelley said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. “All five grew lentigo maligna type melanoma, which we know can extend multiple millimeters beyond the clinically apparent lesion.”

The findings support mounting evidence that re-excising mild and moderate DN, regardless of border involvement, may not be necessary. “Currently, most clinicians still re-excise moderate and severe DN involving margins, especially if there is residual pigment,” Dr. Kelley said. “Most re-excise severe DN regardless of margin involvement, but beware if your biopsy was a partial sample of a larger lesion.”

He acknowledged limitations to pathologic studies of DN, including the potential for diagnostic uncertainty. “That doesn’t necessarily mean that the pathologist got the diagnosis wrong. It could be, what is the risk that the portion of tissue not visualized contains melanoma? If you give me a 5 mm sample of a DN, and I cut it into 4-micrometer sections, I’m only looking at less than 1% of the actual nevus. That’s compounded if the pathologist only receives a partial sample.”

Dr. Kelley reported having no relevant disclosures.

San Diego – The way Benjamin Kelley, MD, sees it, the term dysplastic nevi (DN) suffers from an identity crisis, with different clinicians using different terms to describe a subset of melanocytic nevi that are clinically atypical.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“There’s a confusion in the terminology, a term the late A. Bernard Ackerman, MD, called ‘patho-babel,’ ” Dr. Kelley, a Mohs micrographic surgeon and dermatopathologist in La Jolla, Calif., said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The idea of DN was originally used to describe a clinical melanoma syndrome. Now we use it for individual lesions, not just clinically but histologically. Some dermatologists refer to DN as ‘pre-melanoma,’ which is a negative framing,” he noted.

“We also refer to common nevi as ‘benign,’ which implies that DN are not benign,” he added. “The good news is that regardless of what they are called, the histologic criteria is generally agreed upon. The names can be used interchangeably.”

The bad news, he continued, is that there is less-than-perfect interobserver variability for grading DN lesions and significant variability in the treatment recommendations that pathologists give to clinicians. In one study, a group of pathology experts was asked to review 48 photomicrographs of melanocytic lesions and provide their diagnosis and treatment recommendations based on the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis scheme. For one, which showed a broad lesion with irregular epidermal thinning and thickening, the diagnoses ranged from solar lentigo to melanoma in situ. Treatment recommendations ranged from no treatment to re-excise with appropriate margins.

“This is an extreme example, but it shows you how difficult [establishing a diagnosis] can be,” Dr. Kelley said.

In a more recent study, researchers analyzed interobserver reproducibility in grading 179 DN cases among three observers who applied the 2018 World Health Organization grading criteria. The observers showed moderate to good agreement for most of the architectural features, except for criteria regarding focal continuous basal proliferation of melanocytes, density of non-nested junctional melanocytes, and presence of dyscohesive nests of intraepidermal melanocytes, whereas fair agreement was achieved for the cytological criteria. “So, it sounds to me like there was not a whole lot of agreement,” Dr. Kelley said.

An earlier single-center study titled “Clinicians Are From Mars and Pathologists Are From Venus” found that surgeons misunderstood the pathologist’s report 30% of the time.

In Dr. Kelly’s opinion, management of DNs will be successful if clinicians have a good working relationship with their dermatopathologists, if they biopsy to ensure an adequate, representative specimen, and if that they know what the terminology on the pathology report means and what actions to take. “The biopsy method matters,” he emphasized.

In a 14-year follow-up survey, investigators assessed DN management trends among 703 U.S. dermatologists. One key finding was that 69% of dermatologists in 2015 performed total removals when biopsying DN to achieve clear margins, compared with 86% in 2001.

A subsequent survey of 213 New England–based dermatologists found that the degree of clinical suspicion for melanoma was important in DN biopsy technique, with more respondents favoring shave biopsies for lesions with low suspicion and full-thickness biopsies for highly suspicious lesions.

“Misdiagnosis is more common for melanomas that have been assessed with punch and shave biopsies than with an excisional biopsy,” Dr. Kelley said. “I’m not too much of a stickler. I don’t require everyone to send me a giant excision, but I do want a representative sample.”

What about re-excision of DN considered to be mild or moderate? In 2015, members of the Pigmented Lesion Subcommittee of the Melanoma Prevention Working Group published a consensus statement on DN management recommendations for clinically atypical nevi/DN based on a review of published evidence. The subcommittee members concluded that mildly and moderately DN with clear margins do not need to be re-excised, and that mildly DN biopsied with positive histologic margins without clinical residual pigmentation may be safely observed rather than re-excised.

For moderately DN with positive histologic margins without clinically apparent residual pigmentation, the subcommittee members concluded that observation may be reasonable.

In his own informal analysis, Dr. Kelley compiled data from published studies he could find on DN management and divided them into two groups: the observation group, in which researchers from eight studies biopsied the DN lesion and watched the patients over time to see what happened, and the re-excision group, in which researchers from seven studies biopsied the DN lesion and subsequently re-excised it. There were about 1,500 patients in both groups. No deaths occurred in either group, he said, but 15 patients in the re-excision group developed a melanoma at the site of the original biopsy (1%), compared with 7 in the observation group (0.5%).

Six of seven melanomas in the observation group came from one article conducted at a VA clinic. In the study, 6 of 304 observed DN subsequently developed melanoma at the site of the lesion. “However, five of six that developed melanoma had an original biopsy that was a partial biopsy with grossly positive margins; I think that’s where the problem lies,” Dr. Kelley said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. “All five grew lentigo maligna type melanoma, which we know can extend multiple millimeters beyond the clinically apparent lesion.”

The findings support mounting evidence that re-excising mild and moderate DN, regardless of border involvement, may not be necessary. “Currently, most clinicians still re-excise moderate and severe DN involving margins, especially if there is residual pigment,” Dr. Kelley said. “Most re-excise severe DN regardless of margin involvement, but beware if your biopsy was a partial sample of a larger lesion.”

He acknowledged limitations to pathologic studies of DN, including the potential for diagnostic uncertainty. “That doesn’t necessarily mean that the pathologist got the diagnosis wrong. It could be, what is the risk that the portion of tissue not visualized contains melanoma? If you give me a 5 mm sample of a DN, and I cut it into 4-micrometer sections, I’m only looking at less than 1% of the actual nevus. That’s compounded if the pathologist only receives a partial sample.”

Dr. Kelley reported having no relevant disclosures.

San Diego – The way Benjamin Kelley, MD, sees it, the term dysplastic nevi (DN) suffers from an identity crisis, with different clinicians using different terms to describe a subset of melanocytic nevi that are clinically atypical.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“There’s a confusion in the terminology, a term the late A. Bernard Ackerman, MD, called ‘patho-babel,’ ” Dr. Kelley, a Mohs micrographic surgeon and dermatopathologist in La Jolla, Calif., said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The idea of DN was originally used to describe a clinical melanoma syndrome. Now we use it for individual lesions, not just clinically but histologically. Some dermatologists refer to DN as ‘pre-melanoma,’ which is a negative framing,” he noted.

“We also refer to common nevi as ‘benign,’ which implies that DN are not benign,” he added. “The good news is that regardless of what they are called, the histologic criteria is generally agreed upon. The names can be used interchangeably.”

The bad news, he continued, is that there is less-than-perfect interobserver variability for grading DN lesions and significant variability in the treatment recommendations that pathologists give to clinicians. In one study, a group of pathology experts was asked to review 48 photomicrographs of melanocytic lesions and provide their diagnosis and treatment recommendations based on the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis scheme. For one, which showed a broad lesion with irregular epidermal thinning and thickening, the diagnoses ranged from solar lentigo to melanoma in situ. Treatment recommendations ranged from no treatment to re-excise with appropriate margins.

“This is an extreme example, but it shows you how difficult [establishing a diagnosis] can be,” Dr. Kelley said.

In a more recent study, researchers analyzed interobserver reproducibility in grading 179 DN cases among three observers who applied the 2018 World Health Organization grading criteria. The observers showed moderate to good agreement for most of the architectural features, except for criteria regarding focal continuous basal proliferation of melanocytes, density of non-nested junctional melanocytes, and presence of dyscohesive nests of intraepidermal melanocytes, whereas fair agreement was achieved for the cytological criteria. “So, it sounds to me like there was not a whole lot of agreement,” Dr. Kelley said.

An earlier single-center study titled “Clinicians Are From Mars and Pathologists Are From Venus” found that surgeons misunderstood the pathologist’s report 30% of the time.

In Dr. Kelly’s opinion, management of DNs will be successful if clinicians have a good working relationship with their dermatopathologists, if they biopsy to ensure an adequate, representative specimen, and if that they know what the terminology on the pathology report means and what actions to take. “The biopsy method matters,” he emphasized.

In a 14-year follow-up survey, investigators assessed DN management trends among 703 U.S. dermatologists. One key finding was that 69% of dermatologists in 2015 performed total removals when biopsying DN to achieve clear margins, compared with 86% in 2001.

A subsequent survey of 213 New England–based dermatologists found that the degree of clinical suspicion for melanoma was important in DN biopsy technique, with more respondents favoring shave biopsies for lesions with low suspicion and full-thickness biopsies for highly suspicious lesions.

“Misdiagnosis is more common for melanomas that have been assessed with punch and shave biopsies than with an excisional biopsy,” Dr. Kelley said. “I’m not too much of a stickler. I don’t require everyone to send me a giant excision, but I do want a representative sample.”

What about re-excision of DN considered to be mild or moderate? In 2015, members of the Pigmented Lesion Subcommittee of the Melanoma Prevention Working Group published a consensus statement on DN management recommendations for clinically atypical nevi/DN based on a review of published evidence. The subcommittee members concluded that mildly and moderately DN with clear margins do not need to be re-excised, and that mildly DN biopsied with positive histologic margins without clinical residual pigmentation may be safely observed rather than re-excised.

For moderately DN with positive histologic margins without clinically apparent residual pigmentation, the subcommittee members concluded that observation may be reasonable.

In his own informal analysis, Dr. Kelley compiled data from published studies he could find on DN management and divided them into two groups: the observation group, in which researchers from eight studies biopsied the DN lesion and watched the patients over time to see what happened, and the re-excision group, in which researchers from seven studies biopsied the DN lesion and subsequently re-excised it. There were about 1,500 patients in both groups. No deaths occurred in either group, he said, but 15 patients in the re-excision group developed a melanoma at the site of the original biopsy (1%), compared with 7 in the observation group (0.5%).

Six of seven melanomas in the observation group came from one article conducted at a VA clinic. In the study, 6 of 304 observed DN subsequently developed melanoma at the site of the lesion. “However, five of six that developed melanoma had an original biopsy that was a partial biopsy with grossly positive margins; I think that’s where the problem lies,” Dr. Kelley said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. “All five grew lentigo maligna type melanoma, which we know can extend multiple millimeters beyond the clinically apparent lesion.”

The findings support mounting evidence that re-excising mild and moderate DN, regardless of border involvement, may not be necessary. “Currently, most clinicians still re-excise moderate and severe DN involving margins, especially if there is residual pigment,” Dr. Kelley said. “Most re-excise severe DN regardless of margin involvement, but beware if your biopsy was a partial sample of a larger lesion.”

He acknowledged limitations to pathologic studies of DN, including the potential for diagnostic uncertainty. “That doesn’t necessarily mean that the pathologist got the diagnosis wrong. It could be, what is the risk that the portion of tissue not visualized contains melanoma? If you give me a 5 mm sample of a DN, and I cut it into 4-micrometer sections, I’m only looking at less than 1% of the actual nevus. That’s compounded if the pathologist only receives a partial sample.”

Dr. Kelley reported having no relevant disclosures.

Follow-up radiographs after an initial baseline reading in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis may still show radiographic progression despite treatment with current therapies, but it’s unclear if they will affect treatment decisions between patients and doctors that may take place regardless of the radiographic information, according to arguments made for and against their usefulness in a point-counterpoint session at the 2023 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc., said that x-rays “reflect the history of joint pathology” and can get worse over time, correlating with disease activity and severity.

BSIP/UIG/GettyImages

While RA does not yet have the “holy grail” of complete or true remission, Dr. Wells argued, the combination of clinical remission, laboratory remission, and imaging remission gets patients with RA close to the ideal when measured over time. “You need to continue to monitor these patients as you follow them along,” he said.

The BARFOT study, which evaluated 1,938 patients with early RA in two cohorts during 1992-1999 and again between 2000 and 2006, showed that more active treatments in the 2000s did not result in improvements in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and pain scores, compared with patients treated in the 1990s. “You can see in some of those patients those scores do increase, and that even despite aggressive therapies that we had in 2006, you can still see some of those patients still have progression of the disease,” Dr. Wells explained. “How did they know? Because they looked.”

He also cited a study from researchers at the Mayo Clinic who examined 586 patients with RA that showed a higher prevalence of functional disability in patients with RA who also had radiographic changes, compared with patients without RA. “Radiographic changes correlate with disease severity and functional disability as well,” Dr. Wells said.

Just as prostate-specific antigen levels are used in prostate cancer screening and hemoglobin A1c is measured in diabetes management, radiographs should be used to track progression of disease in RA and PsA, Dr. Wells argued. “[I]f you don’t know, you can’t treat,” he said.

Some patients near remission may have radiographic progression even though disease activity measurements such as C-reactive protein (CRP) values do not show presence of active disease. In a study analyzing 1,184 patients with RA in the ASPIRE, ERA, Leflunomide, PREMIER and TEMPO trials, swollen joint count (SJC) was a better predictor of radiographic progression than CRP in patients near remission.

“[E]ven where you don’t see smoke, there still could be fire,” Dr. Wells said. “Some of these patients still progress and these are outliers, and the way they saw that [was] because they followed those patients along. If you don’t look, you don’t know.”

Radiographic progression can also be seen among nonswollen joints in patients with RA and PsA. In a study of 1,207 joints in 55 patients with RA and 352 joints in 18 patients with PsA, researchers in Austria found tenderness in nonswollen joints was associated with radiographic progression.

Despite having effective treatments in RA and PsA, “none of our therapies show that they’re able to prevent progression,” Dr. Wells said.

When it comes to hitting the treatment target in RA, some rheumatologists may think they can accomplish it without use of repeated radiographs. “I have a different perspective on that – that you really do indeed need to do the x-rays today and follow those x-rays along, especially if it’s going to change your treatment paradigm and what your treatment decision would be for the patient,” he said.
 

Counterpoint: Repeat radiographs aren’t helpful

Almost all rheumatologists would likely order an initial radiograph for their patients with RA or PsA, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, said in his presentation.

“If you see erosions when you start, chances are you’re going to be much more aggressive,” Dr. Fleischmann said. “So it is justification for early, more aggressive treatment of disease.”

In recent decades, radiographic progression in RA has decreased as more effective antirheumatic treatments have come into use, Dr. Fleischmann argued.

“We had x-ray progression in virtually everybody, and it was consistent no matter what we treated with, which was gold or penicillamine or any of the NSAIDs or sulfasalazine,” he said. “With methotrexate ... about 60% of patients actually have no x-ray progression, and that was a major change, and that’s one of the reasons why methotrexate has become the keystone of therapy. But even with methotrexate, [we] still had many patients who progressed.”

After the introduction of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other mechanisms in the late 1990s, “all of a sudden, you don’t see x-ray progression – mean x-ray progression – in a group of patients,” he noted.

Many rheumatologists now use a treat-to-target strategy, and if the patient achieves true clinical remission or sustained very low disease activity as measured by Boolean remission, Simple Disease Activity Index, or Clinical Disease Activity Index, they have “very little chance of radiographic progression and functional decline,” he said.

“If a patient doesn’t achieve remission or very low disease activity, obtaining a radiograph doesn’t change what you do because the patient’s not where they want to be, where you want them to be; you’re going to make a change anyway,” Dr. Fleischmann explained. “The radiograph isn’t going to help you do that.”

If a patient is in sustained remission but a radiograph is ordered and shows disease progression, he questioned what the rheumatologist would do in that situation.

“Now the patient’s in, let’s say, a Boolean remission. They have no tender joints. They have no swollen joints ... their pain assessment is zero, their CRP is zero, and they do have some x-ray progression. Where are you going to change?” Dr. Fleischmann asked. “There’s no data that anything else would work. I don’t know what you would do. So, in conclusion, I would say you really don’t need to repeat an x-ray.”
 

AI reading x-rays?

Commenting on the point-counterpoint session, Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS, asked Dr. Fleischmann and Dr. Wells how they address the issue of how many radiologists seem to be unfamiliar with reading hand radiographs and RA progression.

Dr. Fleischmann said he was trained in how to read hand radiographs in medical school, but that training no longer appears to be occurring. “If you have a good bone radiologist, of which there are not a lot, you’re great. But if you don’t have a really good bone radiologist, it’s difficult,” he said.

Dr. Kavanaugh alluded to the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology and posed the question of how both rheumatologists felt about AI reading and interpreting their radiographs. “If you could reliably submit x-rays and they would say what the Sharp score was and where the differences were, would that change anything?” he asked.

“I think having artificial intelligence read the x-ray or an MRI is really, really good. It’ll be better than the radiologists,” Dr. Fleischmann responded. “But I don’t think that you really need to repeat the x-ray. I mean, I really don’t think you need to repeat it. You need to treat the patient.”

Dr. Wells reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fleischmann reported no relevant financial relationships.

Follow-up radiographs after an initial baseline reading in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis may still show radiographic progression despite treatment with current therapies, but it’s unclear if they will affect treatment decisions between patients and doctors that may take place regardless of the radiographic information, according to arguments made for and against their usefulness in a point-counterpoint session at the 2023 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc., said that x-rays “reflect the history of joint pathology” and can get worse over time, correlating with disease activity and severity.

BSIP/UIG/GettyImages

While RA does not yet have the “holy grail” of complete or true remission, Dr. Wells argued, the combination of clinical remission, laboratory remission, and imaging remission gets patients with RA close to the ideal when measured over time. “You need to continue to monitor these patients as you follow them along,” he said.

The BARFOT study, which evaluated 1,938 patients with early RA in two cohorts during 1992-1999 and again between 2000 and 2006, showed that more active treatments in the 2000s did not result in improvements in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and pain scores, compared with patients treated in the 1990s. “You can see in some of those patients those scores do increase, and that even despite aggressive therapies that we had in 2006, you can still see some of those patients still have progression of the disease,” Dr. Wells explained. “How did they know? Because they looked.”

He also cited a study from researchers at the Mayo Clinic who examined 586 patients with RA that showed a higher prevalence of functional disability in patients with RA who also had radiographic changes, compared with patients without RA. “Radiographic changes correlate with disease severity and functional disability as well,” Dr. Wells said.

Just as prostate-specific antigen levels are used in prostate cancer screening and hemoglobin A1c is measured in diabetes management, radiographs should be used to track progression of disease in RA and PsA, Dr. Wells argued. “[I]f you don’t know, you can’t treat,” he said.

Some patients near remission may have radiographic progression even though disease activity measurements such as C-reactive protein (CRP) values do not show presence of active disease. In a study analyzing 1,184 patients with RA in the ASPIRE, ERA, Leflunomide, PREMIER and TEMPO trials, swollen joint count (SJC) was a better predictor of radiographic progression than CRP in patients near remission.

“[E]ven where you don’t see smoke, there still could be fire,” Dr. Wells said. “Some of these patients still progress and these are outliers, and the way they saw that [was] because they followed those patients along. If you don’t look, you don’t know.”

Radiographic progression can also be seen among nonswollen joints in patients with RA and PsA. In a study of 1,207 joints in 55 patients with RA and 352 joints in 18 patients with PsA, researchers in Austria found tenderness in nonswollen joints was associated with radiographic progression.

Despite having effective treatments in RA and PsA, “none of our therapies show that they’re able to prevent progression,” Dr. Wells said.

When it comes to hitting the treatment target in RA, some rheumatologists may think they can accomplish it without use of repeated radiographs. “I have a different perspective on that – that you really do indeed need to do the x-rays today and follow those x-rays along, especially if it’s going to change your treatment paradigm and what your treatment decision would be for the patient,” he said.
 

Counterpoint: Repeat radiographs aren’t helpful

Almost all rheumatologists would likely order an initial radiograph for their patients with RA or PsA, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, said in his presentation.

“If you see erosions when you start, chances are you’re going to be much more aggressive,” Dr. Fleischmann said. “So it is justification for early, more aggressive treatment of disease.”

In recent decades, radiographic progression in RA has decreased as more effective antirheumatic treatments have come into use, Dr. Fleischmann argued.

“We had x-ray progression in virtually everybody, and it was consistent no matter what we treated with, which was gold or penicillamine or any of the NSAIDs or sulfasalazine,” he said. “With methotrexate ... about 60% of patients actually have no x-ray progression, and that was a major change, and that’s one of the reasons why methotrexate has become the keystone of therapy. But even with methotrexate, [we] still had many patients who progressed.”

After the introduction of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other mechanisms in the late 1990s, “all of a sudden, you don’t see x-ray progression – mean x-ray progression – in a group of patients,” he noted.

Many rheumatologists now use a treat-to-target strategy, and if the patient achieves true clinical remission or sustained very low disease activity as measured by Boolean remission, Simple Disease Activity Index, or Clinical Disease Activity Index, they have “very little chance of radiographic progression and functional decline,” he said.

“If a patient doesn’t achieve remission or very low disease activity, obtaining a radiograph doesn’t change what you do because the patient’s not where they want to be, where you want them to be; you’re going to make a change anyway,” Dr. Fleischmann explained. “The radiograph isn’t going to help you do that.”

If a patient is in sustained remission but a radiograph is ordered and shows disease progression, he questioned what the rheumatologist would do in that situation.

“Now the patient’s in, let’s say, a Boolean remission. They have no tender joints. They have no swollen joints ... their pain assessment is zero, their CRP is zero, and they do have some x-ray progression. Where are you going to change?” Dr. Fleischmann asked. “There’s no data that anything else would work. I don’t know what you would do. So, in conclusion, I would say you really don’t need to repeat an x-ray.”
 

AI reading x-rays?

Commenting on the point-counterpoint session, Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS, asked Dr. Fleischmann and Dr. Wells how they address the issue of how many radiologists seem to be unfamiliar with reading hand radiographs and RA progression.

Dr. Fleischmann said he was trained in how to read hand radiographs in medical school, but that training no longer appears to be occurring. “If you have a good bone radiologist, of which there are not a lot, you’re great. But if you don’t have a really good bone radiologist, it’s difficult,” he said.

Dr. Kavanaugh alluded to the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology and posed the question of how both rheumatologists felt about AI reading and interpreting their radiographs. “If you could reliably submit x-rays and they would say what the Sharp score was and where the differences were, would that change anything?” he asked.

“I think having artificial intelligence read the x-ray or an MRI is really, really good. It’ll be better than the radiologists,” Dr. Fleischmann responded. “But I don’t think that you really need to repeat the x-ray. I mean, I really don’t think you need to repeat it. You need to treat the patient.”

Dr. Wells reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fleischmann reported no relevant financial relationships.

Follow-up radiographs after an initial baseline reading in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis may still show radiographic progression despite treatment with current therapies, but it’s unclear if they will affect treatment decisions between patients and doctors that may take place regardless of the radiographic information, according to arguments made for and against their usefulness in a point-counterpoint session at the 2023 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc., said that x-rays “reflect the history of joint pathology” and can get worse over time, correlating with disease activity and severity.

BSIP/UIG/GettyImages

While RA does not yet have the “holy grail” of complete or true remission, Dr. Wells argued, the combination of clinical remission, laboratory remission, and imaging remission gets patients with RA close to the ideal when measured over time. “You need to continue to monitor these patients as you follow them along,” he said.

The BARFOT study, which evaluated 1,938 patients with early RA in two cohorts during 1992-1999 and again between 2000 and 2006, showed that more active treatments in the 2000s did not result in improvements in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and pain scores, compared with patients treated in the 1990s. “You can see in some of those patients those scores do increase, and that even despite aggressive therapies that we had in 2006, you can still see some of those patients still have progression of the disease,” Dr. Wells explained. “How did they know? Because they looked.”

He also cited a study from researchers at the Mayo Clinic who examined 586 patients with RA that showed a higher prevalence of functional disability in patients with RA who also had radiographic changes, compared with patients without RA. “Radiographic changes correlate with disease severity and functional disability as well,” Dr. Wells said.

Just as prostate-specific antigen levels are used in prostate cancer screening and hemoglobin A1c is measured in diabetes management, radiographs should be used to track progression of disease in RA and PsA, Dr. Wells argued. “[I]f you don’t know, you can’t treat,” he said.

Some patients near remission may have radiographic progression even though disease activity measurements such as C-reactive protein (CRP) values do not show presence of active disease. In a study analyzing 1,184 patients with RA in the ASPIRE, ERA, Leflunomide, PREMIER and TEMPO trials, swollen joint count (SJC) was a better predictor of radiographic progression than CRP in patients near remission.

“[E]ven where you don’t see smoke, there still could be fire,” Dr. Wells said. “Some of these patients still progress and these are outliers, and the way they saw that [was] because they followed those patients along. If you don’t look, you don’t know.”

Radiographic progression can also be seen among nonswollen joints in patients with RA and PsA. In a study of 1,207 joints in 55 patients with RA and 352 joints in 18 patients with PsA, researchers in Austria found tenderness in nonswollen joints was associated with radiographic progression.

Despite having effective treatments in RA and PsA, “none of our therapies show that they’re able to prevent progression,” Dr. Wells said.

When it comes to hitting the treatment target in RA, some rheumatologists may think they can accomplish it without use of repeated radiographs. “I have a different perspective on that – that you really do indeed need to do the x-rays today and follow those x-rays along, especially if it’s going to change your treatment paradigm and what your treatment decision would be for the patient,” he said.
 

Counterpoint: Repeat radiographs aren’t helpful

Almost all rheumatologists would likely order an initial radiograph for their patients with RA or PsA, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, said in his presentation.

“If you see erosions when you start, chances are you’re going to be much more aggressive,” Dr. Fleischmann said. “So it is justification for early, more aggressive treatment of disease.”

In recent decades, radiographic progression in RA has decreased as more effective antirheumatic treatments have come into use, Dr. Fleischmann argued.

“We had x-ray progression in virtually everybody, and it was consistent no matter what we treated with, which was gold or penicillamine or any of the NSAIDs or sulfasalazine,” he said. “With methotrexate ... about 60% of patients actually have no x-ray progression, and that was a major change, and that’s one of the reasons why methotrexate has become the keystone of therapy. But even with methotrexate, [we] still had many patients who progressed.”

After the introduction of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other mechanisms in the late 1990s, “all of a sudden, you don’t see x-ray progression – mean x-ray progression – in a group of patients,” he noted.

Many rheumatologists now use a treat-to-target strategy, and if the patient achieves true clinical remission or sustained very low disease activity as measured by Boolean remission, Simple Disease Activity Index, or Clinical Disease Activity Index, they have “very little chance of radiographic progression and functional decline,” he said.

“If a patient doesn’t achieve remission or very low disease activity, obtaining a radiograph doesn’t change what you do because the patient’s not where they want to be, where you want them to be; you’re going to make a change anyway,” Dr. Fleischmann explained. “The radiograph isn’t going to help you do that.”

If a patient is in sustained remission but a radiograph is ordered and shows disease progression, he questioned what the rheumatologist would do in that situation.

“Now the patient’s in, let’s say, a Boolean remission. They have no tender joints. They have no swollen joints ... their pain assessment is zero, their CRP is zero, and they do have some x-ray progression. Where are you going to change?” Dr. Fleischmann asked. “There’s no data that anything else would work. I don’t know what you would do. So, in conclusion, I would say you really don’t need to repeat an x-ray.”
 

AI reading x-rays?

Commenting on the point-counterpoint session, Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS, asked Dr. Fleischmann and Dr. Wells how they address the issue of how many radiologists seem to be unfamiliar with reading hand radiographs and RA progression.

Dr. Fleischmann said he was trained in how to read hand radiographs in medical school, but that training no longer appears to be occurring. “If you have a good bone radiologist, of which there are not a lot, you’re great. But if you don’t have a really good bone radiologist, it’s difficult,” he said.

Dr. Kavanaugh alluded to the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology and posed the question of how both rheumatologists felt about AI reading and interpreting their radiographs. “If you could reliably submit x-rays and they would say what the Sharp score was and where the differences were, would that change anything?” he asked.

“I think having artificial intelligence read the x-ray or an MRI is really, really good. It’ll be better than the radiologists,” Dr. Fleischmann responded. “But I don’t think that you really need to repeat the x-ray. I mean, I really don’t think you need to repeat it. You need to treat the patient.”

Dr. Wells reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fleischmann reported no relevant financial relationships.

Butylphthalide, a medication derived from celery seed, may improve outcomes after an acute ischemic stroke when given in addition to thrombolysis or endovascular treatment, a new report suggests.

Patients treated with butylphthalide had fewer severe neurologic symptoms and better function 90 days after the stroke, compared with those receiving placebo.

Butylphthalide is approved and available for use in China, where the study was conducted. However, the medication hasn’t been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“Patients who received butylphthalide had less severe neurological symptoms and a better living status at 90 days post stroke, compared to those who received the placebo,” said coauthor Baixue Jia, MD, an attending physician in interventional neuroradiology at the Beijing Tiantan Hospital of Capital Medical University and a faculty member at the China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases in Beijing. “If the results are confirmed in other trials, this may lead to more options to treat strokes caused by clots.”

The study was presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Studying stroke outcomes

The researchers described butylphthalide as a cerebroprotective drug that was originally extracted from seeds of Apium graveolens. In China, previous studies have shown that the drug has cerebroprotective effects in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion, they noted.

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Dr. Jia and colleagues evaluated whether treatment with butylphthalide could improve 90-day outcomes for adults with acute ischemic stroke who received intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), endovascular treatment, or both.

The participants were treated at one of 59 medical centers in China between July 2018 and February 2022. Those who had minimal stroke symptoms on their initial exam, defined as a score of 0-3 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, or had severe stroke symptoms, defined as having a score of 26 or higher on the NIHSS, were excluded from the study.

Along with an initial revascularization intervention chosen by their physician, participants were randomly selected to receive either butylphthalide or a placebo daily for 90 days. The drug was administered through daily intravenous injections for the first 14 days, after which patients received oral capsules for 76 days.

The research team defined the outcomes as “favorable” if a patient fell into one of the following categories 90 days after the stroke: an initially mild to moderate stroke (NIHSS, 4-7) and no symptoms after treatment, defined as a score of 0 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), which measures disability and dependence; an initially moderate to serious stroke (NIHSS, 8-14) and no residual symptoms or mild symptoms that don’t impair the ability to perform routine activities of daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-1); or an initially serious to severe stroke (NIHSS, 15-25) and no remaining symptoms or a slight disability that impairs some activities but allows one to conduct daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-2).

Secondary outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, recurrent stroke, and mortality.

Among the 1,216 participants, 607 were assigned to the treatment group, and 609 were assigned to the placebo group. The average age was 66 years, and 68% were men.

Overall, participants in the butylphthalide group were 70% more likely to have a favorable 90-day outcome, compared with the placebo group. Favorable outcomes occurred in 344 patients (56.7%) in the butylphthalide group, compared with 268 patients (44%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.14; P < .001).

In addition, butylphthalide improved function equally well for the patients who initially received tPA, those who received endovascular treatment, and those who received both tPA and endovascular treatment.

Secondary events, such as recurrent stroke and intracranial hemorrhage, weren’t significantly different between the butylphthalide and placebo groups.
 

Ongoing questions

Dr. Jia and colleagues noted the need to understand how butylphthalide works in the brain. Animal studies have suggested several possible mechanisms, but it remains unclear.

“The next step should be investigating the exact mechanisms of butylphthalide in humans,” Dr. Jia said.

Additional research should assess the medication in other populations, the authors noted, particularly because the study involved participants who received initial treatment with tPA, endovascular treatment, or both. The results may not be generalizable to stroke patients who receive other treatments or to populations outside of China.

“While these are interesting results, this is only one relatively small study on a fairly select population in China. Butylphthalide, a medication initially compounded from celery seed, is not ready for use in standard stroke treatment,” said Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology and director of the division of translational neurosciences and population studies at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Dr. Lackland, who wasn’t involved with the study, is a member of the American Stroke Association’s Stroke Council. Although butylphthalide was originally extracted from seeds, he noted, it’s not what patients would find commercially available.

“The medication used in this study is not the same as celery seed or celery seed extract supplements,” he said. “Stroke survivors should always consult with their neurologist or healthcare professional regarding diet after a stroke.”

The study was funded by the National Key Technology Research and Development Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China and Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Group dl-3-butylphthalide Pharmaceutical. Several authors are employed with Beijing Tiantan Hospital and the Beijing Institute of Brain Disorders. Dr. Lackland reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Butylphthalide, a medication derived from celery seed, may improve outcomes after an acute ischemic stroke when given in addition to thrombolysis or endovascular treatment, a new report suggests.

Patients treated with butylphthalide had fewer severe neurologic symptoms and better function 90 days after the stroke, compared with those receiving placebo.

Butylphthalide is approved and available for use in China, where the study was conducted. However, the medication hasn’t been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“Patients who received butylphthalide had less severe neurological symptoms and a better living status at 90 days post stroke, compared to those who received the placebo,” said coauthor Baixue Jia, MD, an attending physician in interventional neuroradiology at the Beijing Tiantan Hospital of Capital Medical University and a faculty member at the China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases in Beijing. “If the results are confirmed in other trials, this may lead to more options to treat strokes caused by clots.”

The study was presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Studying stroke outcomes

The researchers described butylphthalide as a cerebroprotective drug that was originally extracted from seeds of Apium graveolens. In China, previous studies have shown that the drug has cerebroprotective effects in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion, they noted.

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Dr. Jia and colleagues evaluated whether treatment with butylphthalide could improve 90-day outcomes for adults with acute ischemic stroke who received intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), endovascular treatment, or both.

The participants were treated at one of 59 medical centers in China between July 2018 and February 2022. Those who had minimal stroke symptoms on their initial exam, defined as a score of 0-3 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, or had severe stroke symptoms, defined as having a score of 26 or higher on the NIHSS, were excluded from the study.

Along with an initial revascularization intervention chosen by their physician, participants were randomly selected to receive either butylphthalide or a placebo daily for 90 days. The drug was administered through daily intravenous injections for the first 14 days, after which patients received oral capsules for 76 days.

The research team defined the outcomes as “favorable” if a patient fell into one of the following categories 90 days after the stroke: an initially mild to moderate stroke (NIHSS, 4-7) and no symptoms after treatment, defined as a score of 0 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), which measures disability and dependence; an initially moderate to serious stroke (NIHSS, 8-14) and no residual symptoms or mild symptoms that don’t impair the ability to perform routine activities of daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-1); or an initially serious to severe stroke (NIHSS, 15-25) and no remaining symptoms or a slight disability that impairs some activities but allows one to conduct daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-2).

Secondary outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, recurrent stroke, and mortality.

Among the 1,216 participants, 607 were assigned to the treatment group, and 609 were assigned to the placebo group. The average age was 66 years, and 68% were men.

Overall, participants in the butylphthalide group were 70% more likely to have a favorable 90-day outcome, compared with the placebo group. Favorable outcomes occurred in 344 patients (56.7%) in the butylphthalide group, compared with 268 patients (44%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.14; P < .001).

In addition, butylphthalide improved function equally well for the patients who initially received tPA, those who received endovascular treatment, and those who received both tPA and endovascular treatment.

Secondary events, such as recurrent stroke and intracranial hemorrhage, weren’t significantly different between the butylphthalide and placebo groups.
 

Ongoing questions

Dr. Jia and colleagues noted the need to understand how butylphthalide works in the brain. Animal studies have suggested several possible mechanisms, but it remains unclear.

“The next step should be investigating the exact mechanisms of butylphthalide in humans,” Dr. Jia said.

Additional research should assess the medication in other populations, the authors noted, particularly because the study involved participants who received initial treatment with tPA, endovascular treatment, or both. The results may not be generalizable to stroke patients who receive other treatments or to populations outside of China.

“While these are interesting results, this is only one relatively small study on a fairly select population in China. Butylphthalide, a medication initially compounded from celery seed, is not ready for use in standard stroke treatment,” said Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology and director of the division of translational neurosciences and population studies at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Dr. Lackland, who wasn’t involved with the study, is a member of the American Stroke Association’s Stroke Council. Although butylphthalide was originally extracted from seeds, he noted, it’s not what patients would find commercially available.

“The medication used in this study is not the same as celery seed or celery seed extract supplements,” he said. “Stroke survivors should always consult with their neurologist or healthcare professional regarding diet after a stroke.”

The study was funded by the National Key Technology Research and Development Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China and Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Group dl-3-butylphthalide Pharmaceutical. Several authors are employed with Beijing Tiantan Hospital and the Beijing Institute of Brain Disorders. Dr. Lackland reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Butylphthalide, a medication derived from celery seed, may improve outcomes after an acute ischemic stroke when given in addition to thrombolysis or endovascular treatment, a new report suggests.

Patients treated with butylphthalide had fewer severe neurologic symptoms and better function 90 days after the stroke, compared with those receiving placebo.

Butylphthalide is approved and available for use in China, where the study was conducted. However, the medication hasn’t been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“Patients who received butylphthalide had less severe neurological symptoms and a better living status at 90 days post stroke, compared to those who received the placebo,” said coauthor Baixue Jia, MD, an attending physician in interventional neuroradiology at the Beijing Tiantan Hospital of Capital Medical University and a faculty member at the China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases in Beijing. “If the results are confirmed in other trials, this may lead to more options to treat strokes caused by clots.”

The study was presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Studying stroke outcomes

The researchers described butylphthalide as a cerebroprotective drug that was originally extracted from seeds of Apium graveolens. In China, previous studies have shown that the drug has cerebroprotective effects in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion, they noted.

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, Dr. Jia and colleagues evaluated whether treatment with butylphthalide could improve 90-day outcomes for adults with acute ischemic stroke who received intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), endovascular treatment, or both.

The participants were treated at one of 59 medical centers in China between July 2018 and February 2022. Those who had minimal stroke symptoms on their initial exam, defined as a score of 0-3 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, or had severe stroke symptoms, defined as having a score of 26 or higher on the NIHSS, were excluded from the study.

Along with an initial revascularization intervention chosen by their physician, participants were randomly selected to receive either butylphthalide or a placebo daily for 90 days. The drug was administered through daily intravenous injections for the first 14 days, after which patients received oral capsules for 76 days.

The research team defined the outcomes as “favorable” if a patient fell into one of the following categories 90 days after the stroke: an initially mild to moderate stroke (NIHSS, 4-7) and no symptoms after treatment, defined as a score of 0 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), which measures disability and dependence; an initially moderate to serious stroke (NIHSS, 8-14) and no residual symptoms or mild symptoms that don’t impair the ability to perform routine activities of daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-1); or an initially serious to severe stroke (NIHSS, 15-25) and no remaining symptoms or a slight disability that impairs some activities but allows one to conduct daily living without assistance (mRS, 0-2).

Secondary outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, recurrent stroke, and mortality.

Among the 1,216 participants, 607 were assigned to the treatment group, and 609 were assigned to the placebo group. The average age was 66 years, and 68% were men.

Overall, participants in the butylphthalide group were 70% more likely to have a favorable 90-day outcome, compared with the placebo group. Favorable outcomes occurred in 344 patients (56.7%) in the butylphthalide group, compared with 268 patients (44%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.14; P < .001).

In addition, butylphthalide improved function equally well for the patients who initially received tPA, those who received endovascular treatment, and those who received both tPA and endovascular treatment.

Secondary events, such as recurrent stroke and intracranial hemorrhage, weren’t significantly different between the butylphthalide and placebo groups.
 

Ongoing questions

Dr. Jia and colleagues noted the need to understand how butylphthalide works in the brain. Animal studies have suggested several possible mechanisms, but it remains unclear.

“The next step should be investigating the exact mechanisms of butylphthalide in humans,” Dr. Jia said.

Additional research should assess the medication in other populations, the authors noted, particularly because the study involved participants who received initial treatment with tPA, endovascular treatment, or both. The results may not be generalizable to stroke patients who receive other treatments or to populations outside of China.

“While these are interesting results, this is only one relatively small study on a fairly select population in China. Butylphthalide, a medication initially compounded from celery seed, is not ready for use in standard stroke treatment,” said Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology and director of the division of translational neurosciences and population studies at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Dr. Lackland, who wasn’t involved with the study, is a member of the American Stroke Association’s Stroke Council. Although butylphthalide was originally extracted from seeds, he noted, it’s not what patients would find commercially available.

“The medication used in this study is not the same as celery seed or celery seed extract supplements,” he said. “Stroke survivors should always consult with their neurologist or healthcare professional regarding diet after a stroke.”

The study was funded by the National Key Technology Research and Development Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China and Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Group dl-3-butylphthalide Pharmaceutical. Several authors are employed with Beijing Tiantan Hospital and the Beijing Institute of Brain Disorders. Dr. Lackland reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A tool that incorporates lupus-related variables with traditional risk factors provides a much more accurate assessment of cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

In the initial clinical assessment of this tool, called the SLECRISK, “it identified high-risk lupus patients who would otherwise be missed by traditional methods of CV risk assessment,” reported May Y. Choi, MD, associate director of translational research at the University of Calgary’s (Alta.) Lupus Centre of Excellence.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

It is well known that patients with SLE face an increased risk of CV events starting at an age long before risk begins climbing in the general population, according to Dr. Choi. She cited one study that showed women aged 35-44 years have a 50-fold greater risk of myocardial infarction than healthy individuals.

All major guidelines recognize this increased risk and recommend CV risk assessment in patients with SLE, even though Dr. Choi pointed out that traditional tools, such as the American College of Cardiology atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator or the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) have a limited ability to detect the patients with SLE who are most likely to have an event.
 

In SLE, current tools are inadequate

“These risk assessment tools perform poorly in SLE patients because they do not capture SLE-related inflammation,” Dr. Choi said. Of several examples, Dr. Choi cited a study showing “seven times more MIs and strokes observed than expected in SLE patients on the basis of the FRS.”

The disparity between expected and observed MIs and strokes is worse with increasing severity of SLE. In a study she presented 3 years ago, rates of CV events were 12 times higher in those with inactive or mild SLE, rising to a 16-fold increase among those with moderate disease and jumping to a 32-fold increase in those with severe SLE.

The SLECRISK tool was developed from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital SLE Registry, which was initiated in 1992. Patients without a history of CV disease were evaluated for traditional CV risk factors and for SLE-specific characteristics such as disease activity, levels of the complement proteins C3 and C4, kidney function, the presence of nephritis, and SLE duration. The value of these characteristics as predictors of CV events were then assessed over a 10-year follow-up period before being assembled into the SLECRISK tool.

In an example of the risk equation, Dr. Choi described a 50-year-old patient with SLE and a 5% 10-year ASCVD risk score, which is low. After adjustment for SLE risks, which included 10 years disease duration, high disease activity, elevated creatinine, and positive anti–double stranded DNA status, the 10-year CV risk score climbed to 16.2%, which is moderate.

The performance of the SLECRISK was evaluated in 1,243 patients providing 8,946.51 person-years of follow-up. During this period, there were 90 major adverse cardiac events (MACE), of which 82% were adjudicated by cardiologists, and 211 secondary events.

Relative to the ASCVD risk score, the SLECRISK identified about twice as many patients with SLE as having moderate risk and 3.5-fold more patients as having high risk. Among patients who experienced CV events, traditional CV risk factors were more common but so were SLE-specific risk factors, including greater disease severity, a greater likelihood of lupus nephritis, increased complement levels, and greater exposure to glucocorticoids, according to Dr. Choi.

Specificities for CV events higher on SLECRISK

In predicting CV events, the differences in specificities were in the same general range, although somewhat higher for the ASCVD risk score in regard to predicting MACE (83% vs. 72%) and MACE plus secondary events (90% vs. 79%). However, the sensitivities were much higher for SLECRISK relative to the ASCVD risk score for MACE alone (64% vs. 41%) and for MACE plus secondary events (58% vs. 35%).

When comparing those who had an MI or stroke, the ASCVD risk score identified 8 (7%) patients missed by SLECRISK, whereas SLECRISK identified 89 (73%) missed by the ASCVD risk score. The remaining 25 patients (20%) were identified by both. The advantage of SLECRISK was similar for MACE plus secondary outcomes.

Dr. Choi noted that all of the SLE-specific variables in SLECRISK are readily obtained and often already available in patient charts. She said that there is a plan to validate the tool in larger groups, but with a goal of creating a tool available online for clinicians and their patients to use. There is also an even more ambitious plan for the future.

“We have funding to look at machine learning to evaluate predictive variables in SLE patients,” Dr. Choi said. Rather than adding SLE-specific variables to traditional risks, the plan is to “start from scratch,” letting artificial intelligence assemble predictors without prejudice to what might or might not be relevant.

A SLE-specific tool for evaluating CV risk is an important “unmet need,” according to Karen H. Costenbader, MD, professor in the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In an interview, she reiterated that measuring CV risk in SLE is already guideline recommended, but conventional tools have been shown to be inaccurate.

“I can envision it being used in clinical encounters to help guide shared decision-making with patients,” explained Dr. Costenbader, who was not involved in the presentation at the CRA meeting but worked with Dr. Choi in developing SLECRISK. “It would give us more precise estimates, allowing us to risk stratify our patients and informing us as to which modifiable SLE-specific and nonspecific factors are contributing most to CV risk.’

The problem of using conventional risk assessments in SLE has been well recognized. Of those who have written on this subject, Maureen McMahon, MD, site director of the Lupus Clinical Trials Network at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “There is a critical need for the development of SLE-specific risk assessment tools like SLECRISK.”

Author of several studies looking at alternatives for CV risk assessment in SLE, including a study looking at a panel of biomarkers that was published in ACR Open Rheumatology, Dr. McMahon said in an interview that CV risk in SLE is high but conventional risk assessments are flawed.

“Multiple previous studies have demonstrated that these currently available calculators are not adequate for identifying risk in the lupus patient population,” she said. According to Dr. McMahon, the fact that rheumatologists remain “dependent upon [these conventional] cardiovascular risk calculators” is a well-recognized problem that needs resolution.

Dr. Choi has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mallinckrodt. MitogenDx, Organon, and Werfen International. Dr. Costenbader reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. McMahon has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and GlaxoSmithKline.

A tool that incorporates lupus-related variables with traditional risk factors provides a much more accurate assessment of cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

In the initial clinical assessment of this tool, called the SLECRISK, “it identified high-risk lupus patients who would otherwise be missed by traditional methods of CV risk assessment,” reported May Y. Choi, MD, associate director of translational research at the University of Calgary’s (Alta.) Lupus Centre of Excellence.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

It is well known that patients with SLE face an increased risk of CV events starting at an age long before risk begins climbing in the general population, according to Dr. Choi. She cited one study that showed women aged 35-44 years have a 50-fold greater risk of myocardial infarction than healthy individuals.

All major guidelines recognize this increased risk and recommend CV risk assessment in patients with SLE, even though Dr. Choi pointed out that traditional tools, such as the American College of Cardiology atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator or the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) have a limited ability to detect the patients with SLE who are most likely to have an event.
 

In SLE, current tools are inadequate

“These risk assessment tools perform poorly in SLE patients because they do not capture SLE-related inflammation,” Dr. Choi said. Of several examples, Dr. Choi cited a study showing “seven times more MIs and strokes observed than expected in SLE patients on the basis of the FRS.”

The disparity between expected and observed MIs and strokes is worse with increasing severity of SLE. In a study she presented 3 years ago, rates of CV events were 12 times higher in those with inactive or mild SLE, rising to a 16-fold increase among those with moderate disease and jumping to a 32-fold increase in those with severe SLE.

The SLECRISK tool was developed from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital SLE Registry, which was initiated in 1992. Patients without a history of CV disease were evaluated for traditional CV risk factors and for SLE-specific characteristics such as disease activity, levels of the complement proteins C3 and C4, kidney function, the presence of nephritis, and SLE duration. The value of these characteristics as predictors of CV events were then assessed over a 10-year follow-up period before being assembled into the SLECRISK tool.

In an example of the risk equation, Dr. Choi described a 50-year-old patient with SLE and a 5% 10-year ASCVD risk score, which is low. After adjustment for SLE risks, which included 10 years disease duration, high disease activity, elevated creatinine, and positive anti–double stranded DNA status, the 10-year CV risk score climbed to 16.2%, which is moderate.

The performance of the SLECRISK was evaluated in 1,243 patients providing 8,946.51 person-years of follow-up. During this period, there were 90 major adverse cardiac events (MACE), of which 82% were adjudicated by cardiologists, and 211 secondary events.

Relative to the ASCVD risk score, the SLECRISK identified about twice as many patients with SLE as having moderate risk and 3.5-fold more patients as having high risk. Among patients who experienced CV events, traditional CV risk factors were more common but so were SLE-specific risk factors, including greater disease severity, a greater likelihood of lupus nephritis, increased complement levels, and greater exposure to glucocorticoids, according to Dr. Choi.

Specificities for CV events higher on SLECRISK

In predicting CV events, the differences in specificities were in the same general range, although somewhat higher for the ASCVD risk score in regard to predicting MACE (83% vs. 72%) and MACE plus secondary events (90% vs. 79%). However, the sensitivities were much higher for SLECRISK relative to the ASCVD risk score for MACE alone (64% vs. 41%) and for MACE plus secondary events (58% vs. 35%).

When comparing those who had an MI or stroke, the ASCVD risk score identified 8 (7%) patients missed by SLECRISK, whereas SLECRISK identified 89 (73%) missed by the ASCVD risk score. The remaining 25 patients (20%) were identified by both. The advantage of SLECRISK was similar for MACE plus secondary outcomes.

Dr. Choi noted that all of the SLE-specific variables in SLECRISK are readily obtained and often already available in patient charts. She said that there is a plan to validate the tool in larger groups, but with a goal of creating a tool available online for clinicians and their patients to use. There is also an even more ambitious plan for the future.

“We have funding to look at machine learning to evaluate predictive variables in SLE patients,” Dr. Choi said. Rather than adding SLE-specific variables to traditional risks, the plan is to “start from scratch,” letting artificial intelligence assemble predictors without prejudice to what might or might not be relevant.

A SLE-specific tool for evaluating CV risk is an important “unmet need,” according to Karen H. Costenbader, MD, professor in the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In an interview, she reiterated that measuring CV risk in SLE is already guideline recommended, but conventional tools have been shown to be inaccurate.

“I can envision it being used in clinical encounters to help guide shared decision-making with patients,” explained Dr. Costenbader, who was not involved in the presentation at the CRA meeting but worked with Dr. Choi in developing SLECRISK. “It would give us more precise estimates, allowing us to risk stratify our patients and informing us as to which modifiable SLE-specific and nonspecific factors are contributing most to CV risk.’

The problem of using conventional risk assessments in SLE has been well recognized. Of those who have written on this subject, Maureen McMahon, MD, site director of the Lupus Clinical Trials Network at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “There is a critical need for the development of SLE-specific risk assessment tools like SLECRISK.”

Author of several studies looking at alternatives for CV risk assessment in SLE, including a study looking at a panel of biomarkers that was published in ACR Open Rheumatology, Dr. McMahon said in an interview that CV risk in SLE is high but conventional risk assessments are flawed.

“Multiple previous studies have demonstrated that these currently available calculators are not adequate for identifying risk in the lupus patient population,” she said. According to Dr. McMahon, the fact that rheumatologists remain “dependent upon [these conventional] cardiovascular risk calculators” is a well-recognized problem that needs resolution.

Dr. Choi has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mallinckrodt. MitogenDx, Organon, and Werfen International. Dr. Costenbader reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. McMahon has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and GlaxoSmithKline.

A tool that incorporates lupus-related variables with traditional risk factors provides a much more accurate assessment of cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

In the initial clinical assessment of this tool, called the SLECRISK, “it identified high-risk lupus patients who would otherwise be missed by traditional methods of CV risk assessment,” reported May Y. Choi, MD, associate director of translational research at the University of Calgary’s (Alta.) Lupus Centre of Excellence.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

It is well known that patients with SLE face an increased risk of CV events starting at an age long before risk begins climbing in the general population, according to Dr. Choi. She cited one study that showed women aged 35-44 years have a 50-fold greater risk of myocardial infarction than healthy individuals.

All major guidelines recognize this increased risk and recommend CV risk assessment in patients with SLE, even though Dr. Choi pointed out that traditional tools, such as the American College of Cardiology atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator or the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) have a limited ability to detect the patients with SLE who are most likely to have an event.
 

In SLE, current tools are inadequate

“These risk assessment tools perform poorly in SLE patients because they do not capture SLE-related inflammation,” Dr. Choi said. Of several examples, Dr. Choi cited a study showing “seven times more MIs and strokes observed than expected in SLE patients on the basis of the FRS.”

The disparity between expected and observed MIs and strokes is worse with increasing severity of SLE. In a study she presented 3 years ago, rates of CV events were 12 times higher in those with inactive or mild SLE, rising to a 16-fold increase among those with moderate disease and jumping to a 32-fold increase in those with severe SLE.

The SLECRISK tool was developed from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital SLE Registry, which was initiated in 1992. Patients without a history of CV disease were evaluated for traditional CV risk factors and for SLE-specific characteristics such as disease activity, levels of the complement proteins C3 and C4, kidney function, the presence of nephritis, and SLE duration. The value of these characteristics as predictors of CV events were then assessed over a 10-year follow-up period before being assembled into the SLECRISK tool.

In an example of the risk equation, Dr. Choi described a 50-year-old patient with SLE and a 5% 10-year ASCVD risk score, which is low. After adjustment for SLE risks, which included 10 years disease duration, high disease activity, elevated creatinine, and positive anti–double stranded DNA status, the 10-year CV risk score climbed to 16.2%, which is moderate.

The performance of the SLECRISK was evaluated in 1,243 patients providing 8,946.51 person-years of follow-up. During this period, there were 90 major adverse cardiac events (MACE), of which 82% were adjudicated by cardiologists, and 211 secondary events.

Relative to the ASCVD risk score, the SLECRISK identified about twice as many patients with SLE as having moderate risk and 3.5-fold more patients as having high risk. Among patients who experienced CV events, traditional CV risk factors were more common but so were SLE-specific risk factors, including greater disease severity, a greater likelihood of lupus nephritis, increased complement levels, and greater exposure to glucocorticoids, according to Dr. Choi.

Specificities for CV events higher on SLECRISK

In predicting CV events, the differences in specificities were in the same general range, although somewhat higher for the ASCVD risk score in regard to predicting MACE (83% vs. 72%) and MACE plus secondary events (90% vs. 79%). However, the sensitivities were much higher for SLECRISK relative to the ASCVD risk score for MACE alone (64% vs. 41%) and for MACE plus secondary events (58% vs. 35%).

When comparing those who had an MI or stroke, the ASCVD risk score identified 8 (7%) patients missed by SLECRISK, whereas SLECRISK identified 89 (73%) missed by the ASCVD risk score. The remaining 25 patients (20%) were identified by both. The advantage of SLECRISK was similar for MACE plus secondary outcomes.

Dr. Choi noted that all of the SLE-specific variables in SLECRISK are readily obtained and often already available in patient charts. She said that there is a plan to validate the tool in larger groups, but with a goal of creating a tool available online for clinicians and their patients to use. There is also an even more ambitious plan for the future.

“We have funding to look at machine learning to evaluate predictive variables in SLE patients,” Dr. Choi said. Rather than adding SLE-specific variables to traditional risks, the plan is to “start from scratch,” letting artificial intelligence assemble predictors without prejudice to what might or might not be relevant.

A SLE-specific tool for evaluating CV risk is an important “unmet need,” according to Karen H. Costenbader, MD, professor in the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In an interview, she reiterated that measuring CV risk in SLE is already guideline recommended, but conventional tools have been shown to be inaccurate.

“I can envision it being used in clinical encounters to help guide shared decision-making with patients,” explained Dr. Costenbader, who was not involved in the presentation at the CRA meeting but worked with Dr. Choi in developing SLECRISK. “It would give us more precise estimates, allowing us to risk stratify our patients and informing us as to which modifiable SLE-specific and nonspecific factors are contributing most to CV risk.’

The problem of using conventional risk assessments in SLE has been well recognized. Of those who have written on this subject, Maureen McMahon, MD, site director of the Lupus Clinical Trials Network at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “There is a critical need for the development of SLE-specific risk assessment tools like SLECRISK.”

Author of several studies looking at alternatives for CV risk assessment in SLE, including a study looking at a panel of biomarkers that was published in ACR Open Rheumatology, Dr. McMahon said in an interview that CV risk in SLE is high but conventional risk assessments are flawed.

“Multiple previous studies have demonstrated that these currently available calculators are not adequate for identifying risk in the lupus patient population,” she said. According to Dr. McMahon, the fact that rheumatologists remain “dependent upon [these conventional] cardiovascular risk calculators” is a well-recognized problem that needs resolution.

Dr. Choi has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mallinckrodt. MitogenDx, Organon, and Werfen International. Dr. Costenbader reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. McMahon has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and GlaxoSmithKline.

A combination of two drugs has shown promising results, including a reduction in cognitive impairment in patients who have had a lacunar stroke, and is seen as a new therapeutic approach for patients with cerebral small-vessel disease. The drugs – isosorbide mononitrate and cilostazol – stabilize endothelial function, which is a new therapeutic target for patients with small-vessel disease stroke.

The phase 2 LACI-2 study, evaluating these drugs individually and in combination in patients with lacunar stroke, showed promising trends toward reductions in recurrent stroke, cognitive impairment, and dependency, some of which became significant when the drugs were given together. There was also some suggestion of positive impacts on mood and quality of life.

“Isosorbide mononitrate was associated with a reduction in recurrent stroke, a tendency toward a reduction in dependency and a reduction in cognitive impairment, and cilostazol also seemed to reduce dependency,” study investigator Joanna M. Wardlaw, MD, professor of applied neuroimaging at Edinburgh University, reported.

“When used together, they seemed to have more benefits than either drug on its own. So this is good preliminary evidence that the drugs are working together in a positive way,” she said. But she cautioned that these potential benefits will need to be confirmed in a larger phase 3 trial.

The LACI-2 study was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Dr. Wardlaw and coinvestigator Philip Bath, DSc, professor of medicine at the University of Nottingham (England).

They both highlighted the effect seen on cognitive impairment at the conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“We saw a significant reduction in the number of patients with cognitive impairment with the two drugs together in this phase 2 study,” Dr. Wardlaw said. “This is very encouraging since no study has previously found any medications that positively affect cognitive impairment in small-vessel disease strokes. We cautiously hope that these medications may have wider implications for other types of small-vessel disease as well.”

Dr. Bath added: “The results on cognitive impairment are particularly important. Many patients rate cognitive impairment as one of the most dreaded outcomes of a stroke even if they also have quite significant physical disability. People simply don’t want to lose their memory and thinking ability.”

“The results of LACI-2 also raise interesting questions about whether these drugs would be beneficial for other types of small-vessel disease which do not present as stroke, but maybe may manifest as headaches or memory impairment,” he noted.
 

‘Very intriguing results’

Outside experts were enthusiastic about these preliminary results. In an ISC highlights presentation, program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “It is refreshing to finally see some positive signals in studies in small-vessel stroke. This is an area where we haven’t had answers for a long time.”

He described the reduction in cognitive impairment seen in the study as “very intriguing and very important.”

“I think we have underestimated the burden that cognitive impairment has in stroke, and the burden in general in society of vascular cognitive impairment. This is a very promising approach that definitely deserves to be investigated more thoroughly in a larger trial.”

Commenting on the study findings, Mitchell Elkind, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said this study “provides evidence that points us in at least two important directions.”

“First, it suggests that endothelial dysfunction, or problems with the lining of the blood vessels, may be an important contributor to small-vessel disease and the cognitive decline that often accompanies it. This is a new mechanism of action and different from blood clotting, blood pressure, and other conventional targets of treatment,” Dr. Elkind said.

“Second, and more generally, it suggests that stroke trials, particularly in the subtype of small-vessel disease, can and should explore not only the incidence of recurrent acute events but also the steady decline that occurs after stroke. Poststroke cognitive decline is a relatively new area of stroke research.”

Dr. Wardlaw noted that lacunar stroke is a common type of ischemic stroke, but it has been rather neglected in terms of research. It is assumed to be caused by atherosclerosis of the small vessel but there is now mounting evidence suggesting that it is a result of problems in the endothelium of the small vessels.  

“We looked for potential available drugs that targeted endothelial dysfunction. Both the drugs we tested are already widely used – isosorbide mononitrate for the treatment of coronary artery disease and angina, and cilostazol, mainly in Asia, for stroke prevention,” she said.  

LACI-2 was primarily a feasibility study looking at whether it was possible to recruit enough patients who had had a lacunar stroke and would take the drugs, individually or in combination, for up to a year. Outcomes were investigated on an exploratory basis. The study enrolled 363 patients who had experienced lacunar stroke from 26 stroke centers throughout the United Kingdom. They were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups for 1 year:

• 40-60 mg/day of oral isosorbide mononitrate alone.
• 200 mg/day of oral cilostazol alone.
• Both medications.
• Neither medication.

Patients completed phone surveys at 6 and 12 months to assess health status, including recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, cognitive tests, symptoms, quality of life surveys, and they also had brain imaging at 12 months.

Results showed 98% of patients were still taking their study medication at 1 year, and the drugs appeared to be safe on top of usual care with few deaths or hemorrhages in the study.

The composite outcome including recurrent stroke, MI, cognitive impairment, dependency (modified Rankin score > 2) and death was reduced by 20% in the isosorbide mononitrate–alone group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.09).

The composite endpoint was reduced by 23% in the cilostazol group (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.57-1.05) and by 42% in the combination group (aHR, 0.58, 95% CI, 0.36-0.92) compared with those taking neither drug.

Isosorbide mononitrate alone showed trends toward a reduction in recurrent stroke, cognitive impairment, and dependency, whereas cilostazol alone reduced dependency with a trend toward a reduction in cognitive impairment. When used together, the drugs showed large reductions in cognitive impairment (aHR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.19-0.99) and dependency (aHR ,0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.59).

During the highlights session, Dr. Jovin commented: “It is obvious that the investigators have put a lot of thought into the design of this trial. Presumably because of the composite score they were able to increase the power. We are used to trials which require thousands of patients, but here we are able to see significant results, although exploratory, with just a few hundred patients.”

Dr. Bath stressed that this was only a phase 2 study. “We now need to see if we can confirm these results in a larger phase 3 study.” That study, LACI-3, is planned to start later this year. He also suggested that it would be interesting to investigate whether these drugs would work in other types of ischemic stroke such as those caused by large-artery disease or cardioembolic strokes, as well as other forms of small-vessel disease such as patients with vascular cognitive impairment.

“There are many areas to investigate in future. It might be that in a few years’ time these drugs may be standard of care across many different forms of small-vessel disease,” he said.

Dr. Wardlaw noted that lacunar strokes are generally quite mild strokes, which could be one of the reasons why they have not been the target of much research to date. But Dr. Bath added: “While they may be labeled as a mild stroke on the NIHSS scale, patients can still be quite badly affected. About half of patients with a lacunar stroke develop cognitive impairment and eventually dementia – that is certainly not mild.”

The study was funded primarily by the British Heart Foundation, with support from the UK Alzheimer’s Society, the UK Dementia Research Institute, the Stroke Association, the Fondation Leducq, NHS Research Scotland, and the UK National Institutes of Health Research Clinical Research Networks. Dr. Bath is an adviser to CoMind, DiaMedica, Phagenesis, and Roche. Dr. Wardlaw reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A combination of two drugs has shown promising results, including a reduction in cognitive impairment in patients who have had a lacunar stroke, and is seen as a new therapeutic approach for patients with cerebral small-vessel disease. The drugs – isosorbide mononitrate and cilostazol – stabilize endothelial function, which is a new therapeutic target for patients with small-vessel disease stroke.

The phase 2 LACI-2 study, evaluating these drugs individually and in combination in patients with lacunar stroke, showed promising trends toward reductions in recurrent stroke, cognitive impairment, and dependency, some of which became significant when the drugs were given together. There was also some suggestion of positive impacts on mood and quality of life.

“Isosorbide mononitrate was associated with a reduction in recurrent stroke, a tendency toward a reduction in dependency and a reduction in cognitive impairment, and cilostazol also seemed to reduce dependency,” study investigator Joanna M. Wardlaw, MD, professor of applied neuroimaging at Edinburgh University, reported.

“When used together, they seemed to have more benefits than either drug on its own. So this is good preliminary evidence that the drugs are working together in a positive way,” she said. But she cautioned that these potential benefits will need to be confirmed in a larger phase 3 trial.

The LACI-2 study was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Dr. Wardlaw and coinvestigator Philip Bath, DSc, professor of medicine at the University of Nottingham (England).

They both highlighted the effect seen on cognitive impairment at the conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“We saw a significant reduction in the number of patients with cognitive impairment with the two drugs together in this phase 2 study,” Dr. Wardlaw said. “This is very encouraging since no study has previously found any medications that positively affect cognitive impairment in small-vessel disease strokes. We cautiously hope that these medications may have wider implications for other types of small-vessel disease as well.”

Dr. Bath added: “The results on cognitive impairment are particularly important. Many patients rate cognitive impairment as one of the most dreaded outcomes of a stroke even if they also have quite significant physical disability. People simply don’t want to lose their memory and thinking ability.”

“The results of LACI-2 also raise interesting questions about whether these drugs would be beneficial for other types of small-vessel disease which do not present as stroke, but maybe may manifest as headaches or memory impairment,” he noted.
 

‘Very intriguing results’

Outside experts were enthusiastic about these preliminary results. In an ISC highlights presentation, program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “It is refreshing to finally see some positive signals in studies in small-vessel stroke. This is an area where we haven’t had answers for a long time.”

He described the reduction in cognitive impairment seen in the study as “very intriguing and very important.”

“I think we have underestimated the burden that cognitive impairment has in stroke, and the burden in general in society of vascular cognitive impairment. This is a very promising approach that definitely deserves to be investigated more thoroughly in a larger trial.”

Commenting on the study findings, Mitchell Elkind, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said this study “provides evidence that points us in at least two important directions.”

“First, it suggests that endothelial dysfunction, or problems with the lining of the blood vessels, may be an important contributor to small-vessel disease and the cognitive decline that often accompanies it. This is a new mechanism of action and different from blood clotting, blood pressure, and other conventional targets of treatment,” Dr. Elkind said.

“Second, and more generally, it suggests that stroke trials, particularly in the subtype of small-vessel disease, can and should explore not only the incidence of recurrent acute events but also the steady decline that occurs after stroke. Poststroke cognitive decline is a relatively new area of stroke research.”

Dr. Wardlaw noted that lacunar stroke is a common type of ischemic stroke, but it has been rather neglected in terms of research. It is assumed to be caused by atherosclerosis of the small vessel but there is now mounting evidence suggesting that it is a result of problems in the endothelium of the small vessels.  

“We looked for potential available drugs that targeted endothelial dysfunction. Both the drugs we tested are already widely used – isosorbide mononitrate for the treatment of coronary artery disease and angina, and cilostazol, mainly in Asia, for stroke prevention,” she said.  

LACI-2 was primarily a feasibility study looking at whether it was possible to recruit enough patients who had had a lacunar stroke and would take the drugs, individually or in combination, for up to a year. Outcomes were investigated on an exploratory basis. The study enrolled 363 patients who had experienced lacunar stroke from 26 stroke centers throughout the United Kingdom. They were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups for 1 year:

• 40-60 mg/day of oral isosorbide mononitrate alone.
• 200 mg/day of oral cilostazol alone.
• Both medications.
• Neither medication.

Patients completed phone surveys at 6 and 12 months to assess health status, including recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, cognitive tests, symptoms, quality of life surveys, and they also had brain imaging at 12 months.

Results showed 98% of patients were still taking their study medication at 1 year, and the drugs appeared to be safe on top of usual care with few deaths or hemorrhages in the study.

The composite outcome including recurrent stroke, MI, cognitive impairment, dependency (modified Rankin score > 2) and death was reduced by 20% in the isosorbide mononitrate–alone group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.09).

The composite endpoint was reduced by 23% in the cilostazol group (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.57-1.05) and by 42% in the combination group (aHR, 0.58, 95% CI, 0.36-0.92) compared with those taking neither drug.

Isosorbide mononitrate alone showed trends toward a reduction in recurrent stroke, cognitive impairment, and dependency, whereas cilostazol alone reduced dependency with a trend toward a reduction in cognitive impairment. When used together, the drugs showed large reductions in cognitive impairment (aHR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.19-0.99) and dependency (aHR ,0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.59).

During the highlights session, Dr. Jovin commented: “It is obvious that the investigators have put a lot of thought into the design of this trial. Presumably because of the composite score they were able to increase the power. We are used to trials which require thousands of patients, but here we are able to see significant results, although exploratory, with just a few hundred patients.”

Dr. Bath stressed that this was only a phase 2 study. “We now need to see if we can confirm these results in a larger phase 3 study.” That study, LACI-3, is planned to start later this year. He also suggested that it would be interesting to investigate whether these drugs would work in other types of ischemic stroke such as those caused by large-artery disease or cardioembolic strokes, as well as other forms of small-vessel disease such as patients with vascular cognitive impairment.

“There are many areas to investigate in future. It might be that in a few years’ time these drugs may be standard of care across many different forms of small-vessel disease,” he said.

Dr. Wardlaw noted that lacunar strokes are generally quite mild strokes, which could be one of the reasons why they have not been the target of much research to date. But Dr. Bath added: “While they may be labeled as a mild stroke on the NIHSS scale, patients can still be quite badly affected. About half of patients with a lacunar stroke develop cognitive impairment and eventually dementia – that is certainly not mild.”

The study was funded primarily by the British Heart Foundation, with support from the UK Alzheimer’s Society, the UK Dementia Research Institute, the Stroke Association, the Fondation Leducq, NHS Research Scotland, and the UK National Institutes of Health Research Clinical Research Networks. Dr. Bath is an adviser to CoMind, DiaMedica, Phagenesis, and Roche. Dr. Wardlaw reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A combination of two drugs has shown promising results, including a reduction in cognitive impairment in patients who have had a lacunar stroke, and is seen as a new therapeutic approach for patients with cerebral small-vessel disease. The drugs – isosorbide mononitrate and cilostazol – stabilize endothelial function, which is a new therapeutic target for patients with small-vessel disease stroke.

The phase 2 LACI-2 study, evaluating these drugs individually and in combination in patients with lacunar stroke, showed promising trends toward reductions in recurrent stroke, cognitive impairment, and dependency, some of which became significant when the drugs were given together. There was also some suggestion of positive impacts on mood and quality of life.

“Isosorbide mononitrate was associated with a reduction in recurrent stroke, a tendency toward a reduction in dependency and a reduction in cognitive impairment, and cilostazol also seemed to reduce dependency,” study investigator Joanna M. Wardlaw, MD, professor of applied neuroimaging at Edinburgh University, reported.

“When used together, they seemed to have more benefits than either drug on its own. So this is good preliminary evidence that the drugs are working together in a positive way,” she said. But she cautioned that these potential benefits will need to be confirmed in a larger phase 3 trial.

The LACI-2 study was presented at the International Stroke Conference by Dr. Wardlaw and coinvestigator Philip Bath, DSc, professor of medicine at the University of Nottingham (England).

They both highlighted the effect seen on cognitive impairment at the conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“We saw a significant reduction in the number of patients with cognitive impairment with the two drugs together in this phase 2 study,” Dr. Wardlaw said. “This is very encouraging since no study has previously found any medications that positively affect cognitive impairment in small-vessel disease strokes. We cautiously hope that these medications may have wider implications for other types of small-vessel disease as well.”

Dr. Bath added: “The results on cognitive impairment are particularly important. Many patients rate cognitive impairment as one of the most dreaded outcomes of a stroke even if they also have quite significant physical disability. People simply don’t want to lose their memory and thinking ability.”

“The results of LACI-2 also raise interesting questions about whether these drugs would be beneficial for other types of small-vessel disease which do not present as stroke, but maybe may manifest as headaches or memory impairment,” he noted.
 

‘Very intriguing results’

Outside experts were enthusiastic about these preliminary results. In an ISC highlights presentation, program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “It is refreshing to finally see some positive signals in studies in small-vessel stroke. This is an area where we haven’t had answers for a long time.”

He described the reduction in cognitive impairment seen in the study as “very intriguing and very important.”

“I think we have underestimated the burden that cognitive impairment has in stroke, and the burden in general in society of vascular cognitive impairment. This is a very promising approach that definitely deserves to be investigated more thoroughly in a larger trial.”

Commenting on the study findings, Mitchell Elkind, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said this study “provides evidence that points us in at least two important directions.”

“First, it suggests that endothelial dysfunction, or problems with the lining of the blood vessels, may be an important contributor to small-vessel disease and the cognitive decline that often accompanies it. This is a new mechanism of action and different from blood clotting, blood pressure, and other conventional targets of treatment,” Dr. Elkind said.

“Second, and more generally, it suggests that stroke trials, particularly in the subtype of small-vessel disease, can and should explore not only the incidence of recurrent acute events but also the steady decline that occurs after stroke. Poststroke cognitive decline is a relatively new area of stroke research.”

Dr. Wardlaw noted that lacunar stroke is a common type of ischemic stroke, but it has been rather neglected in terms of research. It is assumed to be caused by atherosclerosis of the small vessel but there is now mounting evidence suggesting that it is a result of problems in the endothelium of the small vessels.  

“We looked for potential available drugs that targeted endothelial dysfunction. Both the drugs we tested are already widely used – isosorbide mononitrate for the treatment of coronary artery disease and angina, and cilostazol, mainly in Asia, for stroke prevention,” she said.  

LACI-2 was primarily a feasibility study looking at whether it was possible to recruit enough patients who had had a lacunar stroke and would take the drugs, individually or in combination, for up to a year. Outcomes were investigated on an exploratory basis. The study enrolled 363 patients who had experienced lacunar stroke from 26 stroke centers throughout the United Kingdom. They were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups for 1 year:

• 40-60 mg/day of oral isosorbide mononitrate alone.
• 200 mg/day of oral cilostazol alone.
• Both medications.
• Neither medication.

Patients completed phone surveys at 6 and 12 months to assess health status, including recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, cognitive tests, symptoms, quality of life surveys, and they also had brain imaging at 12 months.

Results showed 98% of patients were still taking their study medication at 1 year, and the drugs appeared to be safe on top of usual care with few deaths or hemorrhages in the study.

The composite outcome including recurrent stroke, MI, cognitive impairment, dependency (modified Rankin score > 2) and death was reduced by 20% in the isosorbide mononitrate–alone group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.09).

The composite endpoint was reduced by 23% in the cilostazol group (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.57-1.05) and by 42% in the combination group (aHR, 0.58, 95% CI, 0.36-0.92) compared with those taking neither drug.

Isosorbide mononitrate alone showed trends toward a reduction in recurrent stroke, cognitive impairment, and dependency, whereas cilostazol alone reduced dependency with a trend toward a reduction in cognitive impairment. When used together, the drugs showed large reductions in cognitive impairment (aHR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.19-0.99) and dependency (aHR ,0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.59).

During the highlights session, Dr. Jovin commented: “It is obvious that the investigators have put a lot of thought into the design of this trial. Presumably because of the composite score they were able to increase the power. We are used to trials which require thousands of patients, but here we are able to see significant results, although exploratory, with just a few hundred patients.”

Dr. Bath stressed that this was only a phase 2 study. “We now need to see if we can confirm these results in a larger phase 3 study.” That study, LACI-3, is planned to start later this year. He also suggested that it would be interesting to investigate whether these drugs would work in other types of ischemic stroke such as those caused by large-artery disease or cardioembolic strokes, as well as other forms of small-vessel disease such as patients with vascular cognitive impairment.

“There are many areas to investigate in future. It might be that in a few years’ time these drugs may be standard of care across many different forms of small-vessel disease,” he said.

Dr. Wardlaw noted that lacunar strokes are generally quite mild strokes, which could be one of the reasons why they have not been the target of much research to date. But Dr. Bath added: “While they may be labeled as a mild stroke on the NIHSS scale, patients can still be quite badly affected. About half of patients with a lacunar stroke develop cognitive impairment and eventually dementia – that is certainly not mild.”

The study was funded primarily by the British Heart Foundation, with support from the UK Alzheimer’s Society, the UK Dementia Research Institute, the Stroke Association, the Fondation Leducq, NHS Research Scotland, and the UK National Institutes of Health Research Clinical Research Networks. Dr. Bath is an adviser to CoMind, DiaMedica, Phagenesis, and Roche. Dr. Wardlaw reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Tenecteplase is as effective as alteplase with respect to disability outcomes and safety in Chinese patients with ischemic stroke, a new study has found. “This was a pivotal trial in establishing the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase in the thrombolytic treatment of acute ischemic stroke within 4.5 hours in Asian patients,” said study author Shuya Li, MD, associate chief physician, department of neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing.

The findings in this all-Chinese population should have an impact on the use of tenecteplase going forward, said Dr. Li. “The results provide further evidence to support a worldwide switch to tenecteplase as the preferred thrombolytic for acute ischemic stroke.”

The findings were presented at the 2023 International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Single bolus

Use of alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]) has for years been the main approach to thrombolytic reperfusion therapy for patients with acute stroke, but tenecteplase has recently emerged as a potential successor.

Tenecteplase is a tPA produced by recombinant DNA technology. It has a relatively long half-life and can be delivered in a single bolus instead of requiring an hour-long infusion, as is the case with alteplase.

The phase 3 noninferiority Tenecteplase Reperfusion Therapy in Acute ischemic Cerebrovascular Events (TRACE-2) trial – the first of its kind in an Asian population – included 1,430 adult ischemic stroke patients at 53 Chinese centers. Patients had to have a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5-25 and either not be eligible for or have refused endovascular therapy.

The mean age of study participants was about 66 years, and the percentage of women was about 31%. The mean baseline NIHSS score was 7 in both groups, and the symptom-onset-to-needle time was similar at 180 minutes for the tenecteplase group and 178.5 minutes for the alteplase group.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive tenecteplase or alteplase within 4.5 hours of symptom onset.

Those in the tenecteplase group received 0.25 mg/kg of the drug in a single IV bolus (maximum dose, 25 mg). Control group members who were treated with alteplase were given the drug as a 10% bolus, with the remainder given as a 1-hour infusion (0.9 mg/kg with a maximum dose of 90 mg).
 

Showed noninferiority

The primary efficacy outcome was a modified Rankins scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, which is considered excellent function. About 62% of tenecteplase patients and 58% of alteplase patients attained this outcome (risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.18).

The P value was .001 for noninferiority and .06 for superiority, but Dr. Li explained that these values may change when considering the site effect.

There were no statistically significant differences between the two drugs on secondary outcomes of favorable function. For example, 73% of tenecteplase patients and 72% of alteplase patients had an mRS score of 0-2 at 3 months, and 50% in the tenecteplase and 49% in the alteplase group improved by 4 or more points on the NIHSS, or had a score of 1 or less, at 24 hours.

The groups also had comparable scores on the European quality-of-life visual analogue scale and on the Barthel index, which measures functional independence related to personal care and mobility.

Tenecteplase also turned out to be as safe at alteplase. About 2% in both groups had symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours, and both groups had that same percentage for such hemorrhages within 90 days. As well, the groups had a similar rate of any intracranial hemorrhage within 90 days (6% and 7%).

The mortality rate was 7% in the tenecteplase group, compared with 5% in the alteplase group.

Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86% and 87%, and serious AEs in 16% and 15%, of the tenecteplase and alteplase groups, respectively, again with no statistically significant differences.

The research team aims to test the effectiveness of tenecteplase in other stroke patients, including those with minor strokes, those receiving thrombolysis in a later window, and those receiving endovascular therapy, said Dr. Li.
 

Strong evidence

Commenting on the study findings, Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chair of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, said it is important to determine the efficacy of tenecteplase among Asians, as they represent “an entirely different population” with unique concerns, such as bleeding complications from anticoagulants.

He noted an advantage of tenecteplase is ease of administration. “You don’t have to go through the loading dose and then the 1-hour infusion,” which poses an “additional hassle” when transferring patients between institutions, he said.

However, he noted that a possible “downside” to having both drugs available in the emergency department is “using the wrong drug at the wrong dose” because of their similar sounding names.

Also commenting on the study, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he welcomes another trial that confirms that these two drugs are biologically similar.

“I’m very glad this trial was done because it adds another very strong piece of evidence of equivalency.”

But the two drugs are not the same in some important respects, said Dr. Jovin, whose center switched to using tenecteplase almost 3 years ago. That switch has resulted in cutting 17 minutes from the door-to-needle time “which is quite significant,” he said.

“There’s no question that once we used tenecteplase in lieu of tPA, it’s been just so much easier to administer and affects the interhospital transfer protocols, because you’re not transferring the patient with a critical care IV. It’s a win-win situation for everyone.”

The study received funding from the National Science and Technology Major Project, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the China Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Company Recomgen Pharmaceutical (Guangzhou). Dr. Li, Dr. Goldstein, and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Tenecteplase is as effective as alteplase with respect to disability outcomes and safety in Chinese patients with ischemic stroke, a new study has found. “This was a pivotal trial in establishing the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase in the thrombolytic treatment of acute ischemic stroke within 4.5 hours in Asian patients,” said study author Shuya Li, MD, associate chief physician, department of neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing.

The findings in this all-Chinese population should have an impact on the use of tenecteplase going forward, said Dr. Li. “The results provide further evidence to support a worldwide switch to tenecteplase as the preferred thrombolytic for acute ischemic stroke.”

The findings were presented at the 2023 International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Single bolus

Use of alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]) has for years been the main approach to thrombolytic reperfusion therapy for patients with acute stroke, but tenecteplase has recently emerged as a potential successor.

Tenecteplase is a tPA produced by recombinant DNA technology. It has a relatively long half-life and can be delivered in a single bolus instead of requiring an hour-long infusion, as is the case with alteplase.

The phase 3 noninferiority Tenecteplase Reperfusion Therapy in Acute ischemic Cerebrovascular Events (TRACE-2) trial – the first of its kind in an Asian population – included 1,430 adult ischemic stroke patients at 53 Chinese centers. Patients had to have a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5-25 and either not be eligible for or have refused endovascular therapy.

The mean age of study participants was about 66 years, and the percentage of women was about 31%. The mean baseline NIHSS score was 7 in both groups, and the symptom-onset-to-needle time was similar at 180 minutes for the tenecteplase group and 178.5 minutes for the alteplase group.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive tenecteplase or alteplase within 4.5 hours of symptom onset.

Those in the tenecteplase group received 0.25 mg/kg of the drug in a single IV bolus (maximum dose, 25 mg). Control group members who were treated with alteplase were given the drug as a 10% bolus, with the remainder given as a 1-hour infusion (0.9 mg/kg with a maximum dose of 90 mg).
 

Showed noninferiority

The primary efficacy outcome was a modified Rankins scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, which is considered excellent function. About 62% of tenecteplase patients and 58% of alteplase patients attained this outcome (risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.18).

The P value was .001 for noninferiority and .06 for superiority, but Dr. Li explained that these values may change when considering the site effect.

There were no statistically significant differences between the two drugs on secondary outcomes of favorable function. For example, 73% of tenecteplase patients and 72% of alteplase patients had an mRS score of 0-2 at 3 months, and 50% in the tenecteplase and 49% in the alteplase group improved by 4 or more points on the NIHSS, or had a score of 1 or less, at 24 hours.

The groups also had comparable scores on the European quality-of-life visual analogue scale and on the Barthel index, which measures functional independence related to personal care and mobility.

Tenecteplase also turned out to be as safe at alteplase. About 2% in both groups had symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours, and both groups had that same percentage for such hemorrhages within 90 days. As well, the groups had a similar rate of any intracranial hemorrhage within 90 days (6% and 7%).

The mortality rate was 7% in the tenecteplase group, compared with 5% in the alteplase group.

Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86% and 87%, and serious AEs in 16% and 15%, of the tenecteplase and alteplase groups, respectively, again with no statistically significant differences.

The research team aims to test the effectiveness of tenecteplase in other stroke patients, including those with minor strokes, those receiving thrombolysis in a later window, and those receiving endovascular therapy, said Dr. Li.
 

Strong evidence

Commenting on the study findings, Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chair of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, said it is important to determine the efficacy of tenecteplase among Asians, as they represent “an entirely different population” with unique concerns, such as bleeding complications from anticoagulants.

He noted an advantage of tenecteplase is ease of administration. “You don’t have to go through the loading dose and then the 1-hour infusion,” which poses an “additional hassle” when transferring patients between institutions, he said.

However, he noted that a possible “downside” to having both drugs available in the emergency department is “using the wrong drug at the wrong dose” because of their similar sounding names.

Also commenting on the study, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he welcomes another trial that confirms that these two drugs are biologically similar.

“I’m very glad this trial was done because it adds another very strong piece of evidence of equivalency.”

But the two drugs are not the same in some important respects, said Dr. Jovin, whose center switched to using tenecteplase almost 3 years ago. That switch has resulted in cutting 17 minutes from the door-to-needle time “which is quite significant,” he said.

“There’s no question that once we used tenecteplase in lieu of tPA, it’s been just so much easier to administer and affects the interhospital transfer protocols, because you’re not transferring the patient with a critical care IV. It’s a win-win situation for everyone.”

The study received funding from the National Science and Technology Major Project, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the China Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Company Recomgen Pharmaceutical (Guangzhou). Dr. Li, Dr. Goldstein, and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Tenecteplase is as effective as alteplase with respect to disability outcomes and safety in Chinese patients with ischemic stroke, a new study has found. “This was a pivotal trial in establishing the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase in the thrombolytic treatment of acute ischemic stroke within 4.5 hours in Asian patients,” said study author Shuya Li, MD, associate chief physician, department of neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing.

The findings in this all-Chinese population should have an impact on the use of tenecteplase going forward, said Dr. Li. “The results provide further evidence to support a worldwide switch to tenecteplase as the preferred thrombolytic for acute ischemic stroke.”

The findings were presented at the 2023 International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Single bolus

Use of alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]) has for years been the main approach to thrombolytic reperfusion therapy for patients with acute stroke, but tenecteplase has recently emerged as a potential successor.

Tenecteplase is a tPA produced by recombinant DNA technology. It has a relatively long half-life and can be delivered in a single bolus instead of requiring an hour-long infusion, as is the case with alteplase.

The phase 3 noninferiority Tenecteplase Reperfusion Therapy in Acute ischemic Cerebrovascular Events (TRACE-2) trial – the first of its kind in an Asian population – included 1,430 adult ischemic stroke patients at 53 Chinese centers. Patients had to have a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5-25 and either not be eligible for or have refused endovascular therapy.

The mean age of study participants was about 66 years, and the percentage of women was about 31%. The mean baseline NIHSS score was 7 in both groups, and the symptom-onset-to-needle time was similar at 180 minutes for the tenecteplase group and 178.5 minutes for the alteplase group.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive tenecteplase or alteplase within 4.5 hours of symptom onset.

Those in the tenecteplase group received 0.25 mg/kg of the drug in a single IV bolus (maximum dose, 25 mg). Control group members who were treated with alteplase were given the drug as a 10% bolus, with the remainder given as a 1-hour infusion (0.9 mg/kg with a maximum dose of 90 mg).
 

Showed noninferiority

The primary efficacy outcome was a modified Rankins scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, which is considered excellent function. About 62% of tenecteplase patients and 58% of alteplase patients attained this outcome (risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.18).

The P value was .001 for noninferiority and .06 for superiority, but Dr. Li explained that these values may change when considering the site effect.

There were no statistically significant differences between the two drugs on secondary outcomes of favorable function. For example, 73% of tenecteplase patients and 72% of alteplase patients had an mRS score of 0-2 at 3 months, and 50% in the tenecteplase and 49% in the alteplase group improved by 4 or more points on the NIHSS, or had a score of 1 or less, at 24 hours.

The groups also had comparable scores on the European quality-of-life visual analogue scale and on the Barthel index, which measures functional independence related to personal care and mobility.

Tenecteplase also turned out to be as safe at alteplase. About 2% in both groups had symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours, and both groups had that same percentage for such hemorrhages within 90 days. As well, the groups had a similar rate of any intracranial hemorrhage within 90 days (6% and 7%).

The mortality rate was 7% in the tenecteplase group, compared with 5% in the alteplase group.

Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86% and 87%, and serious AEs in 16% and 15%, of the tenecteplase and alteplase groups, respectively, again with no statistically significant differences.

The research team aims to test the effectiveness of tenecteplase in other stroke patients, including those with minor strokes, those receiving thrombolysis in a later window, and those receiving endovascular therapy, said Dr. Li.
 

Strong evidence

Commenting on the study findings, Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chair of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, said it is important to determine the efficacy of tenecteplase among Asians, as they represent “an entirely different population” with unique concerns, such as bleeding complications from anticoagulants.

He noted an advantage of tenecteplase is ease of administration. “You don’t have to go through the loading dose and then the 1-hour infusion,” which poses an “additional hassle” when transferring patients between institutions, he said.

However, he noted that a possible “downside” to having both drugs available in the emergency department is “using the wrong drug at the wrong dose” because of their similar sounding names.

Also commenting on the study, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he welcomes another trial that confirms that these two drugs are biologically similar.

“I’m very glad this trial was done because it adds another very strong piece of evidence of equivalency.”

But the two drugs are not the same in some important respects, said Dr. Jovin, whose center switched to using tenecteplase almost 3 years ago. That switch has resulted in cutting 17 minutes from the door-to-needle time “which is quite significant,” he said.

“There’s no question that once we used tenecteplase in lieu of tPA, it’s been just so much easier to administer and affects the interhospital transfer protocols, because you’re not transferring the patient with a critical care IV. It’s a win-win situation for everyone.”

The study received funding from the National Science and Technology Major Project, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the China Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Company Recomgen Pharmaceutical (Guangzhou). Dr. Li, Dr. Goldstein, and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.

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