Conference Coverage

After a steep rise in the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and a slow decline that started in the summer, telehealth consults in dermatology remain far elevated over those provided prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. But it is not clear whether the current rate will fall further, be sustained, or even climb again, according to data presented and opinions expressed in a forum on this topic at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

There are many unknowns, not least of which is future reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other third-party payers, according to several participants in a scientific session devoted to this topic. The CARES Act, which was passed in the early stages of the pandemic, provided only a temporary increase in reimbursement for telehealth. Postpandemic payments for telehealth services are yet undetermined.

Many of the assembled experts are convinced that teledermatology will continue to be offered at far higher rates than prior to the pandemic, but many issues, including physician acceptance of this approach remain unresolved. This was reflected in an AAD survey of members conducted in June 2020.

“Seventy percent of dermatologists responded that teledermatology will continue, but only 58% reported that they intend to offer it,” after the pandemic, reported Jules Lipoff, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who is one of the authors of the paper that reported the results.

The low relative proportion of dermatologists planning to participate in teledermatology might at least in part reflect uncertainty about reimbursement, according to Dr. Lipoff, who is the outgoing chair of the AAD teledermatology task force

Many dermatologists might find it difficult to opt out of telehealth. In some types of care, such as follow-up visits, a combination of patient demand and institutional policy, particularly if reimbursement is adequate, might compel or at least strongly incentivize teledermatology services.

“Now that telemedicine has gotten out there, we will never go back to what once was normal practice,” Dr. Lipoff predicted. According to Dr. Lipoff, there was a great deal of data even prior to the pandemic to conclude that mobile dermatology is “an acceptable equivalent” for delivering many types of dermatologic care.

The rapid evolution in telemedicine is remarkable. According to the results of the AAD survey, 14.1% of dermatologists had experience with teledermatology prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which increased to 96.9% by June, 2020, when the survey was conducted. Nearly 600 dermatologists completed the survey, for a 13.6% response rate.

At the beginning of the pandemic, the CARES act, along with other pandemic legislation and policy changes, changed the landscape of telemedicine by providing reimbursement commensurate with in-office visits, modifying HIPAA regulations, and permitting reciprocal licensing to allow physicians to provide care to patients who had moved out of the state. While these were among the factors that facilitated the phenomenal growth in telemedicine, nearly all of these changes were temporary or are subject to revision.

“Reimbursement [for telehealth] was very low prior to the pandemic,” noted Elizabeth K. Jones, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. While many physicians and policy makers were convinced that reimbursement levels had to be increased temporarily to provide medical care when in-office visits were unsafe, Dr. Jones said it is unlikely that pandemic reimbursement rates will be preserved. But recent statements from the CMS foreshadow lower rates for most video and telephone consults, she added.

Reimbursement is not the only consideration. George Han, MD, PhD, chief of teledermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, spoke about the frustration of using imperfect tools. He, like many dermatologists, have become familiar with the difficulty of making a definitive diagnosis from transmitted images of skin lesions.

As long as patients communicate with personal computers and phones under variable lighting conditions, this problem might never go away, but suboptimal quality images do not necessarily preclude other types of consults, particularly follow-up visits, according to Dr. Han, who is also system medical director for dermatology at Mount Sinai Health System.

“Now that patients know about teledermatology, they are for it,” he said. He suggested that increased efficiency of follow-up using telemedicine for both patients and physicians might increase the frequency with which these types of visits are scheduled. Citing evidence that follow-up visits increase patient retention rates, Dr. Han sees these visits among the routine uses of telemedicine when the pandemic is over.

At the height of the pandemic, teledermatology was employed broadly, but after the pandemic, Dr. Han and others predict a narrower focus. Some consults, such as those for acne or other conditions reasonably treated on the basis of patient history, appear to lend themselves to telemedicine. Others, such as a skin check for malignancy, might not.

As the role of telemedicine is sorted out and finds its equilibrium in a postpandemic world, Dr. Lipoff pointed out the need to consider populations without good-quality internet access. Without specific strategies to ensure these patients are not forgotten, he warned of “wealthier patients consuming more than their fair share” of health care resources, further widening an existing disparity.

“Is telemedicine here to stay? It is clear that, yes, it is in some way,” said Dr. Lipoff, who sees no reason for dermatology to be an exception.
 

Dr. Lipoff reported a financial relationship with AcneAway. The other investigators reported no potential conflicts of interest related to telemedicine.

After a steep rise in the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and a slow decline that started in the summer, telehealth consults in dermatology remain far elevated over those provided prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. But it is not clear whether the current rate will fall further, be sustained, or even climb again, according to data presented and opinions expressed in a forum on this topic at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

There are many unknowns, not least of which is future reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other third-party payers, according to several participants in a scientific session devoted to this topic. The CARES Act, which was passed in the early stages of the pandemic, provided only a temporary increase in reimbursement for telehealth. Postpandemic payments for telehealth services are yet undetermined.

Many of the assembled experts are convinced that teledermatology will continue to be offered at far higher rates than prior to the pandemic, but many issues, including physician acceptance of this approach remain unresolved. This was reflected in an AAD survey of members conducted in June 2020.

“Seventy percent of dermatologists responded that teledermatology will continue, but only 58% reported that they intend to offer it,” after the pandemic, reported Jules Lipoff, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who is one of the authors of the paper that reported the results.

The low relative proportion of dermatologists planning to participate in teledermatology might at least in part reflect uncertainty about reimbursement, according to Dr. Lipoff, who is the outgoing chair of the AAD teledermatology task force

Many dermatologists might find it difficult to opt out of telehealth. In some types of care, such as follow-up visits, a combination of patient demand and institutional policy, particularly if reimbursement is adequate, might compel or at least strongly incentivize teledermatology services.

“Now that telemedicine has gotten out there, we will never go back to what once was normal practice,” Dr. Lipoff predicted. According to Dr. Lipoff, there was a great deal of data even prior to the pandemic to conclude that mobile dermatology is “an acceptable equivalent” for delivering many types of dermatologic care.

The rapid evolution in telemedicine is remarkable. According to the results of the AAD survey, 14.1% of dermatologists had experience with teledermatology prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which increased to 96.9% by June, 2020, when the survey was conducted. Nearly 600 dermatologists completed the survey, for a 13.6% response rate.

At the beginning of the pandemic, the CARES act, along with other pandemic legislation and policy changes, changed the landscape of telemedicine by providing reimbursement commensurate with in-office visits, modifying HIPAA regulations, and permitting reciprocal licensing to allow physicians to provide care to patients who had moved out of the state. While these were among the factors that facilitated the phenomenal growth in telemedicine, nearly all of these changes were temporary or are subject to revision.

“Reimbursement [for telehealth] was very low prior to the pandemic,” noted Elizabeth K. Jones, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. While many physicians and policy makers were convinced that reimbursement levels had to be increased temporarily to provide medical care when in-office visits were unsafe, Dr. Jones said it is unlikely that pandemic reimbursement rates will be preserved. But recent statements from the CMS foreshadow lower rates for most video and telephone consults, she added.

Reimbursement is not the only consideration. George Han, MD, PhD, chief of teledermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, spoke about the frustration of using imperfect tools. He, like many dermatologists, have become familiar with the difficulty of making a definitive diagnosis from transmitted images of skin lesions.

As long as patients communicate with personal computers and phones under variable lighting conditions, this problem might never go away, but suboptimal quality images do not necessarily preclude other types of consults, particularly follow-up visits, according to Dr. Han, who is also system medical director for dermatology at Mount Sinai Health System.

“Now that patients know about teledermatology, they are for it,” he said. He suggested that increased efficiency of follow-up using telemedicine for both patients and physicians might increase the frequency with which these types of visits are scheduled. Citing evidence that follow-up visits increase patient retention rates, Dr. Han sees these visits among the routine uses of telemedicine when the pandemic is over.

At the height of the pandemic, teledermatology was employed broadly, but after the pandemic, Dr. Han and others predict a narrower focus. Some consults, such as those for acne or other conditions reasonably treated on the basis of patient history, appear to lend themselves to telemedicine. Others, such as a skin check for malignancy, might not.

As the role of telemedicine is sorted out and finds its equilibrium in a postpandemic world, Dr. Lipoff pointed out the need to consider populations without good-quality internet access. Without specific strategies to ensure these patients are not forgotten, he warned of “wealthier patients consuming more than their fair share” of health care resources, further widening an existing disparity.

“Is telemedicine here to stay? It is clear that, yes, it is in some way,” said Dr. Lipoff, who sees no reason for dermatology to be an exception.
 

Dr. Lipoff reported a financial relationship with AcneAway. The other investigators reported no potential conflicts of interest related to telemedicine.

After a steep rise in the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and a slow decline that started in the summer, telehealth consults in dermatology remain far elevated over those provided prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. But it is not clear whether the current rate will fall further, be sustained, or even climb again, according to data presented and opinions expressed in a forum on this topic at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

There are many unknowns, not least of which is future reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other third-party payers, according to several participants in a scientific session devoted to this topic. The CARES Act, which was passed in the early stages of the pandemic, provided only a temporary increase in reimbursement for telehealth. Postpandemic payments for telehealth services are yet undetermined.

Many of the assembled experts are convinced that teledermatology will continue to be offered at far higher rates than prior to the pandemic, but many issues, including physician acceptance of this approach remain unresolved. This was reflected in an AAD survey of members conducted in June 2020.

“Seventy percent of dermatologists responded that teledermatology will continue, but only 58% reported that they intend to offer it,” after the pandemic, reported Jules Lipoff, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who is one of the authors of the paper that reported the results.

The low relative proportion of dermatologists planning to participate in teledermatology might at least in part reflect uncertainty about reimbursement, according to Dr. Lipoff, who is the outgoing chair of the AAD teledermatology task force

Many dermatologists might find it difficult to opt out of telehealth. In some types of care, such as follow-up visits, a combination of patient demand and institutional policy, particularly if reimbursement is adequate, might compel or at least strongly incentivize teledermatology services.

“Now that telemedicine has gotten out there, we will never go back to what once was normal practice,” Dr. Lipoff predicted. According to Dr. Lipoff, there was a great deal of data even prior to the pandemic to conclude that mobile dermatology is “an acceptable equivalent” for delivering many types of dermatologic care.

The rapid evolution in telemedicine is remarkable. According to the results of the AAD survey, 14.1% of dermatologists had experience with teledermatology prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which increased to 96.9% by June, 2020, when the survey was conducted. Nearly 600 dermatologists completed the survey, for a 13.6% response rate.

At the beginning of the pandemic, the CARES act, along with other pandemic legislation and policy changes, changed the landscape of telemedicine by providing reimbursement commensurate with in-office visits, modifying HIPAA regulations, and permitting reciprocal licensing to allow physicians to provide care to patients who had moved out of the state. While these were among the factors that facilitated the phenomenal growth in telemedicine, nearly all of these changes were temporary or are subject to revision.

“Reimbursement [for telehealth] was very low prior to the pandemic,” noted Elizabeth K. Jones, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. While many physicians and policy makers were convinced that reimbursement levels had to be increased temporarily to provide medical care when in-office visits were unsafe, Dr. Jones said it is unlikely that pandemic reimbursement rates will be preserved. But recent statements from the CMS foreshadow lower rates for most video and telephone consults, she added.

Reimbursement is not the only consideration. George Han, MD, PhD, chief of teledermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, spoke about the frustration of using imperfect tools. He, like many dermatologists, have become familiar with the difficulty of making a definitive diagnosis from transmitted images of skin lesions.

As long as patients communicate with personal computers and phones under variable lighting conditions, this problem might never go away, but suboptimal quality images do not necessarily preclude other types of consults, particularly follow-up visits, according to Dr. Han, who is also system medical director for dermatology at Mount Sinai Health System.

“Now that patients know about teledermatology, they are for it,” he said. He suggested that increased efficiency of follow-up using telemedicine for both patients and physicians might increase the frequency with which these types of visits are scheduled. Citing evidence that follow-up visits increase patient retention rates, Dr. Han sees these visits among the routine uses of telemedicine when the pandemic is over.

At the height of the pandemic, teledermatology was employed broadly, but after the pandemic, Dr. Han and others predict a narrower focus. Some consults, such as those for acne or other conditions reasonably treated on the basis of patient history, appear to lend themselves to telemedicine. Others, such as a skin check for malignancy, might not.

As the role of telemedicine is sorted out and finds its equilibrium in a postpandemic world, Dr. Lipoff pointed out the need to consider populations without good-quality internet access. Without specific strategies to ensure these patients are not forgotten, he warned of “wealthier patients consuming more than their fair share” of health care resources, further widening an existing disparity.

“Is telemedicine here to stay? It is clear that, yes, it is in some way,” said Dr. Lipoff, who sees no reason for dermatology to be an exception.
 

Dr. Lipoff reported a financial relationship with AcneAway. The other investigators reported no potential conflicts of interest related to telemedicine.

Further evidence supporting the safety of two antiseizure medications in pregnancy has come from a new study. The Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD) study found no difference in neurobehavioral development in children at age 3 born to women with epilepsy compared with children of healthy women without epilepsy. Most of the women with epilepsy in the study took either lamotrigine or levetiracetam, or a combination of the two, during their pregnancy.

However, a secondary analysis suggested a possible signal of exposure-dependent effects on child outcomes – worse outcomes with higher exposure levels – with levetiracetam.

The results were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Additional reassurance

“Our new study adds confidence to the use of lamotrigine and levetiracetam during pregnancy, adding larger numbers with a new cohort. In addition, it provides some preliminary data on some of the other new antiseizure medications, and it is the first study to address the effects of clearance in pregnancy to better assess exposure,” said lead investigator, Kimford J. Meador, MD. “Overall, I am reassured by this data, but there is still a lot that is unknown,” he added.

“Our main results show no difference in verbal index or general conceptual ability scores in children born to women with epilepsy compared to children born to healthy women. This is a big positive message,” Dr. Meador said.   

In terms of secondary analysis focusing on exposure levels (dose and blood levels of antiseizure medications), there was no overall signal of harm when looking at the whole group, but when the researchers analyzed the data on individual drugs, they found a “slight signal” toward reduced verbal index scores with increasing exposure levels with levetiracetam. No differences were seen on general conceptual ability. 

“In the secondary analysis, there was a marginal signal for exposure levels with levetiracetam, with increased blood levels of the drug associated with reduced verbal index scores,” reported Dr. Meador, professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University. “We saw some signal in the children when they were 2 years old, and this was still there but not as striking at 3 years old.” 

He said these secondary results should be interpreted with extreme caution. “We don’t want to overemphasize these secondary findings, as the primary outcome showed no difference, and there was no effect on exposure levels when looking at all the drugs together. I don’t want to oversimplify this, as I am still not sure whether this is a real association or not,” Dr. Meador commented.

He explained that conducting neurobehavioral tests on 2- and 3-year-olds was very difficult. “It is more of an art form than science, and as the children get older these signals often dissipate. We will know more by the time they are 6, when these tests become easier to conduct,” he said. He also noted that the results would need to be replicated in a different cohort.

“I don’t think these results would change how we manage women during pregnancy in terms of using levetiracetam. It is still a safe drug during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said.

He pointed out that data on safety in pregnancy is only available for very few antiseizure drugs. “There are over 30 antiseizure medications, but we have adequate data in pregnancy on only a handful. We have data suggesting lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine appear to be relatively safe, and evidence showing phenobarbital and valproate are not safe.”

Antiseizure medications as a class are among the most commonly prescribed teratogenic drugs given to women of childbearing age, Dr. Meador noted. They are used not only for epilepsy but also for many other psychiatric and pain indications, so these results are applicable to quite a broad population, he added.

He pointed out that previous studies did not assess exposure using blood levels, which is important, as clearance of drug increases during pregnancy but varies across antiseizure medications and across individuals on the same drug. “Thus, it is unclear if these changes could obscure exposure-dependent effects. Our present studies assessed blood levels to better measure fetal exposure.”
 

Advice for pregnant patients with epilepsy

Dr. Meador explained that risk for adverse effects with antiseizure medication always needs to be balanced with risk for seizures if the medication was not used.

“In women planning a pregnancy, we recommend that they plan ahead with their physician to try and use the safest antiseizure medication and gain good control beforehand and then maintain the same blood levels of whichever drug is being used during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said. “At present, lamotrigine and levetiracetam are the two safest drugs to use in pregnancy. They both look generally very safe compared with some other epilepsy drugs – such as valproate, which poses a serious risk to cognitive and behavioral development.” 

He also advised that women should be taking folic acid regularly, as this has been shown to be related to improved cognitive and behavioral outcomes. “Since half of pregnancies are not planned, it is important to take these actions before pregnancy,” he added.

The current study involved 289 women with epilepsy and 89 women without epilepsy, all of whom enrolled in the study during pregnancy. Use of antiseizure medications was recorded. Of the women with epilepsy, 74% were on monotherapy, with 43% on lamotrigine and 37% on levetiracetam. There were 4% who took no drug and 22% took more than one drug. Of those who took more than one drug, close to half took a combination of lamotrigine and levetiracetam. Levels of medications in the blood of the women with epilepsy were measured in the third trimester.
 

Assessment of neurobehavioral development

For the current analysis, the children were evaluated at age 3 with a series of cognitive and developmental tests that measured vocabulary, listening comprehension, number recall, and pattern recognition, and results were adjusted for mother’s IQ, education level, age at enrollment, postbirth average BAI (Beck Anxiety Inventory score), and child’s ethnicity, sex, and breastfeeding status.

The primary outcome showed that verbal Index scores at age 3 did not differ for children of women with epilepsy versus those for children of women without epilepsy (LS mean 102.7 vs. 102.1).

Antiseizure medication exposure as evident by the maximum third trimester blood levels was not related to verbal index scores (n = 265; adjusted parameter estimate, -1.9; 95% confidence interval, -6.8 to 3.1).

General conceptual ability scores also did not differ between the two groups: 105.1 for children of women with epilepsy versus 103.5 for children of healthy women.

In terms of exposure levels, the third trimester maximum observed ratio of antiseizure medication blood levels was not significantly associated with adjusted general conceptual ability scores for children of women with epilepsy; neither were monotherapies or polytherapies evaluated separately, Dr. Meador reported.

However, when the verbal index scores for the main antiepileptic drug groups were analyzed separately, exposure level to levetiracetam was the only one that was significant, with a P value of .028. But Dr. Meador again stressed that this finding should be interpreted with caution given that it is a secondary exploratory analysis without control for multiple comparisons.

The researchers plan to assess these children at older ages where evaluations are more sensitive to ultimate outcomes.

“Information on use in pregnancy for most antiseizure medications is still unknown, so further studies to assess risks for the newer antiseizure medications are needed,” Dr. Meador added. “Further, additional research is needed on the underlying mechanisms including genetic predispositions, since teratogens act on a susceptible genotype.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

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

Further evidence supporting the safety of two antiseizure medications in pregnancy has come from a new study. The Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD) study found no difference in neurobehavioral development in children at age 3 born to women with epilepsy compared with children of healthy women without epilepsy. Most of the women with epilepsy in the study took either lamotrigine or levetiracetam, or a combination of the two, during their pregnancy.

However, a secondary analysis suggested a possible signal of exposure-dependent effects on child outcomes – worse outcomes with higher exposure levels – with levetiracetam.

The results were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Additional reassurance

“Our new study adds confidence to the use of lamotrigine and levetiracetam during pregnancy, adding larger numbers with a new cohort. In addition, it provides some preliminary data on some of the other new antiseizure medications, and it is the first study to address the effects of clearance in pregnancy to better assess exposure,” said lead investigator, Kimford J. Meador, MD. “Overall, I am reassured by this data, but there is still a lot that is unknown,” he added.

“Our main results show no difference in verbal index or general conceptual ability scores in children born to women with epilepsy compared to children born to healthy women. This is a big positive message,” Dr. Meador said.   

In terms of secondary analysis focusing on exposure levels (dose and blood levels of antiseizure medications), there was no overall signal of harm when looking at the whole group, but when the researchers analyzed the data on individual drugs, they found a “slight signal” toward reduced verbal index scores with increasing exposure levels with levetiracetam. No differences were seen on general conceptual ability. 

“In the secondary analysis, there was a marginal signal for exposure levels with levetiracetam, with increased blood levels of the drug associated with reduced verbal index scores,” reported Dr. Meador, professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University. “We saw some signal in the children when they were 2 years old, and this was still there but not as striking at 3 years old.” 

He said these secondary results should be interpreted with extreme caution. “We don’t want to overemphasize these secondary findings, as the primary outcome showed no difference, and there was no effect on exposure levels when looking at all the drugs together. I don’t want to oversimplify this, as I am still not sure whether this is a real association or not,” Dr. Meador commented.

He explained that conducting neurobehavioral tests on 2- and 3-year-olds was very difficult. “It is more of an art form than science, and as the children get older these signals often dissipate. We will know more by the time they are 6, when these tests become easier to conduct,” he said. He also noted that the results would need to be replicated in a different cohort.

“I don’t think these results would change how we manage women during pregnancy in terms of using levetiracetam. It is still a safe drug during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said.

He pointed out that data on safety in pregnancy is only available for very few antiseizure drugs. “There are over 30 antiseizure medications, but we have adequate data in pregnancy on only a handful. We have data suggesting lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine appear to be relatively safe, and evidence showing phenobarbital and valproate are not safe.”

Antiseizure medications as a class are among the most commonly prescribed teratogenic drugs given to women of childbearing age, Dr. Meador noted. They are used not only for epilepsy but also for many other psychiatric and pain indications, so these results are applicable to quite a broad population, he added.

He pointed out that previous studies did not assess exposure using blood levels, which is important, as clearance of drug increases during pregnancy but varies across antiseizure medications and across individuals on the same drug. “Thus, it is unclear if these changes could obscure exposure-dependent effects. Our present studies assessed blood levels to better measure fetal exposure.”
 

Advice for pregnant patients with epilepsy

Dr. Meador explained that risk for adverse effects with antiseizure medication always needs to be balanced with risk for seizures if the medication was not used.

“In women planning a pregnancy, we recommend that they plan ahead with their physician to try and use the safest antiseizure medication and gain good control beforehand and then maintain the same blood levels of whichever drug is being used during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said. “At present, lamotrigine and levetiracetam are the two safest drugs to use in pregnancy. They both look generally very safe compared with some other epilepsy drugs – such as valproate, which poses a serious risk to cognitive and behavioral development.” 

He also advised that women should be taking folic acid regularly, as this has been shown to be related to improved cognitive and behavioral outcomes. “Since half of pregnancies are not planned, it is important to take these actions before pregnancy,” he added.

The current study involved 289 women with epilepsy and 89 women without epilepsy, all of whom enrolled in the study during pregnancy. Use of antiseizure medications was recorded. Of the women with epilepsy, 74% were on monotherapy, with 43% on lamotrigine and 37% on levetiracetam. There were 4% who took no drug and 22% took more than one drug. Of those who took more than one drug, close to half took a combination of lamotrigine and levetiracetam. Levels of medications in the blood of the women with epilepsy were measured in the third trimester.
 

Assessment of neurobehavioral development

For the current analysis, the children were evaluated at age 3 with a series of cognitive and developmental tests that measured vocabulary, listening comprehension, number recall, and pattern recognition, and results were adjusted for mother’s IQ, education level, age at enrollment, postbirth average BAI (Beck Anxiety Inventory score), and child’s ethnicity, sex, and breastfeeding status.

The primary outcome showed that verbal Index scores at age 3 did not differ for children of women with epilepsy versus those for children of women without epilepsy (LS mean 102.7 vs. 102.1).

Antiseizure medication exposure as evident by the maximum third trimester blood levels was not related to verbal index scores (n = 265; adjusted parameter estimate, -1.9; 95% confidence interval, -6.8 to 3.1).

General conceptual ability scores also did not differ between the two groups: 105.1 for children of women with epilepsy versus 103.5 for children of healthy women.

In terms of exposure levels, the third trimester maximum observed ratio of antiseizure medication blood levels was not significantly associated with adjusted general conceptual ability scores for children of women with epilepsy; neither were monotherapies or polytherapies evaluated separately, Dr. Meador reported.

However, when the verbal index scores for the main antiepileptic drug groups were analyzed separately, exposure level to levetiracetam was the only one that was significant, with a P value of .028. But Dr. Meador again stressed that this finding should be interpreted with caution given that it is a secondary exploratory analysis without control for multiple comparisons.

The researchers plan to assess these children at older ages where evaluations are more sensitive to ultimate outcomes.

“Information on use in pregnancy for most antiseizure medications is still unknown, so further studies to assess risks for the newer antiseizure medications are needed,” Dr. Meador added. “Further, additional research is needed on the underlying mechanisms including genetic predispositions, since teratogens act on a susceptible genotype.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

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

Further evidence supporting the safety of two antiseizure medications in pregnancy has come from a new study. The Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs (MONEAD) study found no difference in neurobehavioral development in children at age 3 born to women with epilepsy compared with children of healthy women without epilepsy. Most of the women with epilepsy in the study took either lamotrigine or levetiracetam, or a combination of the two, during their pregnancy.

However, a secondary analysis suggested a possible signal of exposure-dependent effects on child outcomes – worse outcomes with higher exposure levels – with levetiracetam.

The results were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Additional reassurance

“Our new study adds confidence to the use of lamotrigine and levetiracetam during pregnancy, adding larger numbers with a new cohort. In addition, it provides some preliminary data on some of the other new antiseizure medications, and it is the first study to address the effects of clearance in pregnancy to better assess exposure,” said lead investigator, Kimford J. Meador, MD. “Overall, I am reassured by this data, but there is still a lot that is unknown,” he added.

“Our main results show no difference in verbal index or general conceptual ability scores in children born to women with epilepsy compared to children born to healthy women. This is a big positive message,” Dr. Meador said.   

In terms of secondary analysis focusing on exposure levels (dose and blood levels of antiseizure medications), there was no overall signal of harm when looking at the whole group, but when the researchers analyzed the data on individual drugs, they found a “slight signal” toward reduced verbal index scores with increasing exposure levels with levetiracetam. No differences were seen on general conceptual ability. 

“In the secondary analysis, there was a marginal signal for exposure levels with levetiracetam, with increased blood levels of the drug associated with reduced verbal index scores,” reported Dr. Meador, professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University. “We saw some signal in the children when they were 2 years old, and this was still there but not as striking at 3 years old.” 

He said these secondary results should be interpreted with extreme caution. “We don’t want to overemphasize these secondary findings, as the primary outcome showed no difference, and there was no effect on exposure levels when looking at all the drugs together. I don’t want to oversimplify this, as I am still not sure whether this is a real association or not,” Dr. Meador commented.

He explained that conducting neurobehavioral tests on 2- and 3-year-olds was very difficult. “It is more of an art form than science, and as the children get older these signals often dissipate. We will know more by the time they are 6, when these tests become easier to conduct,” he said. He also noted that the results would need to be replicated in a different cohort.

“I don’t think these results would change how we manage women during pregnancy in terms of using levetiracetam. It is still a safe drug during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said.

He pointed out that data on safety in pregnancy is only available for very few antiseizure drugs. “There are over 30 antiseizure medications, but we have adequate data in pregnancy on only a handful. We have data suggesting lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and carbamazepine appear to be relatively safe, and evidence showing phenobarbital and valproate are not safe.”

Antiseizure medications as a class are among the most commonly prescribed teratogenic drugs given to women of childbearing age, Dr. Meador noted. They are used not only for epilepsy but also for many other psychiatric and pain indications, so these results are applicable to quite a broad population, he added.

He pointed out that previous studies did not assess exposure using blood levels, which is important, as clearance of drug increases during pregnancy but varies across antiseizure medications and across individuals on the same drug. “Thus, it is unclear if these changes could obscure exposure-dependent effects. Our present studies assessed blood levels to better measure fetal exposure.”
 

Advice for pregnant patients with epilepsy

Dr. Meador explained that risk for adverse effects with antiseizure medication always needs to be balanced with risk for seizures if the medication was not used.

“In women planning a pregnancy, we recommend that they plan ahead with their physician to try and use the safest antiseizure medication and gain good control beforehand and then maintain the same blood levels of whichever drug is being used during pregnancy,” Dr. Meador said. “At present, lamotrigine and levetiracetam are the two safest drugs to use in pregnancy. They both look generally very safe compared with some other epilepsy drugs – such as valproate, which poses a serious risk to cognitive and behavioral development.” 

He also advised that women should be taking folic acid regularly, as this has been shown to be related to improved cognitive and behavioral outcomes. “Since half of pregnancies are not planned, it is important to take these actions before pregnancy,” he added.

The current study involved 289 women with epilepsy and 89 women without epilepsy, all of whom enrolled in the study during pregnancy. Use of antiseizure medications was recorded. Of the women with epilepsy, 74% were on monotherapy, with 43% on lamotrigine and 37% on levetiracetam. There were 4% who took no drug and 22% took more than one drug. Of those who took more than one drug, close to half took a combination of lamotrigine and levetiracetam. Levels of medications in the blood of the women with epilepsy were measured in the third trimester.
 

Assessment of neurobehavioral development

For the current analysis, the children were evaluated at age 3 with a series of cognitive and developmental tests that measured vocabulary, listening comprehension, number recall, and pattern recognition, and results were adjusted for mother’s IQ, education level, age at enrollment, postbirth average BAI (Beck Anxiety Inventory score), and child’s ethnicity, sex, and breastfeeding status.

The primary outcome showed that verbal Index scores at age 3 did not differ for children of women with epilepsy versus those for children of women without epilepsy (LS mean 102.7 vs. 102.1).

Antiseizure medication exposure as evident by the maximum third trimester blood levels was not related to verbal index scores (n = 265; adjusted parameter estimate, -1.9; 95% confidence interval, -6.8 to 3.1).

General conceptual ability scores also did not differ between the two groups: 105.1 for children of women with epilepsy versus 103.5 for children of healthy women.

In terms of exposure levels, the third trimester maximum observed ratio of antiseizure medication blood levels was not significantly associated with adjusted general conceptual ability scores for children of women with epilepsy; neither were monotherapies or polytherapies evaluated separately, Dr. Meador reported.

However, when the verbal index scores for the main antiepileptic drug groups were analyzed separately, exposure level to levetiracetam was the only one that was significant, with a P value of .028. But Dr. Meador again stressed that this finding should be interpreted with caution given that it is a secondary exploratory analysis without control for multiple comparisons.

The researchers plan to assess these children at older ages where evaluations are more sensitive to ultimate outcomes.

“Information on use in pregnancy for most antiseizure medications is still unknown, so further studies to assess risks for the newer antiseizure medications are needed,” Dr. Meador added. “Further, additional research is needed on the underlying mechanisms including genetic predispositions, since teratogens act on a susceptible genotype.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

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

People with clinically diagnosed depression and anxiety may be prone to developing Alzheimer’s disease at a younger age than other people, and those with a history of posttraumatic stress disorder may be prone to Alzheimer’s disease onset even earlier in life, according to findings from a review of 1,500 patients with Alzheimer’s disease from a single-center population.

“Could psychosis symptoms be the proverbial canary in a coal mine?” Emily Eijansantos, a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, said in reporting results of the chart review at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. “Previously in this cohort it was found that neurodevelopmental factors as well as chronic insults such as autoimmunity and seizure were also associated with an early age of onset in Alzheimer’s disease.”

The link between depression and autoimmunity, and anxiety and seizure “beg more questions about underlying pathophysiology,” she said. The study included 750 patients with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease and a similar number of late-onset patients from the UCSF Memory and Aging Center.
 

An inverse correlation between psychiatric disorders and age of Alzheimer’s onset

In the total study population, 43.5% (n = 652) had a previous diagnosis of depression and 32.3% (n = 485) had been diagnosed with anxiety. That, Ms. Eijansantos said, falls into similar ranges that other studies have reported.

“When we look at individual psychiatric disorders, we find that those with depression, anxiety, or PTSD are younger on average,” she said. “Patients with depression and anxiety are more [likely] female and have less vascular risk factors, and we observed an association between depression and autoimmunity, anxiety, and seizures.”

Specifically, patients with a history of depression were 2.2 years younger, on average, at the age of onset than patients without such history (P = .01); those with anxiety were 3 years younger on average (P = .01); and those with PTSD were 6.8 years younger on average, although only 1% (n = 15) of study subjects had PTSD, making for a small sample to study. These age-of-onset disparities didn’t appear among patients with previously diagnosed bipolar disorder (BPD) or schizophrenia.

Ms. Eijansantos noted that there were no differences in education attained or apolipoprotein-E gene status between the patients with and without a history of psychosis, and, within the subgroups of individual psychiatric disorders, there were no differences between patients with past and current or formal and informal diagnoses.

“When we split the cohort into quintiles based on age of Alzheimer’s disease onset, we find an inverse correlation between the amount of depression, anxiety, and PTSD endorsed and their ages of onset,” Ms. Eijansantos said. For example, the youngest quintile had a greater than 50% rate of depression while the oldest quintile had a depression rate around 36%. A similar spread was found with anxiety: a rate around 46% in the youngest quantile versus around 25% in the oldest, whereas rates of PTSD, BPD, and schizophrenia were similar across the five age-of-onset groups.

Patients with a history of multiple psychiatric disorders had an even younger age of onset. “We see that those with two psychiatric disorder are younger than those with one, and those with three psychiatric disorders are younger still,” Ms. Eijansantos said. “And we find that the Alzheimer’s disease age-at-onset reduction doubles with each additional psychiatric disorder.” Multiple disorders also adversely impacted survival, she said.

Because they found no difference between patients with past versus active symptoms and informal versus formal diagnosis, Ms. Eijansantos explained that they further studied the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center cohort of 8,267 patients with Alzheimer’s disease and found a similar relationship between psychiatric history and age of onset among patients with depression or anxiety or both. This cohort also documented symptom severity, she noted. “So when we look at depression and anxiety we find similar reductions in the Alzheimer’s disease age of onset with each increasing degree of symptom severity,” she said.

“Does this mean that psychiatric disease is a risk factor for Alzheimr’s disease?” Ms. Eijansantos said. “We can’t answer that with this study because it was only designed to see if the psychiatric factors modulate the age of onset in those that have Alzheimer’s disease, but taken together we believe that these results fit the framework that there are pathophysiological and profound differences between earlier and later presentations of Alzheimer’s disease.”

She pointed to reports that early-onset Alzheimer’s disease is associated with more aggressive tau pathology and that depression is associated with tau. However, the evidence supporting a link between amyloid and psychiatric disease is less certain, she said.
 

Preliminary and speculative findings

Senior study author Zachary Miller, MD, an assistant professor in the UCSF Memory and Aging Center, explained the significance of the study findings of potential links between depression and autoimmunity, and anxiety and seizure. “There may be distinct underlying pathophysiological mechanisms in patients with Alzheimer’s disease who have symptoms of depression versus anxiety,” he said, acknowledging the findings “are quite preliminary and our interpretations quite speculative.”

The findings raise the question that the symptomatic presentation of greater amounts of depression in early-onset Alzheimer’s disease may be moderated by an underlying neuroinflammatory insult, he said. “If so, depression symptomatology could then be seen as a possible clinical marker of this inflammatory response and possibly be used in testing clinical endpoints for future intervention trials,” Dr. Miller said. “Similarly, if neuronal hyperexcitability in Alzheimer’s disease manifests itself as either seizure and/or anxiety, this would have significant impact for therapeutic monitoring and treatment.”

He said a multicenter study of Alzheimer’s disease cohorts would validate the findings. “At the same time, we are also interested in looking deeper into these findings, investigating the potential cognitive and neuroanatomical correlates associated with these conditions,” Dr. Miller said.

Clinical phenotyping may provide more insight into the relationship between psychosis and age of Alzheimer’s disease onset, said Vijay K. Ramanan, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

People with clinically diagnosed depression and anxiety may be prone to developing Alzheimer’s disease at a younger age than other people, and those with a history of posttraumatic stress disorder may be prone to Alzheimer’s disease onset even earlier in life, according to findings from a review of 1,500 patients with Alzheimer’s disease from a single-center population.

“Could psychosis symptoms be the proverbial canary in a coal mine?” Emily Eijansantos, a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, said in reporting results of the chart review at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. “Previously in this cohort it was found that neurodevelopmental factors as well as chronic insults such as autoimmunity and seizure were also associated with an early age of onset in Alzheimer’s disease.”

The link between depression and autoimmunity, and anxiety and seizure “beg more questions about underlying pathophysiology,” she said. The study included 750 patients with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease and a similar number of late-onset patients from the UCSF Memory and Aging Center.
 

An inverse correlation between psychiatric disorders and age of Alzheimer’s onset

In the total study population, 43.5% (n = 652) had a previous diagnosis of depression and 32.3% (n = 485) had been diagnosed with anxiety. That, Ms. Eijansantos said, falls into similar ranges that other studies have reported.

“When we look at individual psychiatric disorders, we find that those with depression, anxiety, or PTSD are younger on average,” she said. “Patients with depression and anxiety are more [likely] female and have less vascular risk factors, and we observed an association between depression and autoimmunity, anxiety, and seizures.”

Specifically, patients with a history of depression were 2.2 years younger, on average, at the age of onset than patients without such history (P = .01); those with anxiety were 3 years younger on average (P = .01); and those with PTSD were 6.8 years younger on average, although only 1% (n = 15) of study subjects had PTSD, making for a small sample to study. These age-of-onset disparities didn’t appear among patients with previously diagnosed bipolar disorder (BPD) or schizophrenia.

Ms. Eijansantos noted that there were no differences in education attained or apolipoprotein-E gene status between the patients with and without a history of psychosis, and, within the subgroups of individual psychiatric disorders, there were no differences between patients with past and current or formal and informal diagnoses.

“When we split the cohort into quintiles based on age of Alzheimer’s disease onset, we find an inverse correlation between the amount of depression, anxiety, and PTSD endorsed and their ages of onset,” Ms. Eijansantos said. For example, the youngest quintile had a greater than 50% rate of depression while the oldest quintile had a depression rate around 36%. A similar spread was found with anxiety: a rate around 46% in the youngest quantile versus around 25% in the oldest, whereas rates of PTSD, BPD, and schizophrenia were similar across the five age-of-onset groups.

Patients with a history of multiple psychiatric disorders had an even younger age of onset. “We see that those with two psychiatric disorder are younger than those with one, and those with three psychiatric disorders are younger still,” Ms. Eijansantos said. “And we find that the Alzheimer’s disease age-at-onset reduction doubles with each additional psychiatric disorder.” Multiple disorders also adversely impacted survival, she said.

Because they found no difference between patients with past versus active symptoms and informal versus formal diagnosis, Ms. Eijansantos explained that they further studied the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center cohort of 8,267 patients with Alzheimer’s disease and found a similar relationship between psychiatric history and age of onset among patients with depression or anxiety or both. This cohort also documented symptom severity, she noted. “So when we look at depression and anxiety we find similar reductions in the Alzheimer’s disease age of onset with each increasing degree of symptom severity,” she said.

“Does this mean that psychiatric disease is a risk factor for Alzheimr’s disease?” Ms. Eijansantos said. “We can’t answer that with this study because it was only designed to see if the psychiatric factors modulate the age of onset in those that have Alzheimer’s disease, but taken together we believe that these results fit the framework that there are pathophysiological and profound differences between earlier and later presentations of Alzheimer’s disease.”

She pointed to reports that early-onset Alzheimer’s disease is associated with more aggressive tau pathology and that depression is associated with tau. However, the evidence supporting a link between amyloid and psychiatric disease is less certain, she said.
 

Preliminary and speculative findings

Senior study author Zachary Miller, MD, an assistant professor in the UCSF Memory and Aging Center, explained the significance of the study findings of potential links between depression and autoimmunity, and anxiety and seizure. “There may be distinct underlying pathophysiological mechanisms in patients with Alzheimer’s disease who have symptoms of depression versus anxiety,” he said, acknowledging the findings “are quite preliminary and our interpretations quite speculative.”

The findings raise the question that the symptomatic presentation of greater amounts of depression in early-onset Alzheimer’s disease may be moderated by an underlying neuroinflammatory insult, he said. “If so, depression symptomatology could then be seen as a possible clinical marker of this inflammatory response and possibly be used in testing clinical endpoints for future intervention trials,” Dr. Miller said. “Similarly, if neuronal hyperexcitability in Alzheimer’s disease manifests itself as either seizure and/or anxiety, this would have significant impact for therapeutic monitoring and treatment.”

He said a multicenter study of Alzheimer’s disease cohorts would validate the findings. “At the same time, we are also interested in looking deeper into these findings, investigating the potential cognitive and neuroanatomical correlates associated with these conditions,” Dr. Miller said.

Clinical phenotyping may provide more insight into the relationship between psychosis and age of Alzheimer’s disease onset, said Vijay K. Ramanan, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

People with clinically diagnosed depression and anxiety may be prone to developing Alzheimer’s disease at a younger age than other people, and those with a history of posttraumatic stress disorder may be prone to Alzheimer’s disease onset even earlier in life, according to findings from a review of 1,500 patients with Alzheimer’s disease from a single-center population.

“Could psychosis symptoms be the proverbial canary in a coal mine?” Emily Eijansantos, a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, said in reporting results of the chart review at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. “Previously in this cohort it was found that neurodevelopmental factors as well as chronic insults such as autoimmunity and seizure were also associated with an early age of onset in Alzheimer’s disease.”

The link between depression and autoimmunity, and anxiety and seizure “beg more questions about underlying pathophysiology,” she said. The study included 750 patients with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease and a similar number of late-onset patients from the UCSF Memory and Aging Center.
 

An inverse correlation between psychiatric disorders and age of Alzheimer’s onset

In the total study population, 43.5% (n = 652) had a previous diagnosis of depression and 32.3% (n = 485) had been diagnosed with anxiety. That, Ms. Eijansantos said, falls into similar ranges that other studies have reported.

“When we look at individual psychiatric disorders, we find that those with depression, anxiety, or PTSD are younger on average,” she said. “Patients with depression and anxiety are more [likely] female and have less vascular risk factors, and we observed an association between depression and autoimmunity, anxiety, and seizures.”

Specifically, patients with a history of depression were 2.2 years younger, on average, at the age of onset than patients without such history (P = .01); those with anxiety were 3 years younger on average (P = .01); and those with PTSD were 6.8 years younger on average, although only 1% (n = 15) of study subjects had PTSD, making for a small sample to study. These age-of-onset disparities didn’t appear among patients with previously diagnosed bipolar disorder (BPD) or schizophrenia.

Ms. Eijansantos noted that there were no differences in education attained or apolipoprotein-E gene status between the patients with and without a history of psychosis, and, within the subgroups of individual psychiatric disorders, there were no differences between patients with past and current or formal and informal diagnoses.

“When we split the cohort into quintiles based on age of Alzheimer’s disease onset, we find an inverse correlation between the amount of depression, anxiety, and PTSD endorsed and their ages of onset,” Ms. Eijansantos said. For example, the youngest quintile had a greater than 50% rate of depression while the oldest quintile had a depression rate around 36%. A similar spread was found with anxiety: a rate around 46% in the youngest quantile versus around 25% in the oldest, whereas rates of PTSD, BPD, and schizophrenia were similar across the five age-of-onset groups.

Patients with a history of multiple psychiatric disorders had an even younger age of onset. “We see that those with two psychiatric disorder are younger than those with one, and those with three psychiatric disorders are younger still,” Ms. Eijansantos said. “And we find that the Alzheimer’s disease age-at-onset reduction doubles with each additional psychiatric disorder.” Multiple disorders also adversely impacted survival, she said.

Because they found no difference between patients with past versus active symptoms and informal versus formal diagnosis, Ms. Eijansantos explained that they further studied the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center cohort of 8,267 patients with Alzheimer’s disease and found a similar relationship between psychiatric history and age of onset among patients with depression or anxiety or both. This cohort also documented symptom severity, she noted. “So when we look at depression and anxiety we find similar reductions in the Alzheimer’s disease age of onset with each increasing degree of symptom severity,” she said.

“Does this mean that psychiatric disease is a risk factor for Alzheimr’s disease?” Ms. Eijansantos said. “We can’t answer that with this study because it was only designed to see if the psychiatric factors modulate the age of onset in those that have Alzheimer’s disease, but taken together we believe that these results fit the framework that there are pathophysiological and profound differences between earlier and later presentations of Alzheimer’s disease.”

She pointed to reports that early-onset Alzheimer’s disease is associated with more aggressive tau pathology and that depression is associated with tau. However, the evidence supporting a link between amyloid and psychiatric disease is less certain, she said.
 

Preliminary and speculative findings

Senior study author Zachary Miller, MD, an assistant professor in the UCSF Memory and Aging Center, explained the significance of the study findings of potential links between depression and autoimmunity, and anxiety and seizure. “There may be distinct underlying pathophysiological mechanisms in patients with Alzheimer’s disease who have symptoms of depression versus anxiety,” he said, acknowledging the findings “are quite preliminary and our interpretations quite speculative.”

The findings raise the question that the symptomatic presentation of greater amounts of depression in early-onset Alzheimer’s disease may be moderated by an underlying neuroinflammatory insult, he said. “If so, depression symptomatology could then be seen as a possible clinical marker of this inflammatory response and possibly be used in testing clinical endpoints for future intervention trials,” Dr. Miller said. “Similarly, if neuronal hyperexcitability in Alzheimer’s disease manifests itself as either seizure and/or anxiety, this would have significant impact for therapeutic monitoring and treatment.”

He said a multicenter study of Alzheimer’s disease cohorts would validate the findings. “At the same time, we are also interested in looking deeper into these findings, investigating the potential cognitive and neuroanatomical correlates associated with these conditions,” Dr. Miller said.

Clinical phenotyping may provide more insight into the relationship between psychosis and age of Alzheimer’s disease onset, said Vijay K. Ramanan, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Universal multigene panel testing of colorectal cancer patients can detect heritable mutations that would not have been discovered with guideline-based testing, according to new research.

A prospective study of universal genetic testing suggested that one in six colorectal cancer patients have an inherited genetic predisposition to the cancer. More than half of the patients with genetic mutations identified in this study would have been missed if the patients had undergone genetic testing based on current practice. In 11% of patients, the genetic findings led to a change in treatment, including the type of surgery or targeted cancer therapy.

These results were presented at the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics annual meeting and published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“This study shows the limitations of relying on current clinical practice guidelines for genetic evaluation, which prioritize age of cancer diagnosis and family cancer history,” said investigator Niloy Jewel Samadder, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

“We were surprised that more than 50% of the patients with a genetic mutation would not have been identified had we relied on national practice guidelines or only used a small colon cancer-specific gene panel, as is commonly employed in clinical practice. The fact that more than 10% of patients actually had changes in the type of surgery or chemo/immunotherapy they received gives the strongest indicator of how genetics can revolutionize and individualize cancer care,” Dr. Samadder said.

He added that identifying a germline predisposition has multiple values, including understanding the reason patients and their family members develop specific cancers, preventing the development of new cancers in patients and family members by providing targeted prevention and screening for those at genetic risk, and improving survival in patients with a genetic driver of cancer via targeted therapy.
 

Study details

The researchers used a next-generation sequencing platform with more than 80 genes in colorectal cancer patients (not selected for age or family history) receiving care at Mayo Clinic Cancer Centers between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020.

The study included 361 patients with a median age of 57 years. Pathogenic germline variants were identified in 56 patients (15.5%), including 44 patients with moderate and high penetrance cancer susceptibility genes.

Younger age (under 50 years old) was associated with having a germline mutation, but “more importantly, gender, family cancer history, and stage of cancer were not,” Dr. Samadder said.

“The current clinical guidelines rely heavily on these characteristics to determine who should and should not be referred for genetic testing,” he continued. “Our study suggests that even older patients with colorectal cancer have a high rate of having pathogenic germline mutations [12%], so restricting genetic testing to only those under age 50 will miss a substantial portion of patients who might benefit from this test.”
 

Genetic testing for all

“Our findings support the broad use of genetic testing in all colorectal cancer patients, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, family cancer history, or stage of cancer,” Dr. Samadder said.

“This study adds to a growing body of literature that provides evidence that cancer susceptibility due to variants in single genes is more common than previously appreciated,” said Marc S. Williams, MD, president of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. “Current testing guidelines seem to be relatively insensitive and miss opportunities for testing of patients.”

Dr. Williams noted that 11% of patients in this study had a change in disease management related to a genetic testing result, which is “a relatively modest impact.”

“Another potential advantage of [universal] testing was the opportunity to test at-risk relatives,” Dr. Williams added. “However, only 16% of eligible individuals pursued testing. This is consistent with other studies and represents an opportunity for testing new ways to improve uptake of cascade screening.”

Dr. Williams said rigorous prospective studies enrolling large numbers of patients from diverse backgrounds are needed to inform the development and updating of genetic testing guidelines.

He disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Samadder disclosed relationships with Janssen Research and Development, Recursion Pharmaceuticals, and Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals. The research was funded by the Mayo Clinic, Desert Mountain Members’ CARE Foundation, David and Twila Woods Foundation, and the Gerstner Foundation.

Universal multigene panel testing of colorectal cancer patients can detect heritable mutations that would not have been discovered with guideline-based testing, according to new research.

A prospective study of universal genetic testing suggested that one in six colorectal cancer patients have an inherited genetic predisposition to the cancer. More than half of the patients with genetic mutations identified in this study would have been missed if the patients had undergone genetic testing based on current practice. In 11% of patients, the genetic findings led to a change in treatment, including the type of surgery or targeted cancer therapy.

These results were presented at the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics annual meeting and published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“This study shows the limitations of relying on current clinical practice guidelines for genetic evaluation, which prioritize age of cancer diagnosis and family cancer history,” said investigator Niloy Jewel Samadder, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

“We were surprised that more than 50% of the patients with a genetic mutation would not have been identified had we relied on national practice guidelines or only used a small colon cancer-specific gene panel, as is commonly employed in clinical practice. The fact that more than 10% of patients actually had changes in the type of surgery or chemo/immunotherapy they received gives the strongest indicator of how genetics can revolutionize and individualize cancer care,” Dr. Samadder said.

He added that identifying a germline predisposition has multiple values, including understanding the reason patients and their family members develop specific cancers, preventing the development of new cancers in patients and family members by providing targeted prevention and screening for those at genetic risk, and improving survival in patients with a genetic driver of cancer via targeted therapy.
 

Study details

The researchers used a next-generation sequencing platform with more than 80 genes in colorectal cancer patients (not selected for age or family history) receiving care at Mayo Clinic Cancer Centers between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020.

The study included 361 patients with a median age of 57 years. Pathogenic germline variants were identified in 56 patients (15.5%), including 44 patients with moderate and high penetrance cancer susceptibility genes.

Younger age (under 50 years old) was associated with having a germline mutation, but “more importantly, gender, family cancer history, and stage of cancer were not,” Dr. Samadder said.

“The current clinical guidelines rely heavily on these characteristics to determine who should and should not be referred for genetic testing,” he continued. “Our study suggests that even older patients with colorectal cancer have a high rate of having pathogenic germline mutations [12%], so restricting genetic testing to only those under age 50 will miss a substantial portion of patients who might benefit from this test.”
 

Genetic testing for all

“Our findings support the broad use of genetic testing in all colorectal cancer patients, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, family cancer history, or stage of cancer,” Dr. Samadder said.

“This study adds to a growing body of literature that provides evidence that cancer susceptibility due to variants in single genes is more common than previously appreciated,” said Marc S. Williams, MD, president of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. “Current testing guidelines seem to be relatively insensitive and miss opportunities for testing of patients.”

Dr. Williams noted that 11% of patients in this study had a change in disease management related to a genetic testing result, which is “a relatively modest impact.”

“Another potential advantage of [universal] testing was the opportunity to test at-risk relatives,” Dr. Williams added. “However, only 16% of eligible individuals pursued testing. This is consistent with other studies and represents an opportunity for testing new ways to improve uptake of cascade screening.”

Dr. Williams said rigorous prospective studies enrolling large numbers of patients from diverse backgrounds are needed to inform the development and updating of genetic testing guidelines.

He disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Samadder disclosed relationships with Janssen Research and Development, Recursion Pharmaceuticals, and Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals. The research was funded by the Mayo Clinic, Desert Mountain Members’ CARE Foundation, David and Twila Woods Foundation, and the Gerstner Foundation.

Universal multigene panel testing of colorectal cancer patients can detect heritable mutations that would not have been discovered with guideline-based testing, according to new research.

A prospective study of universal genetic testing suggested that one in six colorectal cancer patients have an inherited genetic predisposition to the cancer. More than half of the patients with genetic mutations identified in this study would have been missed if the patients had undergone genetic testing based on current practice. In 11% of patients, the genetic findings led to a change in treatment, including the type of surgery or targeted cancer therapy.

These results were presented at the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics annual meeting and published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“This study shows the limitations of relying on current clinical practice guidelines for genetic evaluation, which prioritize age of cancer diagnosis and family cancer history,” said investigator Niloy Jewel Samadder, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

“We were surprised that more than 50% of the patients with a genetic mutation would not have been identified had we relied on national practice guidelines or only used a small colon cancer-specific gene panel, as is commonly employed in clinical practice. The fact that more than 10% of patients actually had changes in the type of surgery or chemo/immunotherapy they received gives the strongest indicator of how genetics can revolutionize and individualize cancer care,” Dr. Samadder said.

He added that identifying a germline predisposition has multiple values, including understanding the reason patients and their family members develop specific cancers, preventing the development of new cancers in patients and family members by providing targeted prevention and screening for those at genetic risk, and improving survival in patients with a genetic driver of cancer via targeted therapy.
 

Study details

The researchers used a next-generation sequencing platform with more than 80 genes in colorectal cancer patients (not selected for age or family history) receiving care at Mayo Clinic Cancer Centers between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020.

The study included 361 patients with a median age of 57 years. Pathogenic germline variants were identified in 56 patients (15.5%), including 44 patients with moderate and high penetrance cancer susceptibility genes.

Younger age (under 50 years old) was associated with having a germline mutation, but “more importantly, gender, family cancer history, and stage of cancer were not,” Dr. Samadder said.

“The current clinical guidelines rely heavily on these characteristics to determine who should and should not be referred for genetic testing,” he continued. “Our study suggests that even older patients with colorectal cancer have a high rate of having pathogenic germline mutations [12%], so restricting genetic testing to only those under age 50 will miss a substantial portion of patients who might benefit from this test.”
 

Genetic testing for all

“Our findings support the broad use of genetic testing in all colorectal cancer patients, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, family cancer history, or stage of cancer,” Dr. Samadder said.

“This study adds to a growing body of literature that provides evidence that cancer susceptibility due to variants in single genes is more common than previously appreciated,” said Marc S. Williams, MD, president of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. “Current testing guidelines seem to be relatively insensitive and miss opportunities for testing of patients.”

Dr. Williams noted that 11% of patients in this study had a change in disease management related to a genetic testing result, which is “a relatively modest impact.”

“Another potential advantage of [universal] testing was the opportunity to test at-risk relatives,” Dr. Williams added. “However, only 16% of eligible individuals pursued testing. This is consistent with other studies and represents an opportunity for testing new ways to improve uptake of cascade screening.”

Dr. Williams said rigorous prospective studies enrolling large numbers of patients from diverse backgrounds are needed to inform the development and updating of genetic testing guidelines.

He disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Samadder disclosed relationships with Janssen Research and Development, Recursion Pharmaceuticals, and Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals. The research was funded by the Mayo Clinic, Desert Mountain Members’ CARE Foundation, David and Twila Woods Foundation, and the Gerstner Foundation.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) significantly improves motor function in patients with Parkinson’s disease over the long term, regardless of the therapeutic target, new research shows. In the longest follow-up study comparing the subthalamic nucleus (STN) or the globus pallidus (GPi) as treatment targets for Parkinson’s disease, investigators found DBS was effective at 10 years regardless of which of these two brain regions were treated.

“Both STN and GPi DBS maintained motor benefit out to 10 years, with improvements seen in tremor and rigidity, greater than bradykinesia,” said study author Jill L. Ostrem, MD, medical director and division chief at the University of California, San Francisco Movement Disorders and Neuromodulation Center.

“Less medication was required, and patients had fewer motor fluctuations and less dyskinesia,” she added. But nonmotor symptoms and other symptoms that are less responsive to DBS progress led to worsening disability over time.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Advanced patients  

Many studies have examined the GPi and STN as targets for deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Some research has compared outcomes between the two targets, but no prospective, randomized trials have evaluated outcomes beyond 3 years of treatment.

For the study, investigators examined data from Study 468, a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted by the U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Study Program and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). In this study, a subset of patients who had been randomly assigned to deep brain stimulation of the GPi or STN were followed for up to 10 years.

Participants were examined at 2 years, 7 years, and 10 years. Eighty-five participants assigned to GPi and 70 assigned to STN completed the visit at 2 years. At 7 years, 68 GPi patients and 49 STN patients completed the visit. Forty-nine patients assigned to GPi and 28 assigned to STN completed the visit at 10 years.

The study’s primary outcome was change in the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor subscale score while off medication and on stimulation between targets. Secondary outcomes included tremor, rigidity, and bradykinesia.

The two groups of patients had comparable baseline characteristics. Mean age was approximately 59 years in both groups. The proportion of male patients was 87% in the GPi group and 83% in the STN group. White patients predominated in the GPi (98%) and STN (94%) groups.

Average disease duration was approximately 11 years, and more than 10% of patients in each group were older than 70 years, indicating a “somewhat more advanced patient cohort,” said Dr. Ostrem.

Although the study’s dropout rate was high, the researchers found no difference in baseline characteristics between patients who did and did not complete the study.
 

Consistent motor improvement

Motor function improved at all timepoints for patients in both study arms. Baseline UPDRS motor subscale score was 43.2 for patients assigned to GPi stimulation. This score changed to 25.8 at 2 years (P < .001), 35.4 at 7 years (P < .001), and 34.0 at 10 years (P = .10).

Baseline UPDRS motor subscale score also was 43.2 for patients assigned to STN stimulation. This score changed to 27.7 at 2 years (P < .001), 34.4 at 7 years (P < .001), and 28.3 at 10 years (P < .001). Improvements were similar between groups but tended to be greater in the STN group.

Among the study’s secondary outcomes, tremor subscales showed the greatest improvement over time, followed by rigidity subscores. Compared with GPi DBS, STN DBS was associated with greater improvement in bradykinesia subscores at 7 and 10 years (P = .03).

In addition, UPDRS I, II, and IV scores, as recorded in motor diaries, showed significant long-term improvement in both study groups. Part I (which reflects mentation and mood) and part II (which reflects activities of daily living) tended to worsen at 7 and 10 years. There were no differences between groups.

Total score on the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39), which measures function in daily living, no longer showed improvement at 7 or 10 years for either target. Rather, it showed worsening, compared with baseline.

“Cognitive impairment and gait and balance issues result in more issues with quality of life and independence,” said Dr. Ostrem.

Stimulation of both targets reduced medication use significantly. There was no difference between targets for this outcome.

The rate of device-related complications in this cohort was comparatively low, said Dr. Ostrem. In the overall study complication, the rate of DBS malfunction was 7.7%, and the rate of DBS infection was 5.8%.

The finding that both targets had similar long-term sustainability of motor benefit provides reassurance that either target is a reasonable choice, said Dr. Ostrem. “I would suggest target choice be determined by a multidisciplinary team, where individual patient signs and symptoms and goals can be considered.”

Other large DBS trials with shorter follow-up durations have suggested differences between the targets. These data can guide the choice of target, said Dr. Ostrem.

“The field of DBS research has never been more exciting,” she added. Newer systems that include improved hardware and software and can record neurophysiologic data from the implanted brain leads could provide improved outcomes of DBS treatment. 

“With modern DBS methods and approaches, we are learning more about Parkinson’s disease and other brain diseases, which I believe will help us to find more treatments and other interventions to slow the progression or minimize symptoms,” Dr. Ostrem concluded.
 

Selection bias?

Commenting on the study, Alfonso Fasano, MD, PhD, chair in neuromodulation and multidisciplinary care at University of Toronto, noted that “these are the first long-term findings resulting from a randomized trial, overall supporting the early notion that STN DBS is superior to GPi DBS in terms of bradykinesia improvement, especially in the long-run.”

The findings reflect the clinical practice of considering STN deep brain stimulation for young patients who face a longer disease duration. Younger patients might tolerate the procedure better than older patients. They also may achieve medication reduction, better motor control, and the possibility of increasing medication when side effects make increased stimulation undesirable.

“It’s interesting to note that even GPi DBS maintained an overall good outcome over time,” said Dr. Fasano. This finding contrasts with that of previous studies, but the latter were limited by selection bias, he added. “Older and frail patients were more likely to be treated with GPi DBS.”

Two factors limit the study’s findings, said Dr. Fasano. During the long study duration, many patients dropped out or were lost to follow-up. “Thus, it is conceivable that the study only enrolled the best responders in each group,” said Dr. Fasano.

In addition, the results of the trial that the current investigators analyzed are not necessarily generalizable, as those who conducted it soon recognized. The study by the VA and NINDS did not detect differences between targets, mainly because of a surprisingly low effect of STN deep brain stimulation. The researchers determined that this finding was related to the study’s inclusion criteria.

“The lack of improvement [on the PDQ-39] clearly indicates that simply treating the motor problems of Parkinson’s disease patients is not enough,” said Dr. Fasano. It also emphasizes that DBS is a symptomatic therapy with little or no effect on the disease’s natural history.

“It will be also important to see how the new data reported by Dr. Ostrem compare to the long-term outcome of the other major STN versus GPi trial from Europe,” said Dr. Fasano, referring to the NSTAPS trial.

He added that it will also be interesting to follow these cohorts for at least 5 more years in order to identify possible differences in terms of disease milestones such as dementia and survival. Previous studies have shown a reduction in survival with targets other than STN, but this finding likely reflects selection bias, he concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Ostrem previously has accepted consulting funds from Medtronic and Abbott. She receives grant support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific for fellowship training and clinical trial support. These companies were not involved in the study. Dr. Fasano received honoraria and research support and honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Brainlab, Ceregate, Inbrain, and Medtronic.

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

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) significantly improves motor function in patients with Parkinson’s disease over the long term, regardless of the therapeutic target, new research shows. In the longest follow-up study comparing the subthalamic nucleus (STN) or the globus pallidus (GPi) as treatment targets for Parkinson’s disease, investigators found DBS was effective at 10 years regardless of which of these two brain regions were treated.

“Both STN and GPi DBS maintained motor benefit out to 10 years, with improvements seen in tremor and rigidity, greater than bradykinesia,” said study author Jill L. Ostrem, MD, medical director and division chief at the University of California, San Francisco Movement Disorders and Neuromodulation Center.

“Less medication was required, and patients had fewer motor fluctuations and less dyskinesia,” she added. But nonmotor symptoms and other symptoms that are less responsive to DBS progress led to worsening disability over time.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Advanced patients  

Many studies have examined the GPi and STN as targets for deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Some research has compared outcomes between the two targets, but no prospective, randomized trials have evaluated outcomes beyond 3 years of treatment.

For the study, investigators examined data from Study 468, a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted by the U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Study Program and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). In this study, a subset of patients who had been randomly assigned to deep brain stimulation of the GPi or STN were followed for up to 10 years.

Participants were examined at 2 years, 7 years, and 10 years. Eighty-five participants assigned to GPi and 70 assigned to STN completed the visit at 2 years. At 7 years, 68 GPi patients and 49 STN patients completed the visit. Forty-nine patients assigned to GPi and 28 assigned to STN completed the visit at 10 years.

The study’s primary outcome was change in the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor subscale score while off medication and on stimulation between targets. Secondary outcomes included tremor, rigidity, and bradykinesia.

The two groups of patients had comparable baseline characteristics. Mean age was approximately 59 years in both groups. The proportion of male patients was 87% in the GPi group and 83% in the STN group. White patients predominated in the GPi (98%) and STN (94%) groups.

Average disease duration was approximately 11 years, and more than 10% of patients in each group were older than 70 years, indicating a “somewhat more advanced patient cohort,” said Dr. Ostrem.

Although the study’s dropout rate was high, the researchers found no difference in baseline characteristics between patients who did and did not complete the study.
 

Consistent motor improvement

Motor function improved at all timepoints for patients in both study arms. Baseline UPDRS motor subscale score was 43.2 for patients assigned to GPi stimulation. This score changed to 25.8 at 2 years (P < .001), 35.4 at 7 years (P < .001), and 34.0 at 10 years (P = .10).

Baseline UPDRS motor subscale score also was 43.2 for patients assigned to STN stimulation. This score changed to 27.7 at 2 years (P < .001), 34.4 at 7 years (P < .001), and 28.3 at 10 years (P < .001). Improvements were similar between groups but tended to be greater in the STN group.

Among the study’s secondary outcomes, tremor subscales showed the greatest improvement over time, followed by rigidity subscores. Compared with GPi DBS, STN DBS was associated with greater improvement in bradykinesia subscores at 7 and 10 years (P = .03).

In addition, UPDRS I, II, and IV scores, as recorded in motor diaries, showed significant long-term improvement in both study groups. Part I (which reflects mentation and mood) and part II (which reflects activities of daily living) tended to worsen at 7 and 10 years. There were no differences between groups.

Total score on the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39), which measures function in daily living, no longer showed improvement at 7 or 10 years for either target. Rather, it showed worsening, compared with baseline.

“Cognitive impairment and gait and balance issues result in more issues with quality of life and independence,” said Dr. Ostrem.

Stimulation of both targets reduced medication use significantly. There was no difference between targets for this outcome.

The rate of device-related complications in this cohort was comparatively low, said Dr. Ostrem. In the overall study complication, the rate of DBS malfunction was 7.7%, and the rate of DBS infection was 5.8%.

The finding that both targets had similar long-term sustainability of motor benefit provides reassurance that either target is a reasonable choice, said Dr. Ostrem. “I would suggest target choice be determined by a multidisciplinary team, where individual patient signs and symptoms and goals can be considered.”

Other large DBS trials with shorter follow-up durations have suggested differences between the targets. These data can guide the choice of target, said Dr. Ostrem.

“The field of DBS research has never been more exciting,” she added. Newer systems that include improved hardware and software and can record neurophysiologic data from the implanted brain leads could provide improved outcomes of DBS treatment. 

“With modern DBS methods and approaches, we are learning more about Parkinson’s disease and other brain diseases, which I believe will help us to find more treatments and other interventions to slow the progression or minimize symptoms,” Dr. Ostrem concluded.
 

Selection bias?

Commenting on the study, Alfonso Fasano, MD, PhD, chair in neuromodulation and multidisciplinary care at University of Toronto, noted that “these are the first long-term findings resulting from a randomized trial, overall supporting the early notion that STN DBS is superior to GPi DBS in terms of bradykinesia improvement, especially in the long-run.”

The findings reflect the clinical practice of considering STN deep brain stimulation for young patients who face a longer disease duration. Younger patients might tolerate the procedure better than older patients. They also may achieve medication reduction, better motor control, and the possibility of increasing medication when side effects make increased stimulation undesirable.

“It’s interesting to note that even GPi DBS maintained an overall good outcome over time,” said Dr. Fasano. This finding contrasts with that of previous studies, but the latter were limited by selection bias, he added. “Older and frail patients were more likely to be treated with GPi DBS.”

Two factors limit the study’s findings, said Dr. Fasano. During the long study duration, many patients dropped out or were lost to follow-up. “Thus, it is conceivable that the study only enrolled the best responders in each group,” said Dr. Fasano.

In addition, the results of the trial that the current investigators analyzed are not necessarily generalizable, as those who conducted it soon recognized. The study by the VA and NINDS did not detect differences between targets, mainly because of a surprisingly low effect of STN deep brain stimulation. The researchers determined that this finding was related to the study’s inclusion criteria.

“The lack of improvement [on the PDQ-39] clearly indicates that simply treating the motor problems of Parkinson’s disease patients is not enough,” said Dr. Fasano. It also emphasizes that DBS is a symptomatic therapy with little or no effect on the disease’s natural history.

“It will be also important to see how the new data reported by Dr. Ostrem compare to the long-term outcome of the other major STN versus GPi trial from Europe,” said Dr. Fasano, referring to the NSTAPS trial.

He added that it will also be interesting to follow these cohorts for at least 5 more years in order to identify possible differences in terms of disease milestones such as dementia and survival. Previous studies have shown a reduction in survival with targets other than STN, but this finding likely reflects selection bias, he concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Ostrem previously has accepted consulting funds from Medtronic and Abbott. She receives grant support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific for fellowship training and clinical trial support. These companies were not involved in the study. Dr. Fasano received honoraria and research support and honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Brainlab, Ceregate, Inbrain, and Medtronic.

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

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) significantly improves motor function in patients with Parkinson’s disease over the long term, regardless of the therapeutic target, new research shows. In the longest follow-up study comparing the subthalamic nucleus (STN) or the globus pallidus (GPi) as treatment targets for Parkinson’s disease, investigators found DBS was effective at 10 years regardless of which of these two brain regions were treated.

“Both STN and GPi DBS maintained motor benefit out to 10 years, with improvements seen in tremor and rigidity, greater than bradykinesia,” said study author Jill L. Ostrem, MD, medical director and division chief at the University of California, San Francisco Movement Disorders and Neuromodulation Center.

“Less medication was required, and patients had fewer motor fluctuations and less dyskinesia,” she added. But nonmotor symptoms and other symptoms that are less responsive to DBS progress led to worsening disability over time.

The findings were presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

Advanced patients  

Many studies have examined the GPi and STN as targets for deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Some research has compared outcomes between the two targets, but no prospective, randomized trials have evaluated outcomes beyond 3 years of treatment.

For the study, investigators examined data from Study 468, a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted by the U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Study Program and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). In this study, a subset of patients who had been randomly assigned to deep brain stimulation of the GPi or STN were followed for up to 10 years.

Participants were examined at 2 years, 7 years, and 10 years. Eighty-five participants assigned to GPi and 70 assigned to STN completed the visit at 2 years. At 7 years, 68 GPi patients and 49 STN patients completed the visit. Forty-nine patients assigned to GPi and 28 assigned to STN completed the visit at 10 years.

The study’s primary outcome was change in the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor subscale score while off medication and on stimulation between targets. Secondary outcomes included tremor, rigidity, and bradykinesia.

The two groups of patients had comparable baseline characteristics. Mean age was approximately 59 years in both groups. The proportion of male patients was 87% in the GPi group and 83% in the STN group. White patients predominated in the GPi (98%) and STN (94%) groups.

Average disease duration was approximately 11 years, and more than 10% of patients in each group were older than 70 years, indicating a “somewhat more advanced patient cohort,” said Dr. Ostrem.

Although the study’s dropout rate was high, the researchers found no difference in baseline characteristics between patients who did and did not complete the study.
 

Consistent motor improvement

Motor function improved at all timepoints for patients in both study arms. Baseline UPDRS motor subscale score was 43.2 for patients assigned to GPi stimulation. This score changed to 25.8 at 2 years (P < .001), 35.4 at 7 years (P < .001), and 34.0 at 10 years (P = .10).

Baseline UPDRS motor subscale score also was 43.2 for patients assigned to STN stimulation. This score changed to 27.7 at 2 years (P < .001), 34.4 at 7 years (P < .001), and 28.3 at 10 years (P < .001). Improvements were similar between groups but tended to be greater in the STN group.

Among the study’s secondary outcomes, tremor subscales showed the greatest improvement over time, followed by rigidity subscores. Compared with GPi DBS, STN DBS was associated with greater improvement in bradykinesia subscores at 7 and 10 years (P = .03).

In addition, UPDRS I, II, and IV scores, as recorded in motor diaries, showed significant long-term improvement in both study groups. Part I (which reflects mentation and mood) and part II (which reflects activities of daily living) tended to worsen at 7 and 10 years. There were no differences between groups.

Total score on the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39), which measures function in daily living, no longer showed improvement at 7 or 10 years for either target. Rather, it showed worsening, compared with baseline.

“Cognitive impairment and gait and balance issues result in more issues with quality of life and independence,” said Dr. Ostrem.

Stimulation of both targets reduced medication use significantly. There was no difference between targets for this outcome.

The rate of device-related complications in this cohort was comparatively low, said Dr. Ostrem. In the overall study complication, the rate of DBS malfunction was 7.7%, and the rate of DBS infection was 5.8%.

The finding that both targets had similar long-term sustainability of motor benefit provides reassurance that either target is a reasonable choice, said Dr. Ostrem. “I would suggest target choice be determined by a multidisciplinary team, where individual patient signs and symptoms and goals can be considered.”

Other large DBS trials with shorter follow-up durations have suggested differences between the targets. These data can guide the choice of target, said Dr. Ostrem.

“The field of DBS research has never been more exciting,” she added. Newer systems that include improved hardware and software and can record neurophysiologic data from the implanted brain leads could provide improved outcomes of DBS treatment. 

“With modern DBS methods and approaches, we are learning more about Parkinson’s disease and other brain diseases, which I believe will help us to find more treatments and other interventions to slow the progression or minimize symptoms,” Dr. Ostrem concluded.
 

Selection bias?

Commenting on the study, Alfonso Fasano, MD, PhD, chair in neuromodulation and multidisciplinary care at University of Toronto, noted that “these are the first long-term findings resulting from a randomized trial, overall supporting the early notion that STN DBS is superior to GPi DBS in terms of bradykinesia improvement, especially in the long-run.”

The findings reflect the clinical practice of considering STN deep brain stimulation for young patients who face a longer disease duration. Younger patients might tolerate the procedure better than older patients. They also may achieve medication reduction, better motor control, and the possibility of increasing medication when side effects make increased stimulation undesirable.

“It’s interesting to note that even GPi DBS maintained an overall good outcome over time,” said Dr. Fasano. This finding contrasts with that of previous studies, but the latter were limited by selection bias, he added. “Older and frail patients were more likely to be treated with GPi DBS.”

Two factors limit the study’s findings, said Dr. Fasano. During the long study duration, many patients dropped out or were lost to follow-up. “Thus, it is conceivable that the study only enrolled the best responders in each group,” said Dr. Fasano.

In addition, the results of the trial that the current investigators analyzed are not necessarily generalizable, as those who conducted it soon recognized. The study by the VA and NINDS did not detect differences between targets, mainly because of a surprisingly low effect of STN deep brain stimulation. The researchers determined that this finding was related to the study’s inclusion criteria.

“The lack of improvement [on the PDQ-39] clearly indicates that simply treating the motor problems of Parkinson’s disease patients is not enough,” said Dr. Fasano. It also emphasizes that DBS is a symptomatic therapy with little or no effect on the disease’s natural history.

“It will be also important to see how the new data reported by Dr. Ostrem compare to the long-term outcome of the other major STN versus GPi trial from Europe,” said Dr. Fasano, referring to the NSTAPS trial.

He added that it will also be interesting to follow these cohorts for at least 5 more years in order to identify possible differences in terms of disease milestones such as dementia and survival. Previous studies have shown a reduction in survival with targets other than STN, but this finding likely reflects selection bias, he concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Ostrem previously has accepted consulting funds from Medtronic and Abbott. She receives grant support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific for fellowship training and clinical trial support. These companies were not involved in the study. Dr. Fasano received honoraria and research support and honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Brainlab, Ceregate, Inbrain, and Medtronic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Largest sample to date

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significant adverse outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Largest sample to date

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significant adverse outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Largest sample to date

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significant adverse outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was updated 5/5/21.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was updated 5/5/21.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was updated 5/5/21.

Sofpironium bromide, a new topical anticholinergic agent, appears to be a safer version of glycopyrrolate for the treatment of axillary hyperhidrosis, according to 48-week safety and outcome data.

Koldunov/Thinkstock

A structural analogue of glycopyrrolate working through the same mechanism, sofpironium bromide was developed as a retrometabolic agent. This means it is rapidly transformed into an inactive metabolite after application, reducing risk of systemic effects, study investigator Stacy Smith, MD, explained in the late-breaking research session at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

The anticholinergic glycopyrrolate, which currently is the most commonly used therapy for hyperhidrosis, is absorbed through the skin and excreted through the urine. The systemic exposure to the active agent after topical application explains the substantial risk of adverse effects, said Dr. Smith, a clinician and researcher affiliated with the California Dermatology and Clinical Research Institute, Encinitas.

In contrast,“sofpironium bromide is the ideal topical medication, because it has strong activity at the application site but then reduced systemic activity due to the retrometabolism,” Dr. Smith said.

The 52-week data from the open-label, phase 3 trial supports the premise. In this study of 299 patients randomized to the 5% (102 patients) or 15% (197 patients) topical sofpironium bromide gel formulations, most anticholinergic adverse events were mild or moderate and transient, with complaints concentrated in the first 3 months of the trial.

“The retrometabolic pathway seems to work,” Dr. Smith said. He acknowledged that the treatment-naive patients who entered the study “had to get used to the drug over time,” but the data “show they did.”

The phase 3 trial of sofpironium bromide, which is already approved to treat axillary hyperhidrosis in Japan, did not have a placebo control. It was focused primarily on safety, but outcomes were assessed with the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Measure–Axillary (HDSM-Ax).

At least a 1-point improvement in the 7-point HDSM-Ax scale, which is considered clinically meaningful, was achieved by 86.1% and 85.8% of those treated with the 5% and 15% gels, respectively. A 2-point or greater improvement at the end of the study was observed in 69.4% and 61.9%, respectively.

“The medication works well and there was improved efficacy over time. About two-thirds of the patients had at least a 2-point improvement in the HDSM-Ax score at the end of 48 weeks,” Dr. Smith reported.

While response rates climbed over the course of the study, rates of adverse events fell markedly.

After 2 weeks of treatment, the proportions of patients with a treatment-related adverse event were 6% and just under 15% for the 5% and 15% topical-gel groups, respectively. At each 2-week interval when reassessed, the rates fell. By week 12, the rates were less than 2% and about 4% in the two groups, respectively.

The discontinuation rates overall for anticholinergic side effects were 3% and 8.1% for the lower and higher doses. Blurred vision accounted for the vast majority of these discontinuations in both groups. The other discontinuations, which included those for dry mouth, urinary retention, and mydriasis, occurred in one patient each. Again, discontinuations were most common in the first few months of the study.

For the total study population, mild (10.8% vs. 24%) and moderate (10.8% vs. 20.3%) side effects accounted for almost all side effects with the lower and higher doses of the topical drug. Only one patient in the low-dose group had a severe adverse event. At 6.1%, the proportion of the high-dose group with a severe adverse event was higher, but none of the adverse events were considered serious. All were transient.

These rates of adverse events are lower than those reported historically with effective doses of glycopyrrolate, Dr. Smith said.

The data presented by Dr. Smith are part of a phase 3 pivotal trials program designed to gain FDA approval. Going forward, these trials, which are enrolling patients as young as 9 years old, are expected to focus on clinical development of the 15% gel, he added.

The gel is delivered with a metered-dose pump that has an applicator, according to Brickell Biotech, the company developing the treatment in the United States. The 5% formulation was approved in Japan in September 2020, for the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis.

In an interview, David M. Pariser, MD, professor of dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said that he believes that this drug has could be helpful if the pivotal studies confirm efficacy with a lower risk of adverse events relative to glycopyrrolate. “If it is true that, in phase 3, placebo-controlled trials, there are fewer systemic anticholinergic effects, then this drug will be very useful,” said Dr. Pariser, cofounder of the International Hyperhidrosis Society and an investigator on a previously published dose-ranging, phase 2 study of sofpironium bromide.

The trial was sponsored by Brickell Biotech, which compensated Dr. Smith and other coauthors for their participation. Dr. Pariser has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies with dermatologic products, including Brickell Biotech.

This article was updated 4/26/21.

Sofpironium bromide, a new topical anticholinergic agent, appears to be a safer version of glycopyrrolate for the treatment of axillary hyperhidrosis, according to 48-week safety and outcome data.

Koldunov/Thinkstock

A structural analogue of glycopyrrolate working through the same mechanism, sofpironium bromide was developed as a retrometabolic agent. This means it is rapidly transformed into an inactive metabolite after application, reducing risk of systemic effects, study investigator Stacy Smith, MD, explained in the late-breaking research session at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

The anticholinergic glycopyrrolate, which currently is the most commonly used therapy for hyperhidrosis, is absorbed through the skin and excreted through the urine. The systemic exposure to the active agent after topical application explains the substantial risk of adverse effects, said Dr. Smith, a clinician and researcher affiliated with the California Dermatology and Clinical Research Institute, Encinitas.

In contrast,“sofpironium bromide is the ideal topical medication, because it has strong activity at the application site but then reduced systemic activity due to the retrometabolism,” Dr. Smith said.

The 52-week data from the open-label, phase 3 trial supports the premise. In this study of 299 patients randomized to the 5% (102 patients) or 15% (197 patients) topical sofpironium bromide gel formulations, most anticholinergic adverse events were mild or moderate and transient, with complaints concentrated in the first 3 months of the trial.

“The retrometabolic pathway seems to work,” Dr. Smith said. He acknowledged that the treatment-naive patients who entered the study “had to get used to the drug over time,” but the data “show they did.”

The phase 3 trial of sofpironium bromide, which is already approved to treat axillary hyperhidrosis in Japan, did not have a placebo control. It was focused primarily on safety, but outcomes were assessed with the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Measure–Axillary (HDSM-Ax).

At least a 1-point improvement in the 7-point HDSM-Ax scale, which is considered clinically meaningful, was achieved by 86.1% and 85.8% of those treated with the 5% and 15% gels, respectively. A 2-point or greater improvement at the end of the study was observed in 69.4% and 61.9%, respectively.

“The medication works well and there was improved efficacy over time. About two-thirds of the patients had at least a 2-point improvement in the HDSM-Ax score at the end of 48 weeks,” Dr. Smith reported.

While response rates climbed over the course of the study, rates of adverse events fell markedly.

After 2 weeks of treatment, the proportions of patients with a treatment-related adverse event were 6% and just under 15% for the 5% and 15% topical-gel groups, respectively. At each 2-week interval when reassessed, the rates fell. By week 12, the rates were less than 2% and about 4% in the two groups, respectively.

The discontinuation rates overall for anticholinergic side effects were 3% and 8.1% for the lower and higher doses. Blurred vision accounted for the vast majority of these discontinuations in both groups. The other discontinuations, which included those for dry mouth, urinary retention, and mydriasis, occurred in one patient each. Again, discontinuations were most common in the first few months of the study.

For the total study population, mild (10.8% vs. 24%) and moderate (10.8% vs. 20.3%) side effects accounted for almost all side effects with the lower and higher doses of the topical drug. Only one patient in the low-dose group had a severe adverse event. At 6.1%, the proportion of the high-dose group with a severe adverse event was higher, but none of the adverse events were considered serious. All were transient.

These rates of adverse events are lower than those reported historically with effective doses of glycopyrrolate, Dr. Smith said.

The data presented by Dr. Smith are part of a phase 3 pivotal trials program designed to gain FDA approval. Going forward, these trials, which are enrolling patients as young as 9 years old, are expected to focus on clinical development of the 15% gel, he added.

The gel is delivered with a metered-dose pump that has an applicator, according to Brickell Biotech, the company developing the treatment in the United States. The 5% formulation was approved in Japan in September 2020, for the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis.

In an interview, David M. Pariser, MD, professor of dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said that he believes that this drug has could be helpful if the pivotal studies confirm efficacy with a lower risk of adverse events relative to glycopyrrolate. “If it is true that, in phase 3, placebo-controlled trials, there are fewer systemic anticholinergic effects, then this drug will be very useful,” said Dr. Pariser, cofounder of the International Hyperhidrosis Society and an investigator on a previously published dose-ranging, phase 2 study of sofpironium bromide.

The trial was sponsored by Brickell Biotech, which compensated Dr. Smith and other coauthors for their participation. Dr. Pariser has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies with dermatologic products, including Brickell Biotech.

This article was updated 4/26/21.

Sofpironium bromide, a new topical anticholinergic agent, appears to be a safer version of glycopyrrolate for the treatment of axillary hyperhidrosis, according to 48-week safety and outcome data.

Koldunov/Thinkstock

A structural analogue of glycopyrrolate working through the same mechanism, sofpironium bromide was developed as a retrometabolic agent. This means it is rapidly transformed into an inactive metabolite after application, reducing risk of systemic effects, study investigator Stacy Smith, MD, explained in the late-breaking research session at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

The anticholinergic glycopyrrolate, which currently is the most commonly used therapy for hyperhidrosis, is absorbed through the skin and excreted through the urine. The systemic exposure to the active agent after topical application explains the substantial risk of adverse effects, said Dr. Smith, a clinician and researcher affiliated with the California Dermatology and Clinical Research Institute, Encinitas.

In contrast,“sofpironium bromide is the ideal topical medication, because it has strong activity at the application site but then reduced systemic activity due to the retrometabolism,” Dr. Smith said.

The 52-week data from the open-label, phase 3 trial supports the premise. In this study of 299 patients randomized to the 5% (102 patients) or 15% (197 patients) topical sofpironium bromide gel formulations, most anticholinergic adverse events were mild or moderate and transient, with complaints concentrated in the first 3 months of the trial.

“The retrometabolic pathway seems to work,” Dr. Smith said. He acknowledged that the treatment-naive patients who entered the study “had to get used to the drug over time,” but the data “show they did.”

The phase 3 trial of sofpironium bromide, which is already approved to treat axillary hyperhidrosis in Japan, did not have a placebo control. It was focused primarily on safety, but outcomes were assessed with the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Measure–Axillary (HDSM-Ax).

At least a 1-point improvement in the 7-point HDSM-Ax scale, which is considered clinically meaningful, was achieved by 86.1% and 85.8% of those treated with the 5% and 15% gels, respectively. A 2-point or greater improvement at the end of the study was observed in 69.4% and 61.9%, respectively.

“The medication works well and there was improved efficacy over time. About two-thirds of the patients had at least a 2-point improvement in the HDSM-Ax score at the end of 48 weeks,” Dr. Smith reported.

While response rates climbed over the course of the study, rates of adverse events fell markedly.

After 2 weeks of treatment, the proportions of patients with a treatment-related adverse event were 6% and just under 15% for the 5% and 15% topical-gel groups, respectively. At each 2-week interval when reassessed, the rates fell. By week 12, the rates were less than 2% and about 4% in the two groups, respectively.

The discontinuation rates overall for anticholinergic side effects were 3% and 8.1% for the lower and higher doses. Blurred vision accounted for the vast majority of these discontinuations in both groups. The other discontinuations, which included those for dry mouth, urinary retention, and mydriasis, occurred in one patient each. Again, discontinuations were most common in the first few months of the study.

For the total study population, mild (10.8% vs. 24%) and moderate (10.8% vs. 20.3%) side effects accounted for almost all side effects with the lower and higher doses of the topical drug. Only one patient in the low-dose group had a severe adverse event. At 6.1%, the proportion of the high-dose group with a severe adverse event was higher, but none of the adverse events were considered serious. All were transient.

These rates of adverse events are lower than those reported historically with effective doses of glycopyrrolate, Dr. Smith said.

The data presented by Dr. Smith are part of a phase 3 pivotal trials program designed to gain FDA approval. Going forward, these trials, which are enrolling patients as young as 9 years old, are expected to focus on clinical development of the 15% gel, he added.

The gel is delivered with a metered-dose pump that has an applicator, according to Brickell Biotech, the company developing the treatment in the United States. The 5% formulation was approved in Japan in September 2020, for the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis.

In an interview, David M. Pariser, MD, professor of dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said that he believes that this drug has could be helpful if the pivotal studies confirm efficacy with a lower risk of adverse events relative to glycopyrrolate. “If it is true that, in phase 3, placebo-controlled trials, there are fewer systemic anticholinergic effects, then this drug will be very useful,” said Dr. Pariser, cofounder of the International Hyperhidrosis Society and an investigator on a previously published dose-ranging, phase 2 study of sofpironium bromide.

The trial was sponsored by Brickell Biotech, which compensated Dr. Smith and other coauthors for their participation. Dr. Pariser has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies with dermatologic products, including Brickell Biotech.

This article was updated 4/26/21.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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