User login
MDedge conference coverage features onsite reporting of the latest study results and expert perspectives from leading researchers.
Are pediatric and adult dermatitis the same disease?
“Maybe not,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.
Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, based his comments largely on a review that he and his colleagues carried out to understand how features of atopic dermatitis (AD) vary by region globally as well as by age. They identified 101 studies with sufficient data for meta-analysis and stratified the results by pediatric and adult age groups.
Several signs and symptoms occurred with similar frequency among pediatric and adult patients, including pruritus, xerosis, flexural involvement, extensor involvement, early onset of disease, comorbid atopy, head and neck involvement, and ophthalmic comorbidities. However, adults were found to have more signs of chronic disease, more hand eczema, different patterns of hand eczema, and a stronger relationship of disease activity with emotional factors. Meanwhile, children were found to have more exudative or weeping lesions, more perifollicular eczema, and more pityriasis alba.
Dr. Silverberg showed photos of three adults with varied presentations of extensor involvement, including one “who had a lot of lichenification and thickening of the skin, but over knees where you might think about psoriasis,” he said. “All three of these patients were of Southeast Asian descent. That happens to be a region where this feature was reported much more commonly. It may even tie to some underlying immunopathophysiologic differences of the disease across different patient populations.”
AD signs that occur more commonly in adults than children include lichenification (100% vs. 48%), urticaria (32% vs. 20%), popular lichenoid lesions (46% vs. 8%), Hertoghe’s sign (25% vs. 2%), erythroderma (29% vs. 1%), and nodular prurigo (18% vs. 4%).
Hand eczema features also differ between adults and children, including hand or foot dermatitis (44% vs. 25%), dyshidrosis/pompholyx (21% vs. 3%), knuckle dermatitis (25% vs. 8%), nail involvement (15% vs. 8%), and fissured heels. However, ventral wrist dermatitis was found to be more than twice as common in children, compared with adults (34% vs. 15%).
Other signs of AD were more common in children, compared with adults, including exudative eczema (61% vs. 42%), pityriasis alba (28% vs. 18%), Dennie-Morgan infraorbital folds (47% vs. 36%), seborrheic dermatitis–like lesions (40% vs. 18%), and perifollicular accentuation (37% vs. 21%). “This is such an important sign to wrap your head around and get comfortable assessing,” he said. “I have seen patients who are erythrodermic with follicular eczema who were told that they were crazy and had psychogenic itch, and they should go to a shrink.”
AD triggers can differ between adults and children as well, including course influenced by emotions/environmental factors (72% vs. 32%), worsening itch worse (65% vs. 49%), course influenced by environment (62% vs. 37%), and course influenced by emotions (70% vs. 15%).
According to Dr. Silverberg, emerging research suggests that there may be differences in the immune pathways activated in pediatric versus adult AD. Specifically, more Th17 and interferon-gamma in AD lesions have been observed in children, compared with adults, and more Th22 and Th17 in nonlesional AD have been seen in children, compared with adults. “This leads to a question: Will children respond differently than adults to treatment?” Dr. Silverberg said. “We see that omalizumab doesn’t seem to help much in adults, yet a recent study suggested that it might work reasonably well for children. Dupilumab has different dosing requirements and potentially different responses between the pediatric and adult populations.”
Age differences in AD may also be related to differences in the skin microbiome. In 2016, researchers led by Richard L. Gallo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of California, San Diego, compared the skin microbiome between adults and children with AD by swabbing the volar forearm and performing 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The study included 59 young children, 13 teenagers, and 56 adults with AD as well as 68 age-matched non-atopic healthy controls. The researchers found a greater abundance of Streptococcus, Granulicatella, Gemella, Rothia, and Haemophilus in young children, compared with adults, while Propionibacterium, Corynebacterium, Staphylococcus, Lactobacillus, Finegoldia, and Anaerococcus were more abundant in adults, compared with children.
Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.
“Maybe not,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.
Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, based his comments largely on a review that he and his colleagues carried out to understand how features of atopic dermatitis (AD) vary by region globally as well as by age. They identified 101 studies with sufficient data for meta-analysis and stratified the results by pediatric and adult age groups.
Several signs and symptoms occurred with similar frequency among pediatric and adult patients, including pruritus, xerosis, flexural involvement, extensor involvement, early onset of disease, comorbid atopy, head and neck involvement, and ophthalmic comorbidities. However, adults were found to have more signs of chronic disease, more hand eczema, different patterns of hand eczema, and a stronger relationship of disease activity with emotional factors. Meanwhile, children were found to have more exudative or weeping lesions, more perifollicular eczema, and more pityriasis alba.
Dr. Silverberg showed photos of three adults with varied presentations of extensor involvement, including one “who had a lot of lichenification and thickening of the skin, but over knees where you might think about psoriasis,” he said. “All three of these patients were of Southeast Asian descent. That happens to be a region where this feature was reported much more commonly. It may even tie to some underlying immunopathophysiologic differences of the disease across different patient populations.”
AD signs that occur more commonly in adults than children include lichenification (100% vs. 48%), urticaria (32% vs. 20%), popular lichenoid lesions (46% vs. 8%), Hertoghe’s sign (25% vs. 2%), erythroderma (29% vs. 1%), and nodular prurigo (18% vs. 4%).
Hand eczema features also differ between adults and children, including hand or foot dermatitis (44% vs. 25%), dyshidrosis/pompholyx (21% vs. 3%), knuckle dermatitis (25% vs. 8%), nail involvement (15% vs. 8%), and fissured heels. However, ventral wrist dermatitis was found to be more than twice as common in children, compared with adults (34% vs. 15%).
Other signs of AD were more common in children, compared with adults, including exudative eczema (61% vs. 42%), pityriasis alba (28% vs. 18%), Dennie-Morgan infraorbital folds (47% vs. 36%), seborrheic dermatitis–like lesions (40% vs. 18%), and perifollicular accentuation (37% vs. 21%). “This is such an important sign to wrap your head around and get comfortable assessing,” he said. “I have seen patients who are erythrodermic with follicular eczema who were told that they were crazy and had psychogenic itch, and they should go to a shrink.”
AD triggers can differ between adults and children as well, including course influenced by emotions/environmental factors (72% vs. 32%), worsening itch worse (65% vs. 49%), course influenced by environment (62% vs. 37%), and course influenced by emotions (70% vs. 15%).
According to Dr. Silverberg, emerging research suggests that there may be differences in the immune pathways activated in pediatric versus adult AD. Specifically, more Th17 and interferon-gamma in AD lesions have been observed in children, compared with adults, and more Th22 and Th17 in nonlesional AD have been seen in children, compared with adults. “This leads to a question: Will children respond differently than adults to treatment?” Dr. Silverberg said. “We see that omalizumab doesn’t seem to help much in adults, yet a recent study suggested that it might work reasonably well for children. Dupilumab has different dosing requirements and potentially different responses between the pediatric and adult populations.”
Age differences in AD may also be related to differences in the skin microbiome. In 2016, researchers led by Richard L. Gallo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of California, San Diego, compared the skin microbiome between adults and children with AD by swabbing the volar forearm and performing 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The study included 59 young children, 13 teenagers, and 56 adults with AD as well as 68 age-matched non-atopic healthy controls. The researchers found a greater abundance of Streptococcus, Granulicatella, Gemella, Rothia, and Haemophilus in young children, compared with adults, while Propionibacterium, Corynebacterium, Staphylococcus, Lactobacillus, Finegoldia, and Anaerococcus were more abundant in adults, compared with children.
Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.
“Maybe not,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.
Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, based his comments largely on a review that he and his colleagues carried out to understand how features of atopic dermatitis (AD) vary by region globally as well as by age. They identified 101 studies with sufficient data for meta-analysis and stratified the results by pediatric and adult age groups.
Several signs and symptoms occurred with similar frequency among pediatric and adult patients, including pruritus, xerosis, flexural involvement, extensor involvement, early onset of disease, comorbid atopy, head and neck involvement, and ophthalmic comorbidities. However, adults were found to have more signs of chronic disease, more hand eczema, different patterns of hand eczema, and a stronger relationship of disease activity with emotional factors. Meanwhile, children were found to have more exudative or weeping lesions, more perifollicular eczema, and more pityriasis alba.
Dr. Silverberg showed photos of three adults with varied presentations of extensor involvement, including one “who had a lot of lichenification and thickening of the skin, but over knees where you might think about psoriasis,” he said. “All three of these patients were of Southeast Asian descent. That happens to be a region where this feature was reported much more commonly. It may even tie to some underlying immunopathophysiologic differences of the disease across different patient populations.”
AD signs that occur more commonly in adults than children include lichenification (100% vs. 48%), urticaria (32% vs. 20%), popular lichenoid lesions (46% vs. 8%), Hertoghe’s sign (25% vs. 2%), erythroderma (29% vs. 1%), and nodular prurigo (18% vs. 4%).
Hand eczema features also differ between adults and children, including hand or foot dermatitis (44% vs. 25%), dyshidrosis/pompholyx (21% vs. 3%), knuckle dermatitis (25% vs. 8%), nail involvement (15% vs. 8%), and fissured heels. However, ventral wrist dermatitis was found to be more than twice as common in children, compared with adults (34% vs. 15%).
Other signs of AD were more common in children, compared with adults, including exudative eczema (61% vs. 42%), pityriasis alba (28% vs. 18%), Dennie-Morgan infraorbital folds (47% vs. 36%), seborrheic dermatitis–like lesions (40% vs. 18%), and perifollicular accentuation (37% vs. 21%). “This is such an important sign to wrap your head around and get comfortable assessing,” he said. “I have seen patients who are erythrodermic with follicular eczema who were told that they were crazy and had psychogenic itch, and they should go to a shrink.”
AD triggers can differ between adults and children as well, including course influenced by emotions/environmental factors (72% vs. 32%), worsening itch worse (65% vs. 49%), course influenced by environment (62% vs. 37%), and course influenced by emotions (70% vs. 15%).
According to Dr. Silverberg, emerging research suggests that there may be differences in the immune pathways activated in pediatric versus adult AD. Specifically, more Th17 and interferon-gamma in AD lesions have been observed in children, compared with adults, and more Th22 and Th17 in nonlesional AD have been seen in children, compared with adults. “This leads to a question: Will children respond differently than adults to treatment?” Dr. Silverberg said. “We see that omalizumab doesn’t seem to help much in adults, yet a recent study suggested that it might work reasonably well for children. Dupilumab has different dosing requirements and potentially different responses between the pediatric and adult populations.”
Age differences in AD may also be related to differences in the skin microbiome. In 2016, researchers led by Richard L. Gallo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of California, San Diego, compared the skin microbiome between adults and children with AD by swabbing the volar forearm and performing 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The study included 59 young children, 13 teenagers, and 56 adults with AD as well as 68 age-matched non-atopic healthy controls. The researchers found a greater abundance of Streptococcus, Granulicatella, Gemella, Rothia, and Haemophilus in young children, compared with adults, while Propionibacterium, Corynebacterium, Staphylococcus, Lactobacillus, Finegoldia, and Anaerococcus were more abundant in adults, compared with children.
Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.
FROM REVOLUTIONIZING AD 2020
Expert highlights advances in DRESS
Mounting evidence suggests , Sarah Walsh, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The standard dictum has been that diagnosis of this severe T-cell-mediated drug reaction requires more than a 2-week delay in symptom onset following initial drug intake. But this can steer physicians in the wrong direction and lead to stopping an innocent drug while the true culprit medication remains on board. This adversely affects patient prognosis, since a longer duration of drug exposure after symptom onset is associated with increased hospital length of stay and greater mortality risk, explained Dr. Walsh, clinical lead for dermatology at King’s College Hospital, London.
In addition to . These include clues provided by rash morphology and histopathology, HLA testing, and a novel scoring system to assess DRESS severity and the risk of potentially fatal cytomegalovirus reactivation.
Short-delay DRESS onset
In a retrospective study of 41 patients with a first episode of DRESS in three French dermatology departments, 14 (34%) had onset within 15 days or less of initial exposure to the causative drug. In 6 of 14 patients in the rapid-onset group the offending drug was an antibiotic, while in another 5 the culprit was iodinated contrast media. In the delayed-onset DRESS group, the chief sensitizers were allopurinol in 8 patients, lamotrigine in 6, carbamazepine in 4, and sulfasalazine in 2; of note, none of these 4 delayed-onset DRESS drugs were implicated in any cases of rapid-onset DRESS. There were no differences in the clinical manifestations of DRESS between the rapid- and delayed-onset groups.
Similarly, dermatologists at Government Medical College in Kerala, India, reported in a retrospective study of 100 consecutive patients with DRESS, the drug reaction emerged within 2 weeks after starting the culprit medication in 36% of cases. Indeed, 11 patients became symptomatic within 3-7 days after beginning the medication; in 10 of the 11 cases, the offending agent was an antibiotic, and in 1 patient it was terbinafine. In the 25 cases of DRESS that arose on day 8-14 of drug therapy, the culprit was phenytoin in 14, antibiotics in 6, and 1 each for clopidogrel, hydroxychloroquine, sodium valproate, lamotrigine, and vitamin D3.
Both groups of investigators concluded that a short time lag between starting a drug and development of symptoms of a drug reaction shouldn’t rule out DRESS as a possibility provided other criteria consistent with the diagnosis are present. Hallmarks of DRESS include an acute extensive rash, fever greater than 38 degrees C, enlarged lymph nodes at two or more sites, internal organ involvement, a low platelet count, elevated eosinophils, and abnormal lymphocyte levels.
Rash morphology and histology as prognostic indicators
Dr. Walsh was the lead investigator in a study that identified four distinct patterns of skin involvement in patients with DRESS. The most common type of rash in this single-center retrospective study of 27 consecutive patients was an urticated papular exanthem, present in 13 of the 27 patients. An erythema multiforme-like reaction was present in 8, exfoliative erythroderma in 3, and a morbilliform erythema in 3 others. The worst prognosis was in the subgroup with an erythema multiforme-like rash.
All 27 patients had hepatic involvement, which was severe in 9 cases. Six of the 9 with severe liver impairment had an erythema multiforme-like rash, compared with just 2 of the 18 with mild or moderate liver involvement; thus, an erythema multiforme-like skin eruption was associated with a fivefold increased likelihood of severe hepatic involvement.
“It is a clinical sign that we take seriously at presentation if atypical target lesions are present,” the dermatologist said.
Separately, Taiwanese investigators compared clinical and histopathologic features in a study of 32 patients with DRESS and 17 with maculopapular exanthem. Interface vacuolization, which was present in 29 of the 32 patients with DRESS, was far more prominent than in the comparator group. Moreover, severe dyskeratosis was significantly associated with more severe liver impairment in the DRESS group.
HLA testing
Testing for HLA haplotypes associated with severe drug reactions has a useful role as a screening tool prior to prescribing selected high-risk drugs, Dr. Walsh said. For example, it’s known that 6.8% of individuals of European ancestry carry HLA-A*32:01, an allele that was strongly associated with an increased rate of vancomycin-associated DRESS in a case-control study at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. Indeed, 19 of 23 individuals with vancomycin-associated DRESS were HLA-A*32:01 positive, compared with none of 46 vancomycin-tolerant controls. Nineteen percent of HLA-A*32:01-positive patients developed DRESS during treatment with vancomycin, and the drug reaction occurred within 4 weeks.
The investigators noted that testing for HLA-A*32:01 is also useful in DRESS occurring in patients on vancomycin and multiple other drugs because the test’s high negative predictive value may safely allow continued therapy with this potent antibiotic for Gram-positive infections.
A DRESS prognostic scoring system
Japanese researchers have developed a scoring system for DRESS for use in monitoring severity of the drug reaction, predicting prognosis, and estimating the risk of developing cytomegalovirus disease and its potentially fatal complications. The scoring system incorporates patient factors, including age, duration of drug exposure after symptom onset; rash characteristics, such as percentage of body surface area involved and presence or absence of erythroderma; appetite loss; and laboratory values.
“It yields a prognostic score that can be used to determine treatment choices, such as immediate intervention with anti-CMV agents. It’s a very useful tool,” Dr. Walsh said.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
Mounting evidence suggests , Sarah Walsh, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The standard dictum has been that diagnosis of this severe T-cell-mediated drug reaction requires more than a 2-week delay in symptom onset following initial drug intake. But this can steer physicians in the wrong direction and lead to stopping an innocent drug while the true culprit medication remains on board. This adversely affects patient prognosis, since a longer duration of drug exposure after symptom onset is associated with increased hospital length of stay and greater mortality risk, explained Dr. Walsh, clinical lead for dermatology at King’s College Hospital, London.
In addition to . These include clues provided by rash morphology and histopathology, HLA testing, and a novel scoring system to assess DRESS severity and the risk of potentially fatal cytomegalovirus reactivation.
Short-delay DRESS onset
In a retrospective study of 41 patients with a first episode of DRESS in three French dermatology departments, 14 (34%) had onset within 15 days or less of initial exposure to the causative drug. In 6 of 14 patients in the rapid-onset group the offending drug was an antibiotic, while in another 5 the culprit was iodinated contrast media. In the delayed-onset DRESS group, the chief sensitizers were allopurinol in 8 patients, lamotrigine in 6, carbamazepine in 4, and sulfasalazine in 2; of note, none of these 4 delayed-onset DRESS drugs were implicated in any cases of rapid-onset DRESS. There were no differences in the clinical manifestations of DRESS between the rapid- and delayed-onset groups.
Similarly, dermatologists at Government Medical College in Kerala, India, reported in a retrospective study of 100 consecutive patients with DRESS, the drug reaction emerged within 2 weeks after starting the culprit medication in 36% of cases. Indeed, 11 patients became symptomatic within 3-7 days after beginning the medication; in 10 of the 11 cases, the offending agent was an antibiotic, and in 1 patient it was terbinafine. In the 25 cases of DRESS that arose on day 8-14 of drug therapy, the culprit was phenytoin in 14, antibiotics in 6, and 1 each for clopidogrel, hydroxychloroquine, sodium valproate, lamotrigine, and vitamin D3.
Both groups of investigators concluded that a short time lag between starting a drug and development of symptoms of a drug reaction shouldn’t rule out DRESS as a possibility provided other criteria consistent with the diagnosis are present. Hallmarks of DRESS include an acute extensive rash, fever greater than 38 degrees C, enlarged lymph nodes at two or more sites, internal organ involvement, a low platelet count, elevated eosinophils, and abnormal lymphocyte levels.
Rash morphology and histology as prognostic indicators
Dr. Walsh was the lead investigator in a study that identified four distinct patterns of skin involvement in patients with DRESS. The most common type of rash in this single-center retrospective study of 27 consecutive patients was an urticated papular exanthem, present in 13 of the 27 patients. An erythema multiforme-like reaction was present in 8, exfoliative erythroderma in 3, and a morbilliform erythema in 3 others. The worst prognosis was in the subgroup with an erythema multiforme-like rash.
All 27 patients had hepatic involvement, which was severe in 9 cases. Six of the 9 with severe liver impairment had an erythema multiforme-like rash, compared with just 2 of the 18 with mild or moderate liver involvement; thus, an erythema multiforme-like skin eruption was associated with a fivefold increased likelihood of severe hepatic involvement.
“It is a clinical sign that we take seriously at presentation if atypical target lesions are present,” the dermatologist said.
Separately, Taiwanese investigators compared clinical and histopathologic features in a study of 32 patients with DRESS and 17 with maculopapular exanthem. Interface vacuolization, which was present in 29 of the 32 patients with DRESS, was far more prominent than in the comparator group. Moreover, severe dyskeratosis was significantly associated with more severe liver impairment in the DRESS group.
HLA testing
Testing for HLA haplotypes associated with severe drug reactions has a useful role as a screening tool prior to prescribing selected high-risk drugs, Dr. Walsh said. For example, it’s known that 6.8% of individuals of European ancestry carry HLA-A*32:01, an allele that was strongly associated with an increased rate of vancomycin-associated DRESS in a case-control study at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. Indeed, 19 of 23 individuals with vancomycin-associated DRESS were HLA-A*32:01 positive, compared with none of 46 vancomycin-tolerant controls. Nineteen percent of HLA-A*32:01-positive patients developed DRESS during treatment with vancomycin, and the drug reaction occurred within 4 weeks.
The investigators noted that testing for HLA-A*32:01 is also useful in DRESS occurring in patients on vancomycin and multiple other drugs because the test’s high negative predictive value may safely allow continued therapy with this potent antibiotic for Gram-positive infections.
A DRESS prognostic scoring system
Japanese researchers have developed a scoring system for DRESS for use in monitoring severity of the drug reaction, predicting prognosis, and estimating the risk of developing cytomegalovirus disease and its potentially fatal complications. The scoring system incorporates patient factors, including age, duration of drug exposure after symptom onset; rash characteristics, such as percentage of body surface area involved and presence or absence of erythroderma; appetite loss; and laboratory values.
“It yields a prognostic score that can be used to determine treatment choices, such as immediate intervention with anti-CMV agents. It’s a very useful tool,” Dr. Walsh said.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
Mounting evidence suggests , Sarah Walsh, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The standard dictum has been that diagnosis of this severe T-cell-mediated drug reaction requires more than a 2-week delay in symptom onset following initial drug intake. But this can steer physicians in the wrong direction and lead to stopping an innocent drug while the true culprit medication remains on board. This adversely affects patient prognosis, since a longer duration of drug exposure after symptom onset is associated with increased hospital length of stay and greater mortality risk, explained Dr. Walsh, clinical lead for dermatology at King’s College Hospital, London.
In addition to . These include clues provided by rash morphology and histopathology, HLA testing, and a novel scoring system to assess DRESS severity and the risk of potentially fatal cytomegalovirus reactivation.
Short-delay DRESS onset
In a retrospective study of 41 patients with a first episode of DRESS in three French dermatology departments, 14 (34%) had onset within 15 days or less of initial exposure to the causative drug. In 6 of 14 patients in the rapid-onset group the offending drug was an antibiotic, while in another 5 the culprit was iodinated contrast media. In the delayed-onset DRESS group, the chief sensitizers were allopurinol in 8 patients, lamotrigine in 6, carbamazepine in 4, and sulfasalazine in 2; of note, none of these 4 delayed-onset DRESS drugs were implicated in any cases of rapid-onset DRESS. There were no differences in the clinical manifestations of DRESS between the rapid- and delayed-onset groups.
Similarly, dermatologists at Government Medical College in Kerala, India, reported in a retrospective study of 100 consecutive patients with DRESS, the drug reaction emerged within 2 weeks after starting the culprit medication in 36% of cases. Indeed, 11 patients became symptomatic within 3-7 days after beginning the medication; in 10 of the 11 cases, the offending agent was an antibiotic, and in 1 patient it was terbinafine. In the 25 cases of DRESS that arose on day 8-14 of drug therapy, the culprit was phenytoin in 14, antibiotics in 6, and 1 each for clopidogrel, hydroxychloroquine, sodium valproate, lamotrigine, and vitamin D3.
Both groups of investigators concluded that a short time lag between starting a drug and development of symptoms of a drug reaction shouldn’t rule out DRESS as a possibility provided other criteria consistent with the diagnosis are present. Hallmarks of DRESS include an acute extensive rash, fever greater than 38 degrees C, enlarged lymph nodes at two or more sites, internal organ involvement, a low platelet count, elevated eosinophils, and abnormal lymphocyte levels.
Rash morphology and histology as prognostic indicators
Dr. Walsh was the lead investigator in a study that identified four distinct patterns of skin involvement in patients with DRESS. The most common type of rash in this single-center retrospective study of 27 consecutive patients was an urticated papular exanthem, present in 13 of the 27 patients. An erythema multiforme-like reaction was present in 8, exfoliative erythroderma in 3, and a morbilliform erythema in 3 others. The worst prognosis was in the subgroup with an erythema multiforme-like rash.
All 27 patients had hepatic involvement, which was severe in 9 cases. Six of the 9 with severe liver impairment had an erythema multiforme-like rash, compared with just 2 of the 18 with mild or moderate liver involvement; thus, an erythema multiforme-like skin eruption was associated with a fivefold increased likelihood of severe hepatic involvement.
“It is a clinical sign that we take seriously at presentation if atypical target lesions are present,” the dermatologist said.
Separately, Taiwanese investigators compared clinical and histopathologic features in a study of 32 patients with DRESS and 17 with maculopapular exanthem. Interface vacuolization, which was present in 29 of the 32 patients with DRESS, was far more prominent than in the comparator group. Moreover, severe dyskeratosis was significantly associated with more severe liver impairment in the DRESS group.
HLA testing
Testing for HLA haplotypes associated with severe drug reactions has a useful role as a screening tool prior to prescribing selected high-risk drugs, Dr. Walsh said. For example, it’s known that 6.8% of individuals of European ancestry carry HLA-A*32:01, an allele that was strongly associated with an increased rate of vancomycin-associated DRESS in a case-control study at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. Indeed, 19 of 23 individuals with vancomycin-associated DRESS were HLA-A*32:01 positive, compared with none of 46 vancomycin-tolerant controls. Nineteen percent of HLA-A*32:01-positive patients developed DRESS during treatment with vancomycin, and the drug reaction occurred within 4 weeks.
The investigators noted that testing for HLA-A*32:01 is also useful in DRESS occurring in patients on vancomycin and multiple other drugs because the test’s high negative predictive value may safely allow continued therapy with this potent antibiotic for Gram-positive infections.
A DRESS prognostic scoring system
Japanese researchers have developed a scoring system for DRESS for use in monitoring severity of the drug reaction, predicting prognosis, and estimating the risk of developing cytomegalovirus disease and its potentially fatal complications. The scoring system incorporates patient factors, including age, duration of drug exposure after symptom onset; rash characteristics, such as percentage of body surface area involved and presence or absence of erythroderma; appetite loss; and laboratory values.
“It yields a prognostic score that can be used to determine treatment choices, such as immediate intervention with anti-CMV agents. It’s a very useful tool,” Dr. Walsh said.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
NAFLD linked to worse outcomes in IBD
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with worse outcomes, and that relationship may be influenced by nonmetabolic factors. That is the conclusion of a new nationwide database analysis. NAFLD is common in IBD, with an estimated prevalence of 27%-32%.
Previous, smaller studies showed possible links between NAFLD and a history of IBD surgery, IBD disease activity, and metabolic factors, “but none of the studies looked at it on the scale that we did, and our study was more focused on outcomes than simply examining factors associated with both NAFLD and IBD,” Shaya Noorian, MD, of UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Noorian presented the research at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
Dr. Noorian and colleagues found higher rates of hospital readmission, longer hospitalization, and higher costs, but not higher rates of death among patients with both Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and NAFLD. The researchers analyzed data from patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2017), using ICD-10 codes to identify patients with IBD and NAFLD, along with propensity-matched controls. The study included 3,655 with Crohn’s disease and NAFLD and 7,482 without, and there were 2,026 with ulcerative colitis and NAFLD 4,094 without.
IBD hospital readmission rates were higher with comorbid NAFLD in Crohn’s disease (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-2.17; P < .001) and ulcerative colitis (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.67-2.32; P < .001). Comorbid NAFLD was associated with additional length of stay Crohn’s disease (0.74 days; 95% CI, 0.29-1.18; P < .01) and ulcerative colitis (0.84 days; 0.32-1.35, respectively; P < .01), and there was additional cost of care with both Crohn’s disease ($7,766; 95% CI, $2,693-$12,839; P < .01) and ulcerative colitis ($11,496; 95% CI, $4,361-$18,631; P < .01).
Kaplan Meier curves for IBD readmission-free survival versus days since discharge showed clear separation in both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis among patients with versus those without NAFLD.
Although evidence points to nonmetabolic factors being involved, metabolic factors such as obesity and diabetes are likely important as well. “We still do recognize that it’s very likely that these metabolic factors play a role in developing NAFLD in IBD. I think the fact that there are worse outcomes in patients with NAFLD supports the fact that we should do our best to control the metabolic factors like diabetes, obesity, et cetera. We don’t want to minimize that aspect of it. But I think the fact that there were still worse outcomes after adjusting for metabolic factors emphasizes the importance of researching these factors further to see which ones are the main contributors. If we can find the main contributor, whether that’s medication, IBD disease burden, or history of surgery, perhaps we can use that information to prevent development or progression of NAFLD,” said Dr. Noorian.
“Historical reports have examined the relationship between Crohn’s disease and NAFLD. The currently study included both Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis, thus impressively demonstrating the importance of this interaction across IBD,” said Matthew Ciorba, MD, director of the IBD Center at Washington University in St. Louis, who attended the session.
“This is the largest study to date, and the signal is very clear. It really does underscore the need [to study not just how] medications and other factors influence the clinical syndrome, but how it happens mechanistically. There are a multitude of metabolic interactions going on between the gut and liver. We need to understand this better – not just at the systemic level, but at the enterohepatic circulation level,” said Dr. Ciorba.
Possible mechanisms include liver toxicity due to medication, IBD-associated inflammation, or changes to gut bacteria, according to Dr. Noorian.
The study also brings to light something that could become an emerging problem. “In the past, Crohn’s patients were oftentimes thin because their Crohn’s disease wasn’t well treated. They were taking steroids all the time, so they had fat redistribution, including to the liver. Now we see IBD patients who are obese, and most are not underweight. It has become a compounding problem at this point with both conditions contributing to morbidity,” said Dr. Ciorba.
The study had no source of funding. Dr. Noorian and Dr. Ciorba have no relevant financial disclosures.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with worse outcomes, and that relationship may be influenced by nonmetabolic factors. That is the conclusion of a new nationwide database analysis. NAFLD is common in IBD, with an estimated prevalence of 27%-32%.
Previous, smaller studies showed possible links between NAFLD and a history of IBD surgery, IBD disease activity, and metabolic factors, “but none of the studies looked at it on the scale that we did, and our study was more focused on outcomes than simply examining factors associated with both NAFLD and IBD,” Shaya Noorian, MD, of UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Noorian presented the research at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
Dr. Noorian and colleagues found higher rates of hospital readmission, longer hospitalization, and higher costs, but not higher rates of death among patients with both Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and NAFLD. The researchers analyzed data from patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2017), using ICD-10 codes to identify patients with IBD and NAFLD, along with propensity-matched controls. The study included 3,655 with Crohn’s disease and NAFLD and 7,482 without, and there were 2,026 with ulcerative colitis and NAFLD 4,094 without.
IBD hospital readmission rates were higher with comorbid NAFLD in Crohn’s disease (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-2.17; P < .001) and ulcerative colitis (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.67-2.32; P < .001). Comorbid NAFLD was associated with additional length of stay Crohn’s disease (0.74 days; 95% CI, 0.29-1.18; P < .01) and ulcerative colitis (0.84 days; 0.32-1.35, respectively; P < .01), and there was additional cost of care with both Crohn’s disease ($7,766; 95% CI, $2,693-$12,839; P < .01) and ulcerative colitis ($11,496; 95% CI, $4,361-$18,631; P < .01).
Kaplan Meier curves for IBD readmission-free survival versus days since discharge showed clear separation in both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis among patients with versus those without NAFLD.
Although evidence points to nonmetabolic factors being involved, metabolic factors such as obesity and diabetes are likely important as well. “We still do recognize that it’s very likely that these metabolic factors play a role in developing NAFLD in IBD. I think the fact that there are worse outcomes in patients with NAFLD supports the fact that we should do our best to control the metabolic factors like diabetes, obesity, et cetera. We don’t want to minimize that aspect of it. But I think the fact that there were still worse outcomes after adjusting for metabolic factors emphasizes the importance of researching these factors further to see which ones are the main contributors. If we can find the main contributor, whether that’s medication, IBD disease burden, or history of surgery, perhaps we can use that information to prevent development or progression of NAFLD,” said Dr. Noorian.
“Historical reports have examined the relationship between Crohn’s disease and NAFLD. The currently study included both Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis, thus impressively demonstrating the importance of this interaction across IBD,” said Matthew Ciorba, MD, director of the IBD Center at Washington University in St. Louis, who attended the session.
“This is the largest study to date, and the signal is very clear. It really does underscore the need [to study not just how] medications and other factors influence the clinical syndrome, but how it happens mechanistically. There are a multitude of metabolic interactions going on between the gut and liver. We need to understand this better – not just at the systemic level, but at the enterohepatic circulation level,” said Dr. Ciorba.
Possible mechanisms include liver toxicity due to medication, IBD-associated inflammation, or changes to gut bacteria, according to Dr. Noorian.
The study also brings to light something that could become an emerging problem. “In the past, Crohn’s patients were oftentimes thin because their Crohn’s disease wasn’t well treated. They were taking steroids all the time, so they had fat redistribution, including to the liver. Now we see IBD patients who are obese, and most are not underweight. It has become a compounding problem at this point with both conditions contributing to morbidity,” said Dr. Ciorba.
The study had no source of funding. Dr. Noorian and Dr. Ciorba have no relevant financial disclosures.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with worse outcomes, and that relationship may be influenced by nonmetabolic factors. That is the conclusion of a new nationwide database analysis. NAFLD is common in IBD, with an estimated prevalence of 27%-32%.
Previous, smaller studies showed possible links between NAFLD and a history of IBD surgery, IBD disease activity, and metabolic factors, “but none of the studies looked at it on the scale that we did, and our study was more focused on outcomes than simply examining factors associated with both NAFLD and IBD,” Shaya Noorian, MD, of UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Noorian presented the research at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
Dr. Noorian and colleagues found higher rates of hospital readmission, longer hospitalization, and higher costs, but not higher rates of death among patients with both Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and NAFLD. The researchers analyzed data from patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2017), using ICD-10 codes to identify patients with IBD and NAFLD, along with propensity-matched controls. The study included 3,655 with Crohn’s disease and NAFLD and 7,482 without, and there were 2,026 with ulcerative colitis and NAFLD 4,094 without.
IBD hospital readmission rates were higher with comorbid NAFLD in Crohn’s disease (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-2.17; P < .001) and ulcerative colitis (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.67-2.32; P < .001). Comorbid NAFLD was associated with additional length of stay Crohn’s disease (0.74 days; 95% CI, 0.29-1.18; P < .01) and ulcerative colitis (0.84 days; 0.32-1.35, respectively; P < .01), and there was additional cost of care with both Crohn’s disease ($7,766; 95% CI, $2,693-$12,839; P < .01) and ulcerative colitis ($11,496; 95% CI, $4,361-$18,631; P < .01).
Kaplan Meier curves for IBD readmission-free survival versus days since discharge showed clear separation in both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis among patients with versus those without NAFLD.
Although evidence points to nonmetabolic factors being involved, metabolic factors such as obesity and diabetes are likely important as well. “We still do recognize that it’s very likely that these metabolic factors play a role in developing NAFLD in IBD. I think the fact that there are worse outcomes in patients with NAFLD supports the fact that we should do our best to control the metabolic factors like diabetes, obesity, et cetera. We don’t want to minimize that aspect of it. But I think the fact that there were still worse outcomes after adjusting for metabolic factors emphasizes the importance of researching these factors further to see which ones are the main contributors. If we can find the main contributor, whether that’s medication, IBD disease burden, or history of surgery, perhaps we can use that information to prevent development or progression of NAFLD,” said Dr. Noorian.
“Historical reports have examined the relationship between Crohn’s disease and NAFLD. The currently study included both Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis, thus impressively demonstrating the importance of this interaction across IBD,” said Matthew Ciorba, MD, director of the IBD Center at Washington University in St. Louis, who attended the session.
“This is the largest study to date, and the signal is very clear. It really does underscore the need [to study not just how] medications and other factors influence the clinical syndrome, but how it happens mechanistically. There are a multitude of metabolic interactions going on between the gut and liver. We need to understand this better – not just at the systemic level, but at the enterohepatic circulation level,” said Dr. Ciorba.
Possible mechanisms include liver toxicity due to medication, IBD-associated inflammation, or changes to gut bacteria, according to Dr. Noorian.
The study also brings to light something that could become an emerging problem. “In the past, Crohn’s patients were oftentimes thin because their Crohn’s disease wasn’t well treated. They were taking steroids all the time, so they had fat redistribution, including to the liver. Now we see IBD patients who are obese, and most are not underweight. It has become a compounding problem at this point with both conditions contributing to morbidity,” said Dr. Ciorba.
The study had no source of funding. Dr. Noorian and Dr. Ciorba have no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM THE CROHN’S & COLITIS CONGRESS
AI can identify biomarkers and potentially guide therapy in NSCLC
Researchers developed deep learning models that could accurately predict a patient’s PD-L1 and EGFR mutation status without the need for a biopsy. If these models are validated in prospective trials, they could guide treatment decisions in patients with NSCLC, according to the researchers.
Wei Mu, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Fla., described this research at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-03).
Rationale
Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) endorse tailored treatment for patients with NSCLC; namely, immune checkpoint inhibitors for those with PD-L1-positive tumors and EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patients with tumors harboring a mutation in EGFR.
However, the conventional approach to ascertaining tumor status for these biomarkers has disadvantages, Dr. Mu noted.
“Both require biopsy, which may fail due to insufficient quality of the tissue and, particularly for NSCLC, may increase the chance of morbidity,” Dr. Mu said.
In addition, there is room for improvement in the rigor of the biomarker assays, and there can be substantial wait times for results.
To address these issues, Dr. Mu and colleagues explored an AI radiomics approach using PET/CT scans.
“We know that EGFR mutation and positive PD-L1 expression may change the metabolism of the peritumor and intratumor microenvironment,” Dr. Mu explained. “Therefore, we had the hypothesis that they can be captured by the FDG-PET/CT images.”
Results
The investigators used FDG-PET/CT images from 837 patients with advanced NSCLC treated at four institutions. The team developed AI deep learning models that generated one score for PD-L1 positivity and another score for presence of an EGFR mutation, as well as an associated algorithm that would direct patients to the appropriate treatments depending on the scores.
Results for the PD-L1 deep learning score showed good accuracy in predicting positivity for this ligand, with an area under the curve of 0.89 in the training cohort, 0.84 in the validation cohort, and 0.82 in an external test cohort, Dr. Mu reported. All exceeded the corresponding areas under the curve for maximal standardized uptake values.
Moreover, the score was prognostic and statistically indistinguishable from PD-L1 status determined by immunohistochemistry in predicting progression-free survival.
Similarly, the EGFR deep learning score showed good accuracy in predicting mutational status, with an area under the curve of 0.86 in the training cohort, 0.83 in the validation cohort, and 0.81 in an external test cohort. It outperformed a clinical score based on sex, smoking status, tumor histology, and maximal standardized uptake value in each cohort.
The EGFR deep learning score was prognostic and statistically indistinguishable from EGFR mutational status determined by polymerase chain reaction in predicting progression-free survival.
The models showed good stability when size of the input region of interest was varied, and when different radiologists delineated the region of interest, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91.
“We developed deep learning models to predict PD-L1 status and EGFR mutation with high accuracy. Using the generated deep learning scores, we obtained a noninvasive treatment decision support tool, which may be useful as a clinical decision support tool pending validation of its clinical utility in a large prospective trial,” Dr. Mu summarized. “Using our tool, NSCLC patients could be directly offered a treatment decision without the need of biopsy.”
“In the future, we will perform a prospective observational trial to compare the results of our noninvasive treatment decision tool with molecular biomarker–based NCCN guidelines,” she said.
The investigators plan to add ALK rearrangement status and prediction of serious adverse events and cachexia to the decision support tool.
Dr. Mu disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not have specific funding.
Researchers developed deep learning models that could accurately predict a patient’s PD-L1 and EGFR mutation status without the need for a biopsy. If these models are validated in prospective trials, they could guide treatment decisions in patients with NSCLC, according to the researchers.
Wei Mu, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Fla., described this research at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-03).
Rationale
Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) endorse tailored treatment for patients with NSCLC; namely, immune checkpoint inhibitors for those with PD-L1-positive tumors and EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patients with tumors harboring a mutation in EGFR.
However, the conventional approach to ascertaining tumor status for these biomarkers has disadvantages, Dr. Mu noted.
“Both require biopsy, which may fail due to insufficient quality of the tissue and, particularly for NSCLC, may increase the chance of morbidity,” Dr. Mu said.
In addition, there is room for improvement in the rigor of the biomarker assays, and there can be substantial wait times for results.
To address these issues, Dr. Mu and colleagues explored an AI radiomics approach using PET/CT scans.
“We know that EGFR mutation and positive PD-L1 expression may change the metabolism of the peritumor and intratumor microenvironment,” Dr. Mu explained. “Therefore, we had the hypothesis that they can be captured by the FDG-PET/CT images.”
Results
The investigators used FDG-PET/CT images from 837 patients with advanced NSCLC treated at four institutions. The team developed AI deep learning models that generated one score for PD-L1 positivity and another score for presence of an EGFR mutation, as well as an associated algorithm that would direct patients to the appropriate treatments depending on the scores.
Results for the PD-L1 deep learning score showed good accuracy in predicting positivity for this ligand, with an area under the curve of 0.89 in the training cohort, 0.84 in the validation cohort, and 0.82 in an external test cohort, Dr. Mu reported. All exceeded the corresponding areas under the curve for maximal standardized uptake values.
Moreover, the score was prognostic and statistically indistinguishable from PD-L1 status determined by immunohistochemistry in predicting progression-free survival.
Similarly, the EGFR deep learning score showed good accuracy in predicting mutational status, with an area under the curve of 0.86 in the training cohort, 0.83 in the validation cohort, and 0.81 in an external test cohort. It outperformed a clinical score based on sex, smoking status, tumor histology, and maximal standardized uptake value in each cohort.
The EGFR deep learning score was prognostic and statistically indistinguishable from EGFR mutational status determined by polymerase chain reaction in predicting progression-free survival.
The models showed good stability when size of the input region of interest was varied, and when different radiologists delineated the region of interest, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91.
“We developed deep learning models to predict PD-L1 status and EGFR mutation with high accuracy. Using the generated deep learning scores, we obtained a noninvasive treatment decision support tool, which may be useful as a clinical decision support tool pending validation of its clinical utility in a large prospective trial,” Dr. Mu summarized. “Using our tool, NSCLC patients could be directly offered a treatment decision without the need of biopsy.”
“In the future, we will perform a prospective observational trial to compare the results of our noninvasive treatment decision tool with molecular biomarker–based NCCN guidelines,” she said.
The investigators plan to add ALK rearrangement status and prediction of serious adverse events and cachexia to the decision support tool.
Dr. Mu disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not have specific funding.
Researchers developed deep learning models that could accurately predict a patient’s PD-L1 and EGFR mutation status without the need for a biopsy. If these models are validated in prospective trials, they could guide treatment decisions in patients with NSCLC, according to the researchers.
Wei Mu, PhD, of Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Fla., described this research at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (abstract PR-03).
Rationale
Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) endorse tailored treatment for patients with NSCLC; namely, immune checkpoint inhibitors for those with PD-L1-positive tumors and EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patients with tumors harboring a mutation in EGFR.
However, the conventional approach to ascertaining tumor status for these biomarkers has disadvantages, Dr. Mu noted.
“Both require biopsy, which may fail due to insufficient quality of the tissue and, particularly for NSCLC, may increase the chance of morbidity,” Dr. Mu said.
In addition, there is room for improvement in the rigor of the biomarker assays, and there can be substantial wait times for results.
To address these issues, Dr. Mu and colleagues explored an AI radiomics approach using PET/CT scans.
“We know that EGFR mutation and positive PD-L1 expression may change the metabolism of the peritumor and intratumor microenvironment,” Dr. Mu explained. “Therefore, we had the hypothesis that they can be captured by the FDG-PET/CT images.”
Results
The investigators used FDG-PET/CT images from 837 patients with advanced NSCLC treated at four institutions. The team developed AI deep learning models that generated one score for PD-L1 positivity and another score for presence of an EGFR mutation, as well as an associated algorithm that would direct patients to the appropriate treatments depending on the scores.
Results for the PD-L1 deep learning score showed good accuracy in predicting positivity for this ligand, with an area under the curve of 0.89 in the training cohort, 0.84 in the validation cohort, and 0.82 in an external test cohort, Dr. Mu reported. All exceeded the corresponding areas under the curve for maximal standardized uptake values.
Moreover, the score was prognostic and statistically indistinguishable from PD-L1 status determined by immunohistochemistry in predicting progression-free survival.
Similarly, the EGFR deep learning score showed good accuracy in predicting mutational status, with an area under the curve of 0.86 in the training cohort, 0.83 in the validation cohort, and 0.81 in an external test cohort. It outperformed a clinical score based on sex, smoking status, tumor histology, and maximal standardized uptake value in each cohort.
The EGFR deep learning score was prognostic and statistically indistinguishable from EGFR mutational status determined by polymerase chain reaction in predicting progression-free survival.
The models showed good stability when size of the input region of interest was varied, and when different radiologists delineated the region of interest, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91.
“We developed deep learning models to predict PD-L1 status and EGFR mutation with high accuracy. Using the generated deep learning scores, we obtained a noninvasive treatment decision support tool, which may be useful as a clinical decision support tool pending validation of its clinical utility in a large prospective trial,” Dr. Mu summarized. “Using our tool, NSCLC patients could be directly offered a treatment decision without the need of biopsy.”
“In the future, we will perform a prospective observational trial to compare the results of our noninvasive treatment decision tool with molecular biomarker–based NCCN guidelines,” she said.
The investigators plan to add ALK rearrangement status and prediction of serious adverse events and cachexia to the decision support tool.
Dr. Mu disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study did not have specific funding.
FROM AACR: AI, DIAGNOSIS, AND IMAGING 2021
Racial, social inequities persist in IBD
Although inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) affects primarily White patients, about one-quarter of cases are found in non-White racial and ethnic groups. Various factors have combined to lead to disparities in treatment and outcomes for non-Whites with IBD.
Ethnic and racial disparities, along with socioeconomic factors, were the subject of a presentation by Ruby Greywoode, MD, at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
“Historical and present-day realities of racial inequity and factors that contribute to socioeconomic status [include] educational and housing policies, employment practices, and generational wealth. Addressing health disparities requires acknowledging these systemic factors,” said Dr. Greywoode, who is with Montefiore Medical Center in New York.
An important concept in discussing health disparity is social determinants of health, which refers to nonbiological factors that affect health and health outcomes. These are “the conditions in which people live, work, learn, and play that affect their health and their quality of life,” said Dr. Greywoode.
Dr. Greywoode shared examples of social determinants that affect economic stability and financial worry. One study found that one in six IBD patients reported not taking their medications because of cost considerations. A survey of about 900 adults showed that 1 in 4 delayed medical care – half of those because of cost; patients who delayed care were 2.5 times more likely to report an IBD flare in the previous year.
Another important issue is food insecurity. Other presenters at the session emphasized the importance of high-quality nutrition in IBD, and Dr. Greywoode presented one survey showing that only 9% of patients who had both food security and social support reported cost-related medication nonadherence. Among those that had either food insecurity or poor social support, 12% reported cost-related medication nonadherence, but the proportion jumped to 57% among patients who had both food insecurity and lack of social support.
Session comoderator Kelly Issokson noted that socioeconomic factors often interfere with adoption of healthy diets. Whole foods and plant-based foods are expensive, and the financial pressures of the COVID-19 epidemic have made that worse. “Millions of people are slipping into poverty and food insecurity. This is one of the things she highlighted as factors in medication nonadherence,” said Ms. Issokson, who is the clinical nutritional coordinator at the digestive disease clinic at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
Dr. Greywoode also described studies that looked at race, socioeconomic status, and IBD outcomes. A review from 2013 showed disparities among Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics with respect to undergoing ulcerative colitis–related colectomy and Crohn’s disease–related bowel resection. Ulcerative colitis patients on Medicaid had 230% greater in-patient mortality, compared with patients with private insurance, even after adjustment for multiple confounders.
But inequities are not static. “Since this publication, we have numerous other studies drawing conclusions that sometimes agree with and sometimes conflict with it. My belief is that health disparities in IBD will continue to be an active area of research. We know that it takes vigilance to identify, track, and address any disparities when they do arise,” said Dr. Greywoode.
Dr. Greywoode also noted that phenotypic differences based on race and ethnicity influence disparities. She showed results from a meta-analysis that found a difference in the frequency of perianal Crohn’s disease by race and ethnicity; the highest frequency occurred in Black patients (31%), followed by Asians (22%), Whites (14%), and Hispanics (13%). Another study showed that African American patients with Crohn’s disease were more likely to develop a new abscess (adjusted odds ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-3.93) or anal fissure (aOR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.01-3.07), and were also more likely to be initiated on an anti–tumor necrosis factor drug (aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.09-3.14).
Those differences underscore the need to recognize that IBD is not just a disease for White patients. “As we move forward in IBD research, we recognize that individuals of European ancestry are not the only ones who have IBD. There is a growing diverse racial and ethnic population with IBD,” said Dr. Greywoode.
She noted that, in the United States, it is estimated that about one in four adult patients are non-Hispanic African American, Hispanic, Asians, or other ethnicities. Nevertheless, Whites are overrepresented among participants in IBD clinical trials. Some trials are composed of as much as 95% White patients, and sometimes race isn’t even listed. “It’s unclear if [race/ethnicity data are] not collected or not deemed important, but we know that what is not collected is not measured, and what is not measured can’t be evaluated, either to praise or constructively criticize,” said Dr. Greywoode.
Fortunately, there are efforts in place to improve representation in clinical trials. There has been a mandate for almost 3 decades that federally funded research must include racial and ethnic minorities who have been traditionally underrepresented. The Food and Drug Administration has also provided guidance to industry to improve diversity in clinical trial participation, and industry groups have developed strategies, including improved representation among investigators and related early-career development programs. At the community and independent health care practice levels, clinical trial networks encourage patient participation with regulatory and data management support to bolster practices with insufficient resources.
Underrepresentation in clinical trials resonated with comoderator Tina Aswani Omprakash, who is a patient advocate and a master’s in public health student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She called for greater awareness among physicians that IBD can occur among people of all backgrounds. “[Providers] would look at me and [say]: ‘There’s no way that, as a South Asian woman, you have that kind of disease.’ There’s that lack of believability,” said Ms. Aswani Omprakash.
Greater recognition of the diversity of patients, as well as the phenotypic differences found among ethnicities, could also inform clinical trial participation and, ultimately, more personalized medicine. “We have to look at these things, observe how they’re affecting populations differently, so that we can have proper medication solutions,” said Ms. Aswani Omprakash.
Dr. Greywoode and Ms. Issokson have no relevant financial disclosures. Ms. Aswani Omprakash has consulted for Genentech, AbbVie, Janssen, and Arena.
The AGA applauds researchers who are working to raise our awareness of health disparities in digestive diseases. The AGA is committed to addressing this important societal issue head on. Learn more about AGA’s commitment through the AGA Equity Project.
Updated Feb. 17, 2021.
Although inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) affects primarily White patients, about one-quarter of cases are found in non-White racial and ethnic groups. Various factors have combined to lead to disparities in treatment and outcomes for non-Whites with IBD.
Ethnic and racial disparities, along with socioeconomic factors, were the subject of a presentation by Ruby Greywoode, MD, at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
“Historical and present-day realities of racial inequity and factors that contribute to socioeconomic status [include] educational and housing policies, employment practices, and generational wealth. Addressing health disparities requires acknowledging these systemic factors,” said Dr. Greywoode, who is with Montefiore Medical Center in New York.
An important concept in discussing health disparity is social determinants of health, which refers to nonbiological factors that affect health and health outcomes. These are “the conditions in which people live, work, learn, and play that affect their health and their quality of life,” said Dr. Greywoode.
Dr. Greywoode shared examples of social determinants that affect economic stability and financial worry. One study found that one in six IBD patients reported not taking their medications because of cost considerations. A survey of about 900 adults showed that 1 in 4 delayed medical care – half of those because of cost; patients who delayed care were 2.5 times more likely to report an IBD flare in the previous year.
Another important issue is food insecurity. Other presenters at the session emphasized the importance of high-quality nutrition in IBD, and Dr. Greywoode presented one survey showing that only 9% of patients who had both food security and social support reported cost-related medication nonadherence. Among those that had either food insecurity or poor social support, 12% reported cost-related medication nonadherence, but the proportion jumped to 57% among patients who had both food insecurity and lack of social support.
Session comoderator Kelly Issokson noted that socioeconomic factors often interfere with adoption of healthy diets. Whole foods and plant-based foods are expensive, and the financial pressures of the COVID-19 epidemic have made that worse. “Millions of people are slipping into poverty and food insecurity. This is one of the things she highlighted as factors in medication nonadherence,” said Ms. Issokson, who is the clinical nutritional coordinator at the digestive disease clinic at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
Dr. Greywoode also described studies that looked at race, socioeconomic status, and IBD outcomes. A review from 2013 showed disparities among Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics with respect to undergoing ulcerative colitis–related colectomy and Crohn’s disease–related bowel resection. Ulcerative colitis patients on Medicaid had 230% greater in-patient mortality, compared with patients with private insurance, even after adjustment for multiple confounders.
But inequities are not static. “Since this publication, we have numerous other studies drawing conclusions that sometimes agree with and sometimes conflict with it. My belief is that health disparities in IBD will continue to be an active area of research. We know that it takes vigilance to identify, track, and address any disparities when they do arise,” said Dr. Greywoode.
Dr. Greywoode also noted that phenotypic differences based on race and ethnicity influence disparities. She showed results from a meta-analysis that found a difference in the frequency of perianal Crohn’s disease by race and ethnicity; the highest frequency occurred in Black patients (31%), followed by Asians (22%), Whites (14%), and Hispanics (13%). Another study showed that African American patients with Crohn’s disease were more likely to develop a new abscess (adjusted odds ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-3.93) or anal fissure (aOR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.01-3.07), and were also more likely to be initiated on an anti–tumor necrosis factor drug (aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.09-3.14).
Those differences underscore the need to recognize that IBD is not just a disease for White patients. “As we move forward in IBD research, we recognize that individuals of European ancestry are not the only ones who have IBD. There is a growing diverse racial and ethnic population with IBD,” said Dr. Greywoode.
She noted that, in the United States, it is estimated that about one in four adult patients are non-Hispanic African American, Hispanic, Asians, or other ethnicities. Nevertheless, Whites are overrepresented among participants in IBD clinical trials. Some trials are composed of as much as 95% White patients, and sometimes race isn’t even listed. “It’s unclear if [race/ethnicity data are] not collected or not deemed important, but we know that what is not collected is not measured, and what is not measured can’t be evaluated, either to praise or constructively criticize,” said Dr. Greywoode.
Fortunately, there are efforts in place to improve representation in clinical trials. There has been a mandate for almost 3 decades that federally funded research must include racial and ethnic minorities who have been traditionally underrepresented. The Food and Drug Administration has also provided guidance to industry to improve diversity in clinical trial participation, and industry groups have developed strategies, including improved representation among investigators and related early-career development programs. At the community and independent health care practice levels, clinical trial networks encourage patient participation with regulatory and data management support to bolster practices with insufficient resources.
Underrepresentation in clinical trials resonated with comoderator Tina Aswani Omprakash, who is a patient advocate and a master’s in public health student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She called for greater awareness among physicians that IBD can occur among people of all backgrounds. “[Providers] would look at me and [say]: ‘There’s no way that, as a South Asian woman, you have that kind of disease.’ There’s that lack of believability,” said Ms. Aswani Omprakash.
Greater recognition of the diversity of patients, as well as the phenotypic differences found among ethnicities, could also inform clinical trial participation and, ultimately, more personalized medicine. “We have to look at these things, observe how they’re affecting populations differently, so that we can have proper medication solutions,” said Ms. Aswani Omprakash.
Dr. Greywoode and Ms. Issokson have no relevant financial disclosures. Ms. Aswani Omprakash has consulted for Genentech, AbbVie, Janssen, and Arena.
The AGA applauds researchers who are working to raise our awareness of health disparities in digestive diseases. The AGA is committed to addressing this important societal issue head on. Learn more about AGA’s commitment through the AGA Equity Project.
Updated Feb. 17, 2021.
Although inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) affects primarily White patients, about one-quarter of cases are found in non-White racial and ethnic groups. Various factors have combined to lead to disparities in treatment and outcomes for non-Whites with IBD.
Ethnic and racial disparities, along with socioeconomic factors, were the subject of a presentation by Ruby Greywoode, MD, at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
“Historical and present-day realities of racial inequity and factors that contribute to socioeconomic status [include] educational and housing policies, employment practices, and generational wealth. Addressing health disparities requires acknowledging these systemic factors,” said Dr. Greywoode, who is with Montefiore Medical Center in New York.
An important concept in discussing health disparity is social determinants of health, which refers to nonbiological factors that affect health and health outcomes. These are “the conditions in which people live, work, learn, and play that affect their health and their quality of life,” said Dr. Greywoode.
Dr. Greywoode shared examples of social determinants that affect economic stability and financial worry. One study found that one in six IBD patients reported not taking their medications because of cost considerations. A survey of about 900 adults showed that 1 in 4 delayed medical care – half of those because of cost; patients who delayed care were 2.5 times more likely to report an IBD flare in the previous year.
Another important issue is food insecurity. Other presenters at the session emphasized the importance of high-quality nutrition in IBD, and Dr. Greywoode presented one survey showing that only 9% of patients who had both food security and social support reported cost-related medication nonadherence. Among those that had either food insecurity or poor social support, 12% reported cost-related medication nonadherence, but the proportion jumped to 57% among patients who had both food insecurity and lack of social support.
Session comoderator Kelly Issokson noted that socioeconomic factors often interfere with adoption of healthy diets. Whole foods and plant-based foods are expensive, and the financial pressures of the COVID-19 epidemic have made that worse. “Millions of people are slipping into poverty and food insecurity. This is one of the things she highlighted as factors in medication nonadherence,” said Ms. Issokson, who is the clinical nutritional coordinator at the digestive disease clinic at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
Dr. Greywoode also described studies that looked at race, socioeconomic status, and IBD outcomes. A review from 2013 showed disparities among Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics with respect to undergoing ulcerative colitis–related colectomy and Crohn’s disease–related bowel resection. Ulcerative colitis patients on Medicaid had 230% greater in-patient mortality, compared with patients with private insurance, even after adjustment for multiple confounders.
But inequities are not static. “Since this publication, we have numerous other studies drawing conclusions that sometimes agree with and sometimes conflict with it. My belief is that health disparities in IBD will continue to be an active area of research. We know that it takes vigilance to identify, track, and address any disparities when they do arise,” said Dr. Greywoode.
Dr. Greywoode also noted that phenotypic differences based on race and ethnicity influence disparities. She showed results from a meta-analysis that found a difference in the frequency of perianal Crohn’s disease by race and ethnicity; the highest frequency occurred in Black patients (31%), followed by Asians (22%), Whites (14%), and Hispanics (13%). Another study showed that African American patients with Crohn’s disease were more likely to develop a new abscess (adjusted odds ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-3.93) or anal fissure (aOR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.01-3.07), and were also more likely to be initiated on an anti–tumor necrosis factor drug (aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.09-3.14).
Those differences underscore the need to recognize that IBD is not just a disease for White patients. “As we move forward in IBD research, we recognize that individuals of European ancestry are not the only ones who have IBD. There is a growing diverse racial and ethnic population with IBD,” said Dr. Greywoode.
She noted that, in the United States, it is estimated that about one in four adult patients are non-Hispanic African American, Hispanic, Asians, or other ethnicities. Nevertheless, Whites are overrepresented among participants in IBD clinical trials. Some trials are composed of as much as 95% White patients, and sometimes race isn’t even listed. “It’s unclear if [race/ethnicity data are] not collected or not deemed important, but we know that what is not collected is not measured, and what is not measured can’t be evaluated, either to praise or constructively criticize,” said Dr. Greywoode.
Fortunately, there are efforts in place to improve representation in clinical trials. There has been a mandate for almost 3 decades that federally funded research must include racial and ethnic minorities who have been traditionally underrepresented. The Food and Drug Administration has also provided guidance to industry to improve diversity in clinical trial participation, and industry groups have developed strategies, including improved representation among investigators and related early-career development programs. At the community and independent health care practice levels, clinical trial networks encourage patient participation with regulatory and data management support to bolster practices with insufficient resources.
Underrepresentation in clinical trials resonated with comoderator Tina Aswani Omprakash, who is a patient advocate and a master’s in public health student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She called for greater awareness among physicians that IBD can occur among people of all backgrounds. “[Providers] would look at me and [say]: ‘There’s no way that, as a South Asian woman, you have that kind of disease.’ There’s that lack of believability,” said Ms. Aswani Omprakash.
Greater recognition of the diversity of patients, as well as the phenotypic differences found among ethnicities, could also inform clinical trial participation and, ultimately, more personalized medicine. “We have to look at these things, observe how they’re affecting populations differently, so that we can have proper medication solutions,” said Ms. Aswani Omprakash.
Dr. Greywoode and Ms. Issokson have no relevant financial disclosures. Ms. Aswani Omprakash has consulted for Genentech, AbbVie, Janssen, and Arena.
The AGA applauds researchers who are working to raise our awareness of health disparities in digestive diseases. The AGA is committed to addressing this important societal issue head on. Learn more about AGA’s commitment through the AGA Equity Project.
Updated Feb. 17, 2021.
FROM THE CROHN’S & COLITIS CONGRESS
COVID-19 risks linked to medications in IBD
Multicenter and population cohort studies suggest that patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are not at unique risk of contracting COVID-19 or experiencing worse outcomes, with the exception of a few risk factors such as corticosteroid use and combination therapy that appear tied to greater risk of hospitalization and mortality. The findings line up well with previous experience with infectious disease and are reassuring, but they also underscore the need to taper steroids and de-escalate from combination therapy, when possible.
“There is not a clear increased risk of getting COVID-19 among IBD patients compared to the general population, and that seems to hold even if you look at certain medication types, [even] if patients are on immunosuppressives like thiopurines or anti-TNF [anti–tumor necrosis factor] drugs,” Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Ungaro, who is with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, discussed IBD and COVID-19 risks at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
A systematic review showed that 0.3% of IBD patients contracted COVID-19 during study periods, compared with 0.2%-4.0% of the general population, and a matched-cohort analysis of a national Veterans Affairs database showed an infection prevalence of 0.23% among patients with IBD versus 0.20% among those without (P = .29). The analysis also showed use of anti-TNF therapies or thiopurines was not associated with an increased risk.
Studies show that patients with IBD in general do not appear to be at greater risk of severe disease outcomes such as hospitalization or 30-day mortality. For example, a U.S. national database study of more than 40 million patients compared 232 patients with IBD who were diagnosed with COVID-19 with 19,776 non-IBD patients and found that, after propensity matching, there were no significant association between IBD and worse outcomes (risk ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.27; P = .86) or hospitalizations (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.74-1.40; P = .91)).
However, some risk factors could be red flags. Data from the international SECURE-IBD registry showed an association between combined endpoint of ICU, requiring a ventilator, or death and advanced age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P < .01) and two or more comorbidities (aOR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.05-7.85; P < .04). More specifically to IBD, severe COVID-19 was associated with use of corticosteroids (aOR, 6.87; 95% CI, 2.30-20.51; P < .001). In terms of other therapies, another study found a similar effect with thiopurines (compared with TNF monotherapy; aOR, 4.08; 95% CI, 1.65-9.78; Bonferroni adjusted P = .008), and combined use of anti-TNF drugs and a thiopurine (compared with TNF monotherapy; aOR, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.73-9.61; Bonferroni adjusted P = .013), but anti-TNF therapies alone trended toward a protective effect (compared with no anti-TNF therapy; aOR, 0.69; Bonferroni adjusted P = .52). That study found no significant association between severe outcomes and anti-IL 12/23 (compared with anti-TNF monotherapy; aOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.12-8.06; P = .98) or anti-integrin biologics (compared with anti-TNF monotherapy; aOR, 2.42; 95% CI, 0.59-9.96; P = .22).
Overall, the data are “generally consistent with prior data on infections and IBD: That steroids and combination therapy increase the risk of infection and bad outcomes and that interestingly biologic monotherapy may actually confer a little bit of protection against emergent outcomes and at a minimum appears to be neutral,” said Dr. Ungaro.
He noted that the recommendations from the IOIBD COVID-19 Task Force were based on expert opinion, but the new data have largely supported them overall. He did suggest some potential modifications, including reducing thiopurine use among patients on combination therapy. According to Dr. Ungaro, the recommendations do call for withholding all IBD therapy for 10 days after positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, whether the patient is symptomatic or not. “I think the recent data is reassuring that potentially in asymptomatic and maybe even mild cases, the monotherapy biologics – we can consider not delaying administering those. I think we need more data about that, but it’s reassuring that patients on those had no worse outcomes and [in fact did] slightly better,” Dr. Ungaro said during the presentation.
The data reinforced the need to consider tapering patients off corticosteroids or combination therapies, if possible. “It’s something we were doing in regular IBD care beforehand, but the COVID-19 pandemic offers another reason to limit the use of steroids and evaluate if patients are able to de-escalate from combination therapies,” said Dr. Ungaro.
On the other hand, there was concern among some patients early in the pandemic that their immunotherapy drugs may put them at risk of contracting COVID-19, which led some to discontinue medications. Ongoing studies are illustrating the problem with this, according to David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and chair of the congress’s organizing committee. “The data do not in general suggest you should do that to protect yourself. In fact, being on the therapies may have a better outcome. Patients always want to come off their therapies, [but] during the pandemic that is a risk not worth taking. Getting sick from your Crohn’s disease or colitis, when there are limited health care resources and, in some places, limited hospital beds and where the rescue therapy might include steroids, is a risky proposition. It’s not the time to do this,” said Dr. Rubin.
With respect to vaccines, it appears so far that there is no increased risk of adverse events associated with IBD. Patients who are on immunosuppressive drugs may experience a lower response to immunization, which has been seen with other vaccines. “The benefits likely outweigh the risks based on our prior experience with other vaccinations. It’s an area of ongoing study, but I do think we should recommend that our IBD patients get the COVID-19 vaccine, especially if they have risk factors for severe disease,” said Dr. Ungaro.
Dr. Ungaro is on the advisory board for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda. He has received funding from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. He has been a speaker or received consulting fees from AbbVie and Eli Lilly. Dr. Rubin is a consultant for Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and AbbVie.
This article was updated Jan. 27, 2021.
Multicenter and population cohort studies suggest that patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are not at unique risk of contracting COVID-19 or experiencing worse outcomes, with the exception of a few risk factors such as corticosteroid use and combination therapy that appear tied to greater risk of hospitalization and mortality. The findings line up well with previous experience with infectious disease and are reassuring, but they also underscore the need to taper steroids and de-escalate from combination therapy, when possible.
“There is not a clear increased risk of getting COVID-19 among IBD patients compared to the general population, and that seems to hold even if you look at certain medication types, [even] if patients are on immunosuppressives like thiopurines or anti-TNF [anti–tumor necrosis factor] drugs,” Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Ungaro, who is with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, discussed IBD and COVID-19 risks at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
A systematic review showed that 0.3% of IBD patients contracted COVID-19 during study periods, compared with 0.2%-4.0% of the general population, and a matched-cohort analysis of a national Veterans Affairs database showed an infection prevalence of 0.23% among patients with IBD versus 0.20% among those without (P = .29). The analysis also showed use of anti-TNF therapies or thiopurines was not associated with an increased risk.
Studies show that patients with IBD in general do not appear to be at greater risk of severe disease outcomes such as hospitalization or 30-day mortality. For example, a U.S. national database study of more than 40 million patients compared 232 patients with IBD who were diagnosed with COVID-19 with 19,776 non-IBD patients and found that, after propensity matching, there were no significant association between IBD and worse outcomes (risk ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.27; P = .86) or hospitalizations (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.74-1.40; P = .91)).
However, some risk factors could be red flags. Data from the international SECURE-IBD registry showed an association between combined endpoint of ICU, requiring a ventilator, or death and advanced age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P < .01) and two or more comorbidities (aOR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.05-7.85; P < .04). More specifically to IBD, severe COVID-19 was associated with use of corticosteroids (aOR, 6.87; 95% CI, 2.30-20.51; P < .001). In terms of other therapies, another study found a similar effect with thiopurines (compared with TNF monotherapy; aOR, 4.08; 95% CI, 1.65-9.78; Bonferroni adjusted P = .008), and combined use of anti-TNF drugs and a thiopurine (compared with TNF monotherapy; aOR, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.73-9.61; Bonferroni adjusted P = .013), but anti-TNF therapies alone trended toward a protective effect (compared with no anti-TNF therapy; aOR, 0.69; Bonferroni adjusted P = .52). That study found no significant association between severe outcomes and anti-IL 12/23 (compared with anti-TNF monotherapy; aOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.12-8.06; P = .98) or anti-integrin biologics (compared with anti-TNF monotherapy; aOR, 2.42; 95% CI, 0.59-9.96; P = .22).
Overall, the data are “generally consistent with prior data on infections and IBD: That steroids and combination therapy increase the risk of infection and bad outcomes and that interestingly biologic monotherapy may actually confer a little bit of protection against emergent outcomes and at a minimum appears to be neutral,” said Dr. Ungaro.
He noted that the recommendations from the IOIBD COVID-19 Task Force were based on expert opinion, but the new data have largely supported them overall. He did suggest some potential modifications, including reducing thiopurine use among patients on combination therapy. According to Dr. Ungaro, the recommendations do call for withholding all IBD therapy for 10 days after positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, whether the patient is symptomatic or not. “I think the recent data is reassuring that potentially in asymptomatic and maybe even mild cases, the monotherapy biologics – we can consider not delaying administering those. I think we need more data about that, but it’s reassuring that patients on those had no worse outcomes and [in fact did] slightly better,” Dr. Ungaro said during the presentation.
The data reinforced the need to consider tapering patients off corticosteroids or combination therapies, if possible. “It’s something we were doing in regular IBD care beforehand, but the COVID-19 pandemic offers another reason to limit the use of steroids and evaluate if patients are able to de-escalate from combination therapies,” said Dr. Ungaro.
On the other hand, there was concern among some patients early in the pandemic that their immunotherapy drugs may put them at risk of contracting COVID-19, which led some to discontinue medications. Ongoing studies are illustrating the problem with this, according to David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and chair of the congress’s organizing committee. “The data do not in general suggest you should do that to protect yourself. In fact, being on the therapies may have a better outcome. Patients always want to come off their therapies, [but] during the pandemic that is a risk not worth taking. Getting sick from your Crohn’s disease or colitis, when there are limited health care resources and, in some places, limited hospital beds and where the rescue therapy might include steroids, is a risky proposition. It’s not the time to do this,” said Dr. Rubin.
With respect to vaccines, it appears so far that there is no increased risk of adverse events associated with IBD. Patients who are on immunosuppressive drugs may experience a lower response to immunization, which has been seen with other vaccines. “The benefits likely outweigh the risks based on our prior experience with other vaccinations. It’s an area of ongoing study, but I do think we should recommend that our IBD patients get the COVID-19 vaccine, especially if they have risk factors for severe disease,” said Dr. Ungaro.
Dr. Ungaro is on the advisory board for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda. He has received funding from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. He has been a speaker or received consulting fees from AbbVie and Eli Lilly. Dr. Rubin is a consultant for Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and AbbVie.
This article was updated Jan. 27, 2021.
Multicenter and population cohort studies suggest that patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are not at unique risk of contracting COVID-19 or experiencing worse outcomes, with the exception of a few risk factors such as corticosteroid use and combination therapy that appear tied to greater risk of hospitalization and mortality. The findings line up well with previous experience with infectious disease and are reassuring, but they also underscore the need to taper steroids and de-escalate from combination therapy, when possible.
“There is not a clear increased risk of getting COVID-19 among IBD patients compared to the general population, and that seems to hold even if you look at certain medication types, [even] if patients are on immunosuppressives like thiopurines or anti-TNF [anti–tumor necrosis factor] drugs,” Ryan C. Ungaro, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Ungaro, who is with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, discussed IBD and COVID-19 risks at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
A systematic review showed that 0.3% of IBD patients contracted COVID-19 during study periods, compared with 0.2%-4.0% of the general population, and a matched-cohort analysis of a national Veterans Affairs database showed an infection prevalence of 0.23% among patients with IBD versus 0.20% among those without (P = .29). The analysis also showed use of anti-TNF therapies or thiopurines was not associated with an increased risk.
Studies show that patients with IBD in general do not appear to be at greater risk of severe disease outcomes such as hospitalization or 30-day mortality. For example, a U.S. national database study of more than 40 million patients compared 232 patients with IBD who were diagnosed with COVID-19 with 19,776 non-IBD patients and found that, after propensity matching, there were no significant association between IBD and worse outcomes (risk ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.27; P = .86) or hospitalizations (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.74-1.40; P = .91)).
However, some risk factors could be red flags. Data from the international SECURE-IBD registry showed an association between combined endpoint of ICU, requiring a ventilator, or death and advanced age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P < .01) and two or more comorbidities (aOR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.05-7.85; P < .04). More specifically to IBD, severe COVID-19 was associated with use of corticosteroids (aOR, 6.87; 95% CI, 2.30-20.51; P < .001). In terms of other therapies, another study found a similar effect with thiopurines (compared with TNF monotherapy; aOR, 4.08; 95% CI, 1.65-9.78; Bonferroni adjusted P = .008), and combined use of anti-TNF drugs and a thiopurine (compared with TNF monotherapy; aOR, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.73-9.61; Bonferroni adjusted P = .013), but anti-TNF therapies alone trended toward a protective effect (compared with no anti-TNF therapy; aOR, 0.69; Bonferroni adjusted P = .52). That study found no significant association between severe outcomes and anti-IL 12/23 (compared with anti-TNF monotherapy; aOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.12-8.06; P = .98) or anti-integrin biologics (compared with anti-TNF monotherapy; aOR, 2.42; 95% CI, 0.59-9.96; P = .22).
Overall, the data are “generally consistent with prior data on infections and IBD: That steroids and combination therapy increase the risk of infection and bad outcomes and that interestingly biologic monotherapy may actually confer a little bit of protection against emergent outcomes and at a minimum appears to be neutral,” said Dr. Ungaro.
He noted that the recommendations from the IOIBD COVID-19 Task Force were based on expert opinion, but the new data have largely supported them overall. He did suggest some potential modifications, including reducing thiopurine use among patients on combination therapy. According to Dr. Ungaro, the recommendations do call for withholding all IBD therapy for 10 days after positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, whether the patient is symptomatic or not. “I think the recent data is reassuring that potentially in asymptomatic and maybe even mild cases, the monotherapy biologics – we can consider not delaying administering those. I think we need more data about that, but it’s reassuring that patients on those had no worse outcomes and [in fact did] slightly better,” Dr. Ungaro said during the presentation.
The data reinforced the need to consider tapering patients off corticosteroids or combination therapies, if possible. “It’s something we were doing in regular IBD care beforehand, but the COVID-19 pandemic offers another reason to limit the use of steroids and evaluate if patients are able to de-escalate from combination therapies,” said Dr. Ungaro.
On the other hand, there was concern among some patients early in the pandemic that their immunotherapy drugs may put them at risk of contracting COVID-19, which led some to discontinue medications. Ongoing studies are illustrating the problem with this, according to David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago and chair of the congress’s organizing committee. “The data do not in general suggest you should do that to protect yourself. In fact, being on the therapies may have a better outcome. Patients always want to come off their therapies, [but] during the pandemic that is a risk not worth taking. Getting sick from your Crohn’s disease or colitis, when there are limited health care resources and, in some places, limited hospital beds and where the rescue therapy might include steroids, is a risky proposition. It’s not the time to do this,” said Dr. Rubin.
With respect to vaccines, it appears so far that there is no increased risk of adverse events associated with IBD. Patients who are on immunosuppressive drugs may experience a lower response to immunization, which has been seen with other vaccines. “The benefits likely outweigh the risks based on our prior experience with other vaccinations. It’s an area of ongoing study, but I do think we should recommend that our IBD patients get the COVID-19 vaccine, especially if they have risk factors for severe disease,” said Dr. Ungaro.
Dr. Ungaro is on the advisory board for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda. He has received funding from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. He has been a speaker or received consulting fees from AbbVie and Eli Lilly. Dr. Rubin is a consultant for Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and AbbVie.
This article was updated Jan. 27, 2021.
FROM THE CROHN’S & COLITIS CONGRESS
Bathing now more widely accepted as an eczema treatment strategy
According to Noreen Heer Nicol, PhD, RN, FNP, frustration still exists for patients, families, and health care providers regarding the lack of consensus that routine bathing is good for patients with atopic dermatitis.
During the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium, she said that conflicting and vague guidelines currently exist on the topic.
“This stems from the fact that we just don’t have good studies,” said Dr. Nicol, associate dean and associate professor of nursing at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “Particularly, we don’t have randomized, controlled trials on the effects of water and bathing. It’s not just parents that are frustrated, but health care providers are as well.”
In an observational analysis, researchers evaluated results from three online surveys of dermatologists, allergists, and immunologists, and primary care physicians regarding routine bathing frequency recommendations for children with AD. It found that PCPs recommended daily bathing less than 50% of the time, while specialists recommended daily bathing more than 50% of the time.
“It seems like the PCPs have embraced that old dermatology notion when bathing was avoided in patients with AD,” Dr. Nicol said. “This lack of consensus on the basic daily care steps in AD management causes a great deal of confusion amongst patients, families, and young health care providers, in particular,” she added.
She believes that this goes back to a century-long debate about the pros and cons of bathing in AD. “We used to say that bathing will dry the skin out if you take a bath or a shower without immediately applying something like a good moisturizer. That’s where the 3-minute rule came along from the National Eczema Association, meaning that bathing hydrates the stratum corneum if you take a bath or a shower and you immediately apply that good moisturizer within 3 minutes to retain that hydration and keep the barrier intact and flexible.”
Dr. Nicol presented a stepwise management model that she has published many times over the years (see Pediatr Nursing 2020;46[2]:92-8 and J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2019;7[1]:1-16).
Step 1 consists of basic care, including skin hydration/bathing, application of a daily moisturizer, avoiding irritants, and identifying and addressing specific triggers. “This is the foundation for every step as you go forward,” she explained. Soak and seal has been a mainstay of treatment at National Jewish Health, she noted. “By that, I mean taking a soaking 10-15 minute bath in warm water daily. Gently pat away excess water. Immediately apply skin medications or moisturizer within 3 minutes. Using a gentle fragrance-free, dye-free cleanser to clean skin is also important. Avoid scrubbing.”
A review article on bathing and associated treatments in AD was published in 2017 and includes 144 references to bathing studies. A separate recommendation known as the “AD Yardstick” published by Dr. Nicol’s colleague at National Jewish Health, Mark Boguniewicz, MD, and coauthors, elaborated on the definition of basic skin care for nonlesional AD. Besides recommending the liberal and frequent application of moisturizers, it suggests management with warm baths or showers using nonsoap cleansers, usually once per day, followed by application of a moisturizer, even on clear areas.
“This is now what people are thinking as the basis of skin care in patients with AD,” Dr. Nicol said. “Warm baths and showers don’t look so controversial anymore. This model nicely lays out what we want people to remember. In the past, many times we just skipped that important step of telling people about bathing.”
In a small 2009 study, researchers conducted a quantitative assessment of combination bathing and moisturizing regimens on skin hydration in AD. They found that bathing followed by application of a moisturizer provides modest hydration benefits, though less than that of simply applying moisturizer alone. “That has not been the case for most of us who are bathing advocates,” Dr. Nicol said. “We believe that there is an additional hydration that’s gained from bathing and moisturizers done properly.”
In an earlier retrospective study of 28 patients referred to a tertiary care center for refractory chronic pruritic eruptions, researchers found that a plain-water 20-minute soak followed by smearing of midstrength corticosteroid ointment led to clearing or dramatic improvement of the lesions (Arch Dermatol 2005;14:1556-9). The authors recommended prospective studies to confirm the findings.
In a separate review of medical literature, researchers explored the role of frequent bathing in the treatment of pediatric AD (Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2016;117[1]:9-13). They found that the weight of evidence suggests that the frequent soak and smear bathing is preferred to infrequent bathing in the management of AD. Frequent bathing was defined as bathing at least once a day, while infrequent bathing was defined as bathing less than once a day.
“Bleach baths have received much attention in recent years, and have been endorsed by multiple AD guidelines, though not to the same degree as regular bathing,” Dr. Nicol said. “Right now, you can find almost as much literature for this practice as against it. The populations that seem to value from beach baths the most, however, are those with frequent infections, particularly those who are methicillin resistant. Most people recommend a maximum of two to three times per week but only with an active infection. Care must be taken to avoid additional drying or irritation of the skin from bleach.”
Many bleach bath recipes call for adding one-eighth to one-half of a cup of bleach to a tub full or water.
Dr. Nicol disclosed that she has served as an advisory board member for Eli Lilly.
According to Noreen Heer Nicol, PhD, RN, FNP, frustration still exists for patients, families, and health care providers regarding the lack of consensus that routine bathing is good for patients with atopic dermatitis.
During the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium, she said that conflicting and vague guidelines currently exist on the topic.
“This stems from the fact that we just don’t have good studies,” said Dr. Nicol, associate dean and associate professor of nursing at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “Particularly, we don’t have randomized, controlled trials on the effects of water and bathing. It’s not just parents that are frustrated, but health care providers are as well.”
In an observational analysis, researchers evaluated results from three online surveys of dermatologists, allergists, and immunologists, and primary care physicians regarding routine bathing frequency recommendations for children with AD. It found that PCPs recommended daily bathing less than 50% of the time, while specialists recommended daily bathing more than 50% of the time.
“It seems like the PCPs have embraced that old dermatology notion when bathing was avoided in patients with AD,” Dr. Nicol said. “This lack of consensus on the basic daily care steps in AD management causes a great deal of confusion amongst patients, families, and young health care providers, in particular,” she added.
She believes that this goes back to a century-long debate about the pros and cons of bathing in AD. “We used to say that bathing will dry the skin out if you take a bath or a shower without immediately applying something like a good moisturizer. That’s where the 3-minute rule came along from the National Eczema Association, meaning that bathing hydrates the stratum corneum if you take a bath or a shower and you immediately apply that good moisturizer within 3 minutes to retain that hydration and keep the barrier intact and flexible.”
Dr. Nicol presented a stepwise management model that she has published many times over the years (see Pediatr Nursing 2020;46[2]:92-8 and J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2019;7[1]:1-16).
Step 1 consists of basic care, including skin hydration/bathing, application of a daily moisturizer, avoiding irritants, and identifying and addressing specific triggers. “This is the foundation for every step as you go forward,” she explained. Soak and seal has been a mainstay of treatment at National Jewish Health, she noted. “By that, I mean taking a soaking 10-15 minute bath in warm water daily. Gently pat away excess water. Immediately apply skin medications or moisturizer within 3 minutes. Using a gentle fragrance-free, dye-free cleanser to clean skin is also important. Avoid scrubbing.”
A review article on bathing and associated treatments in AD was published in 2017 and includes 144 references to bathing studies. A separate recommendation known as the “AD Yardstick” published by Dr. Nicol’s colleague at National Jewish Health, Mark Boguniewicz, MD, and coauthors, elaborated on the definition of basic skin care for nonlesional AD. Besides recommending the liberal and frequent application of moisturizers, it suggests management with warm baths or showers using nonsoap cleansers, usually once per day, followed by application of a moisturizer, even on clear areas.
“This is now what people are thinking as the basis of skin care in patients with AD,” Dr. Nicol said. “Warm baths and showers don’t look so controversial anymore. This model nicely lays out what we want people to remember. In the past, many times we just skipped that important step of telling people about bathing.”
In a small 2009 study, researchers conducted a quantitative assessment of combination bathing and moisturizing regimens on skin hydration in AD. They found that bathing followed by application of a moisturizer provides modest hydration benefits, though less than that of simply applying moisturizer alone. “That has not been the case for most of us who are bathing advocates,” Dr. Nicol said. “We believe that there is an additional hydration that’s gained from bathing and moisturizers done properly.”
In an earlier retrospective study of 28 patients referred to a tertiary care center for refractory chronic pruritic eruptions, researchers found that a plain-water 20-minute soak followed by smearing of midstrength corticosteroid ointment led to clearing or dramatic improvement of the lesions (Arch Dermatol 2005;14:1556-9). The authors recommended prospective studies to confirm the findings.
In a separate review of medical literature, researchers explored the role of frequent bathing in the treatment of pediatric AD (Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2016;117[1]:9-13). They found that the weight of evidence suggests that the frequent soak and smear bathing is preferred to infrequent bathing in the management of AD. Frequent bathing was defined as bathing at least once a day, while infrequent bathing was defined as bathing less than once a day.
“Bleach baths have received much attention in recent years, and have been endorsed by multiple AD guidelines, though not to the same degree as regular bathing,” Dr. Nicol said. “Right now, you can find almost as much literature for this practice as against it. The populations that seem to value from beach baths the most, however, are those with frequent infections, particularly those who are methicillin resistant. Most people recommend a maximum of two to three times per week but only with an active infection. Care must be taken to avoid additional drying or irritation of the skin from bleach.”
Many bleach bath recipes call for adding one-eighth to one-half of a cup of bleach to a tub full or water.
Dr. Nicol disclosed that she has served as an advisory board member for Eli Lilly.
According to Noreen Heer Nicol, PhD, RN, FNP, frustration still exists for patients, families, and health care providers regarding the lack of consensus that routine bathing is good for patients with atopic dermatitis.
During the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium, she said that conflicting and vague guidelines currently exist on the topic.
“This stems from the fact that we just don’t have good studies,” said Dr. Nicol, associate dean and associate professor of nursing at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “Particularly, we don’t have randomized, controlled trials on the effects of water and bathing. It’s not just parents that are frustrated, but health care providers are as well.”
In an observational analysis, researchers evaluated results from three online surveys of dermatologists, allergists, and immunologists, and primary care physicians regarding routine bathing frequency recommendations for children with AD. It found that PCPs recommended daily bathing less than 50% of the time, while specialists recommended daily bathing more than 50% of the time.
“It seems like the PCPs have embraced that old dermatology notion when bathing was avoided in patients with AD,” Dr. Nicol said. “This lack of consensus on the basic daily care steps in AD management causes a great deal of confusion amongst patients, families, and young health care providers, in particular,” she added.
She believes that this goes back to a century-long debate about the pros and cons of bathing in AD. “We used to say that bathing will dry the skin out if you take a bath or a shower without immediately applying something like a good moisturizer. That’s where the 3-minute rule came along from the National Eczema Association, meaning that bathing hydrates the stratum corneum if you take a bath or a shower and you immediately apply that good moisturizer within 3 minutes to retain that hydration and keep the barrier intact and flexible.”
Dr. Nicol presented a stepwise management model that she has published many times over the years (see Pediatr Nursing 2020;46[2]:92-8 and J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2019;7[1]:1-16).
Step 1 consists of basic care, including skin hydration/bathing, application of a daily moisturizer, avoiding irritants, and identifying and addressing specific triggers. “This is the foundation for every step as you go forward,” she explained. Soak and seal has been a mainstay of treatment at National Jewish Health, she noted. “By that, I mean taking a soaking 10-15 minute bath in warm water daily. Gently pat away excess water. Immediately apply skin medications or moisturizer within 3 minutes. Using a gentle fragrance-free, dye-free cleanser to clean skin is also important. Avoid scrubbing.”
A review article on bathing and associated treatments in AD was published in 2017 and includes 144 references to bathing studies. A separate recommendation known as the “AD Yardstick” published by Dr. Nicol’s colleague at National Jewish Health, Mark Boguniewicz, MD, and coauthors, elaborated on the definition of basic skin care for nonlesional AD. Besides recommending the liberal and frequent application of moisturizers, it suggests management with warm baths or showers using nonsoap cleansers, usually once per day, followed by application of a moisturizer, even on clear areas.
“This is now what people are thinking as the basis of skin care in patients with AD,” Dr. Nicol said. “Warm baths and showers don’t look so controversial anymore. This model nicely lays out what we want people to remember. In the past, many times we just skipped that important step of telling people about bathing.”
In a small 2009 study, researchers conducted a quantitative assessment of combination bathing and moisturizing regimens on skin hydration in AD. They found that bathing followed by application of a moisturizer provides modest hydration benefits, though less than that of simply applying moisturizer alone. “That has not been the case for most of us who are bathing advocates,” Dr. Nicol said. “We believe that there is an additional hydration that’s gained from bathing and moisturizers done properly.”
In an earlier retrospective study of 28 patients referred to a tertiary care center for refractory chronic pruritic eruptions, researchers found that a plain-water 20-minute soak followed by smearing of midstrength corticosteroid ointment led to clearing or dramatic improvement of the lesions (Arch Dermatol 2005;14:1556-9). The authors recommended prospective studies to confirm the findings.
In a separate review of medical literature, researchers explored the role of frequent bathing in the treatment of pediatric AD (Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2016;117[1]:9-13). They found that the weight of evidence suggests that the frequent soak and smear bathing is preferred to infrequent bathing in the management of AD. Frequent bathing was defined as bathing at least once a day, while infrequent bathing was defined as bathing less than once a day.
“Bleach baths have received much attention in recent years, and have been endorsed by multiple AD guidelines, though not to the same degree as regular bathing,” Dr. Nicol said. “Right now, you can find almost as much literature for this practice as against it. The populations that seem to value from beach baths the most, however, are those with frequent infections, particularly those who are methicillin resistant. Most people recommend a maximum of two to three times per week but only with an active infection. Care must be taken to avoid additional drying or irritation of the skin from bleach.”
Many bleach bath recipes call for adding one-eighth to one-half of a cup of bleach to a tub full or water.
Dr. Nicol disclosed that she has served as an advisory board member for Eli Lilly.
FROM REVOLUTIONIZING AD 2020
Oral JAK1 inhibitor shows promise for hidradenitis suppurativa
A (HS) in a pair of small, randomized, phase 2 studies that established proof-of-concept for the novel agent, Afsaneh Alavi, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
These favorable clinical findings were buttressed by a proteomic analysis demonstrating dose-dependent reductions in circulating inflammatory mediators, added Dr. Alavi, a dermatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
The investigational oral small molecule, known for now as INCB54707, is 52 times more selective for JAK1 than JAK2.
Both multicenter studies entailed 8 weeks of active treatment with INCB54707 followed by a 4-week safety observation. In one study, 10 patients received 15 mg of the investigational agent once daily in open-label fashion. The other trial randomized 35 patients to the JAK1 inhibitor at 30 mg, 60 mg, or 90 mg per day or placebo. About 70% of participants in the studies had Hurley stage II HS; the rest were stage III.
Safety and tolerability were the primary outcomes in the two studies. One patient in the open-label study dropped out because of a flare of fibromyalgia. In the larger randomized trial, four patients – all in the group assigned to 90 mg/day of the JAK1 inhibitor – developed thrombocytopenia, resulting in temporary discontinuation of treatment for up to 2 weeks. In all four instances, the laboratory abnormality was reversed after temporary interruption of treatment, with no sequelae upon restarting the drug. There were no serious treatment-emergent adverse events in either study.
In the low-dose, open-label study, four of nine completers (44%) experienced a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) at week 8, defined as at least a 50% reduction in inflammatory lesion count with no increase in abscesses or draining fistulae compared to baseline. In the randomized trial, the week-8 HiSCR rate was 57% in placebo-treated controls, 56% in those on 30 mg/day or 60 mg/day of the JAK1 inhibitor, and significantly better at 88% in the group on 90 mg/day.
The rapidity of response to the JAK1 inhibitor was noteworthy. After just 1 week of treatment, an abscess and inflammatory nodule count of zero to two lesions was present in 22% of patients on INCB54707 at 60 mg/day and 29% of those on 90 mg/day, compared with none of the patients on 30 mg/day or placebo. At week 2, an abscess and nodule count of 0-2 was documented in 33% of participants on the JAK1 inhibitor at 30 mg/day, 58% at 60 mg/day, and 50% with 90 mg/day. At week 8, the rates were 57% with placebo, 44% with active treatment at 30 or 60 mg/day, and 63% in patients on 90 mg/day.
A dose-dependent significant improvement in Hidradenitis Suppurativa Quality of Life scores was documented in response to the JAK1 inhibitor.
There is an unmet need for effective therapies for HS, a chronic, extremely painful inflammatory condition with a large negative impact on quality of life. At present, the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for HS is the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, adalimumab (Humira), noted Dr. Alavi. Ongoing studies are evaluating other JAK inhibitors, as well as TNF inhibitors and interleukin-17 and -23 blockers.
She reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Incyte, the studies’ sponsor, and more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.
A (HS) in a pair of small, randomized, phase 2 studies that established proof-of-concept for the novel agent, Afsaneh Alavi, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
These favorable clinical findings were buttressed by a proteomic analysis demonstrating dose-dependent reductions in circulating inflammatory mediators, added Dr. Alavi, a dermatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
The investigational oral small molecule, known for now as INCB54707, is 52 times more selective for JAK1 than JAK2.
Both multicenter studies entailed 8 weeks of active treatment with INCB54707 followed by a 4-week safety observation. In one study, 10 patients received 15 mg of the investigational agent once daily in open-label fashion. The other trial randomized 35 patients to the JAK1 inhibitor at 30 mg, 60 mg, or 90 mg per day or placebo. About 70% of participants in the studies had Hurley stage II HS; the rest were stage III.
Safety and tolerability were the primary outcomes in the two studies. One patient in the open-label study dropped out because of a flare of fibromyalgia. In the larger randomized trial, four patients – all in the group assigned to 90 mg/day of the JAK1 inhibitor – developed thrombocytopenia, resulting in temporary discontinuation of treatment for up to 2 weeks. In all four instances, the laboratory abnormality was reversed after temporary interruption of treatment, with no sequelae upon restarting the drug. There were no serious treatment-emergent adverse events in either study.
In the low-dose, open-label study, four of nine completers (44%) experienced a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) at week 8, defined as at least a 50% reduction in inflammatory lesion count with no increase in abscesses or draining fistulae compared to baseline. In the randomized trial, the week-8 HiSCR rate was 57% in placebo-treated controls, 56% in those on 30 mg/day or 60 mg/day of the JAK1 inhibitor, and significantly better at 88% in the group on 90 mg/day.
The rapidity of response to the JAK1 inhibitor was noteworthy. After just 1 week of treatment, an abscess and inflammatory nodule count of zero to two lesions was present in 22% of patients on INCB54707 at 60 mg/day and 29% of those on 90 mg/day, compared with none of the patients on 30 mg/day or placebo. At week 2, an abscess and nodule count of 0-2 was documented in 33% of participants on the JAK1 inhibitor at 30 mg/day, 58% at 60 mg/day, and 50% with 90 mg/day. At week 8, the rates were 57% with placebo, 44% with active treatment at 30 or 60 mg/day, and 63% in patients on 90 mg/day.
A dose-dependent significant improvement in Hidradenitis Suppurativa Quality of Life scores was documented in response to the JAK1 inhibitor.
There is an unmet need for effective therapies for HS, a chronic, extremely painful inflammatory condition with a large negative impact on quality of life. At present, the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for HS is the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, adalimumab (Humira), noted Dr. Alavi. Ongoing studies are evaluating other JAK inhibitors, as well as TNF inhibitors and interleukin-17 and -23 blockers.
She reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Incyte, the studies’ sponsor, and more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.
A (HS) in a pair of small, randomized, phase 2 studies that established proof-of-concept for the novel agent, Afsaneh Alavi, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
These favorable clinical findings were buttressed by a proteomic analysis demonstrating dose-dependent reductions in circulating inflammatory mediators, added Dr. Alavi, a dermatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
The investigational oral small molecule, known for now as INCB54707, is 52 times more selective for JAK1 than JAK2.
Both multicenter studies entailed 8 weeks of active treatment with INCB54707 followed by a 4-week safety observation. In one study, 10 patients received 15 mg of the investigational agent once daily in open-label fashion. The other trial randomized 35 patients to the JAK1 inhibitor at 30 mg, 60 mg, or 90 mg per day or placebo. About 70% of participants in the studies had Hurley stage II HS; the rest were stage III.
Safety and tolerability were the primary outcomes in the two studies. One patient in the open-label study dropped out because of a flare of fibromyalgia. In the larger randomized trial, four patients – all in the group assigned to 90 mg/day of the JAK1 inhibitor – developed thrombocytopenia, resulting in temporary discontinuation of treatment for up to 2 weeks. In all four instances, the laboratory abnormality was reversed after temporary interruption of treatment, with no sequelae upon restarting the drug. There were no serious treatment-emergent adverse events in either study.
In the low-dose, open-label study, four of nine completers (44%) experienced a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) at week 8, defined as at least a 50% reduction in inflammatory lesion count with no increase in abscesses or draining fistulae compared to baseline. In the randomized trial, the week-8 HiSCR rate was 57% in placebo-treated controls, 56% in those on 30 mg/day or 60 mg/day of the JAK1 inhibitor, and significantly better at 88% in the group on 90 mg/day.
The rapidity of response to the JAK1 inhibitor was noteworthy. After just 1 week of treatment, an abscess and inflammatory nodule count of zero to two lesions was present in 22% of patients on INCB54707 at 60 mg/day and 29% of those on 90 mg/day, compared with none of the patients on 30 mg/day or placebo. At week 2, an abscess and nodule count of 0-2 was documented in 33% of participants on the JAK1 inhibitor at 30 mg/day, 58% at 60 mg/day, and 50% with 90 mg/day. At week 8, the rates were 57% with placebo, 44% with active treatment at 30 or 60 mg/day, and 63% in patients on 90 mg/day.
A dose-dependent significant improvement in Hidradenitis Suppurativa Quality of Life scores was documented in response to the JAK1 inhibitor.
There is an unmet need for effective therapies for HS, a chronic, extremely painful inflammatory condition with a large negative impact on quality of life. At present, the only Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for HS is the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, adalimumab (Humira), noted Dr. Alavi. Ongoing studies are evaluating other JAK inhibitors, as well as TNF inhibitors and interleukin-17 and -23 blockers.
She reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Incyte, the studies’ sponsor, and more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
ctDNA outperforms CEA in colorectal cancer
Despite standard blood monitoring and routine imaging, patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) tend to have multiple, incurable metastases when relapse occurs.
A new study indicates that postsurgical circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing may improve our ability to predict relapse in patients with stage I-III CRC.
ctDNA testing outperformed carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing in predicting relapse-free survival, and ctDNA was detected about 8 months prior to relapse detection via CT.
Tenna V. Henriksen, of Aarhus University in Denmark, presented these results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (abstract 11).
The multi-institutional study included 260 patients with CRC – 4 with stage I disease, 90 with stage II, and 166 with stage III disease.
Patients were monitored with plasma ctDNA testing within 2 months of primary surgery. Some patients were monitored with follow-up ctDNA sampling every 3 months for an additional 3 years.
Individual tumors and matched germline DNA were interrogated with whole-exome sequencing, and somatic single nucleotide variants were identified. Personalized multiplex PCR assays were developed to track tumor-specific single nucleotide variants via the Signatera® ctDNA assay.
The researchers retrospectively assessed ctDNA’s performance in:
- Stratifying the postoperative risk of relapse.
- Quantifying the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients who had or did not have ctDNA in plasma.
- Efficiently detecting relapse, in comparison with standard surveillance tests.
Surveillance CT scans were performed at 12 and 36 months but not at the frequency recommended in NCCN guidelines.
In all, 165 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. The decision to give chemotherapy was made on a clinical basis by treating physicians who were blinded to the results of ctDNA testing.
Results
Of the 260 patients analyzed, 48 relapsed. The median follow-up was 28.4 months overall and 29.9 months in the nonrelapse cases.
The researchers assessed postoperative ctDNA status prior to adjuvant chemotherapy in 218 patients and after adjuvant chemotherapy in 108 patients.
In the prechemotherapy group, 20 patients were ctDNA positive, and 80% of them relapsed. In contrast, 13% of the 198 ctDNA-negative patients relapsed. The hazard ratio (HR) for relapse-free survival was 11 (95% confidence interval, 5.9-21; P < .0001).
After adjuvant chemotherapy, 12.5% of the ctDNA-negative patients relapsed, compared with 83.3% of the ctDNA-positive patients. The HR for relapse-free survival was 12 (95% CI, 4.9-27; P < .0001).
Results from longitudinal ctDNA testing in 202 patients suggested that serial sampling is more useful than sampling at a single point in time. The recurrence rate was 3.4% among patients who remained persistently ctDNA negative, compared with 89.3% in patients who were ctDNA positive. The HR for relapse-free survival was 51 (95% CI, 20-125; P < .0001).
In a subgroup of 29 patients with clinical recurrence detected by CT imaging, ctDNA detection occurred a median of 8.1 months earlier than radiologic relapse.
Among the 197 patients who had serial CEA and ctDNA measurements, longitudinal CEA testing correlated with relapse-free survival (HR, 4.9; 95% CI, 3.2-15, P < .0001) but not nearly as well as ctDNA testing (HR, 95.7; 95% CI, 28-322, P < .0001) in a univariable analysis.
In a multivariable analysis, the HR for relapse-free survival was 1.8 (95% CI, 0.77-4.0; P = .184) for longitudinal CEA and 80.55 (95% CI, 23.1-281; P < .0001) for longitudinal ctDNA.
“[W]hen we pit them against each other in a multivariable analysis, we can see that all the predictive power is in the ctDNA samples,” Ms. Henriksen said. “This indicates that ctDNA is a stronger biomarker compared to CEA, at least with relapse-free survival.”
Availability is not actionability
Study discussant Michael J. Overman, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, acknowledged that this research substantiates the ability of postoperative ctDNA detection to risk stratify patients with stage III CRC, the predominant stage of participants in the study.
The current results reinforce the researchers’ previously published work (JAMA Oncol. 2019;5[8]:1124-31) and affirm similar findings by other groups (JAMA Oncol. 2019;5[12]:1710-17 and JAMA Oncol. 2019;5[8]:1118-23).
However, Dr. Overman cautioned that “availability is not the same as actionability.”
He also said the “tumor-informed mutation” approach utilized in the Signatera assay differs from the simpler “panel-based” approach, which is also undergoing clinical testing and offers the additional opportunity to test potentially actionable epigenetic targets such as DNA methylation.
Furthermore, the practicality of integrating the tumor-informed mutation approach into the time constraints required in clinical practice was not evaluated in the current analysis.
Dr. Overman pointed out that 16 of the 20 ctDNA-positive patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy sustained a recurrence, so the chemotherapy benefit was lower than expected.
Finally, although ctDNA outperformed CEA in detecting relapse, the greatest impact of ctDNA is its potential to inform the clinician’s decision to escalate and deescalate treatment with impact on survival – a potential that remains unfulfilled.
Next steps
Ms. Henriksen closed her presentation with the perspective that, for serial ctDNA monitoring to be implemented in clinical settings, testing in randomized clinical trials will be needed.
In Denmark, the IMPROVE-IT study is enrolling patients with stage I or low-risk stage II CRC. In this trial, ctDNA-positive patients will receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and ctDNA-negative patients will have longitudinal ctDNA testing but no adjuvant chemotherapy.
A second study, IMPROVE-IT2, will assess the value of ctDNA to direct intensified radiologic surveillance to improve the application of potentially curative treatment for patients with stage II (high-risk) or stage III CRC. Patients with negative ctDNA tests will be followed with longitudinal ctDNA testing only.
In his talk, Dr. Overman highlighted several prospective studies assessing the value of ctDNA testing.
One of these is the ongoing COBRA study (NRG-GI-005), which uses a ctDNA assay (Guardant Lunar-1) for patients with stage IIA CRC for whom standard adjuvant chemotherapy is not indicated.
The patients in COBRA are randomized to active surveillance or assay-directed therapy. Patients assigned to assay-directed therapy have samples analyzed for ctDNA, which would guide the decision about adjuvant chemotherapy. If the postoperative sample is ctDNA positive and the patient accepts adjuvant chemotherapy, the patient could receive one of two standard adjuvant chemotherapy regimens. If ctDNA negative, the patient would be followed with active surveillance alone.
Dr. Overman also highlighted the planned CIRCULATE US trial (NRG-GI008). The aim of this trial is to test intensified adjuvant treatment for stage III CRC patients with positive ctDNA tests. It will employ the Signatera assay.
Ideally, these ongoing trials will provide the evidence base needed for clinicians to optimize adjuvant therapy and surveillance using ctDNA technology.
The current study was sponsored by the Danish Council for Independent Research, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Danish Cancer Society, and Natera Inc. Ms. Henriksen disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Overman disclosed relationships with Array BioPharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gritstone Oncology, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Promega, Roche/Genentech, and Spectrum Pharmaceuticals.
The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Despite standard blood monitoring and routine imaging, patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) tend to have multiple, incurable metastases when relapse occurs.
A new study indicates that postsurgical circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing may improve our ability to predict relapse in patients with stage I-III CRC.
ctDNA testing outperformed carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing in predicting relapse-free survival, and ctDNA was detected about 8 months prior to relapse detection via CT.
Tenna V. Henriksen, of Aarhus University in Denmark, presented these results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (abstract 11).
The multi-institutional study included 260 patients with CRC – 4 with stage I disease, 90 with stage II, and 166 with stage III disease.
Patients were monitored with plasma ctDNA testing within 2 months of primary surgery. Some patients were monitored with follow-up ctDNA sampling every 3 months for an additional 3 years.
Individual tumors and matched germline DNA were interrogated with whole-exome sequencing, and somatic single nucleotide variants were identified. Personalized multiplex PCR assays were developed to track tumor-specific single nucleotide variants via the Signatera® ctDNA assay.
The researchers retrospectively assessed ctDNA’s performance in:
- Stratifying the postoperative risk of relapse.
- Quantifying the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients who had or did not have ctDNA in plasma.
- Efficiently detecting relapse, in comparison with standard surveillance tests.
Surveillance CT scans were performed at 12 and 36 months but not at the frequency recommended in NCCN guidelines.
In all, 165 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. The decision to give chemotherapy was made on a clinical basis by treating physicians who were blinded to the results of ctDNA testing.
Results
Of the 260 patients analyzed, 48 relapsed. The median follow-up was 28.4 months overall and 29.9 months in the nonrelapse cases.
The researchers assessed postoperative ctDNA status prior to adjuvant chemotherapy in 218 patients and after adjuvant chemotherapy in 108 patients.
In the prechemotherapy group, 20 patients were ctDNA positive, and 80% of them relapsed. In contrast, 13% of the 198 ctDNA-negative patients relapsed. The hazard ratio (HR) for relapse-free survival was 11 (95% confidence interval, 5.9-21; P < .0001).
After adjuvant chemotherapy, 12.5% of the ctDNA-negative patients relapsed, compared with 83.3% of the ctDNA-positive patients. The HR for relapse-free survival was 12 (95% CI, 4.9-27; P < .0001).
Results from longitudinal ctDNA testing in 202 patients suggested that serial sampling is more useful than sampling at a single point in time. The recurrence rate was 3.4% among patients who remained persistently ctDNA negative, compared with 89.3% in patients who were ctDNA positive. The HR for relapse-free survival was 51 (95% CI, 20-125; P < .0001).
In a subgroup of 29 patients with clinical recurrence detected by CT imaging, ctDNA detection occurred a median of 8.1 months earlier than radiologic relapse.
Among the 197 patients who had serial CEA and ctDNA measurements, longitudinal CEA testing correlated with relapse-free survival (HR, 4.9; 95% CI, 3.2-15, P < .0001) but not nearly as well as ctDNA testing (HR, 95.7; 95% CI, 28-322, P < .0001) in a univariable analysis.
In a multivariable analysis, the HR for relapse-free survival was 1.8 (95% CI, 0.77-4.0; P = .184) for longitudinal CEA and 80.55 (95% CI, 23.1-281; P < .0001) for longitudinal ctDNA.
“[W]hen we pit them against each other in a multivariable analysis, we can see that all the predictive power is in the ctDNA samples,” Ms. Henriksen said. “This indicates that ctDNA is a stronger biomarker compared to CEA, at least with relapse-free survival.”
Availability is not actionability
Study discussant Michael J. Overman, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, acknowledged that this research substantiates the ability of postoperative ctDNA detection to risk stratify patients with stage III CRC, the predominant stage of participants in the study.
The current results reinforce the researchers’ previously published work (JAMA Oncol. 2019;5[8]:1124-31) and affirm similar findings by other groups (JAMA Oncol. 2019;5[12]:1710-17 and JAMA Oncol. 2019;5[8]:1118-23).
However, Dr. Overman cautioned that “availability is not the same as actionability.”
He also said the “tumor-informed mutation” approach utilized in the Signatera assay differs from the simpler “panel-based” approach, which is also undergoing clinical testing and offers the additional opportunity to test potentially actionable epigenetic targets such as DNA methylation.
Furthermore, the practicality of integrating the tumor-informed mutation approach into the time constraints required in clinical practice was not evaluated in the current analysis.
Dr. Overman pointed out that 16 of the 20 ctDNA-positive patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy sustained a recurrence, so the chemotherapy benefit was lower than expected.
Finally, although ctDNA outperformed CEA in detecting relapse, the greatest impact of ctDNA is its potential to inform the clinician’s decision to escalate and deescalate treatment with impact on survival – a potential that remains unfulfilled.
Next steps
Ms. Henriksen closed her presentation with the perspective that, for serial ctDNA monitoring to be implemented in clinical settings, testing in randomized clinical trials will be needed.
In Denmark, the IMPROVE-IT study is enrolling patients with stage I or low-risk stage II CRC. In this trial, ctDNA-positive patients will receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and ctDNA-negative patients will have longitudinal ctDNA testing but no adjuvant chemotherapy.
A second study, IMPROVE-IT2, will assess the value of ctDNA to direct intensified radiologic surveillance to improve the application of potentially curative treatment for patients with stage II (high-risk) or stage III CRC. Patients with negative ctDNA tests will be followed with longitudinal ctDNA testing only.
In his talk, Dr. Overman highlighted several prospective studies assessing the value of ctDNA testing.
One of these is the ongoing COBRA study (NRG-GI-005), which uses a ctDNA assay (Guardant Lunar-1) for patients with stage IIA CRC for whom standard adjuvant chemotherapy is not indicated.
The patients in COBRA are randomized to active surveillance or assay-directed therapy. Patients assigned to assay-directed therapy have samples analyzed for ctDNA, which would guide the decision about adjuvant chemotherapy. If the postoperative sample is ctDNA positive and the patient accepts adjuvant chemotherapy, the patient could receive one of two standard adjuvant chemotherapy regimens. If ctDNA negative, the patient would be followed with active surveillance alone.
Dr. Overman also highlighted the planned CIRCULATE US trial (NRG-GI008). The aim of this trial is to test intensified adjuvant treatment for stage III CRC patients with positive ctDNA tests. It will employ the Signatera assay.
Ideally, these ongoing trials will provide the evidence base needed for clinicians to optimize adjuvant therapy and surveillance using ctDNA technology.
The current study was sponsored by the Danish Council for Independent Research, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Danish Cancer Society, and Natera Inc. Ms. Henriksen disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Overman disclosed relationships with Array BioPharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gritstone Oncology, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Promega, Roche/Genentech, and Spectrum Pharmaceuticals.
The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
Despite standard blood monitoring and routine imaging, patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) tend to have multiple, incurable metastases when relapse occurs.
A new study indicates that postsurgical circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing may improve our ability to predict relapse in patients with stage I-III CRC.
ctDNA testing outperformed carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing in predicting relapse-free survival, and ctDNA was detected about 8 months prior to relapse detection via CT.
Tenna V. Henriksen, of Aarhus University in Denmark, presented these results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium (abstract 11).
The multi-institutional study included 260 patients with CRC – 4 with stage I disease, 90 with stage II, and 166 with stage III disease.
Patients were monitored with plasma ctDNA testing within 2 months of primary surgery. Some patients were monitored with follow-up ctDNA sampling every 3 months for an additional 3 years.
Individual tumors and matched germline DNA were interrogated with whole-exome sequencing, and somatic single nucleotide variants were identified. Personalized multiplex PCR assays were developed to track tumor-specific single nucleotide variants via the Signatera® ctDNA assay.
The researchers retrospectively assessed ctDNA’s performance in:
- Stratifying the postoperative risk of relapse.
- Quantifying the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients who had or did not have ctDNA in plasma.
- Efficiently detecting relapse, in comparison with standard surveillance tests.
Surveillance CT scans were performed at 12 and 36 months but not at the frequency recommended in NCCN guidelines.
In all, 165 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. The decision to give chemotherapy was made on a clinical basis by treating physicians who were blinded to the results of ctDNA testing.
Results
Of the 260 patients analyzed, 48 relapsed. The median follow-up was 28.4 months overall and 29.9 months in the nonrelapse cases.
The researchers assessed postoperative ctDNA status prior to adjuvant chemotherapy in 218 patients and after adjuvant chemotherapy in 108 patients.
In the prechemotherapy group, 20 patients were ctDNA positive, and 80% of them relapsed. In contrast, 13% of the 198 ctDNA-negative patients relapsed. The hazard ratio (HR) for relapse-free survival was 11 (95% confidence interval, 5.9-21; P < .0001).
After adjuvant chemotherapy, 12.5% of the ctDNA-negative patients relapsed, compared with 83.3% of the ctDNA-positive patients. The HR for relapse-free survival was 12 (95% CI, 4.9-27; P < .0001).
Results from longitudinal ctDNA testing in 202 patients suggested that serial sampling is more useful than sampling at a single point in time. The recurrence rate was 3.4% among patients who remained persistently ctDNA negative, compared with 89.3% in patients who were ctDNA positive. The HR for relapse-free survival was 51 (95% CI, 20-125; P < .0001).
In a subgroup of 29 patients with clinical recurrence detected by CT imaging, ctDNA detection occurred a median of 8.1 months earlier than radiologic relapse.
Among the 197 patients who had serial CEA and ctDNA measurements, longitudinal CEA testing correlated with relapse-free survival (HR, 4.9; 95% CI, 3.2-15, P < .0001) but not nearly as well as ctDNA testing (HR, 95.7; 95% CI, 28-322, P < .0001) in a univariable analysis.
In a multivariable analysis, the HR for relapse-free survival was 1.8 (95% CI, 0.77-4.0; P = .184) for longitudinal CEA and 80.55 (95% CI, 23.1-281; P < .0001) for longitudinal ctDNA.
“[W]hen we pit them against each other in a multivariable analysis, we can see that all the predictive power is in the ctDNA samples,” Ms. Henriksen said. “This indicates that ctDNA is a stronger biomarker compared to CEA, at least with relapse-free survival.”
Availability is not actionability
Study discussant Michael J. Overman, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, acknowledged that this research substantiates the ability of postoperative ctDNA detection to risk stratify patients with stage III CRC, the predominant stage of participants in the study.
The current results reinforce the researchers’ previously published work (JAMA Oncol. 2019;5[8]:1124-31) and affirm similar findings by other groups (JAMA Oncol. 2019;5[12]:1710-17 and JAMA Oncol. 2019;5[8]:1118-23).
However, Dr. Overman cautioned that “availability is not the same as actionability.”
He also said the “tumor-informed mutation” approach utilized in the Signatera assay differs from the simpler “panel-based” approach, which is also undergoing clinical testing and offers the additional opportunity to test potentially actionable epigenetic targets such as DNA methylation.
Furthermore, the practicality of integrating the tumor-informed mutation approach into the time constraints required in clinical practice was not evaluated in the current analysis.
Dr. Overman pointed out that 16 of the 20 ctDNA-positive patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy sustained a recurrence, so the chemotherapy benefit was lower than expected.
Finally, although ctDNA outperformed CEA in detecting relapse, the greatest impact of ctDNA is its potential to inform the clinician’s decision to escalate and deescalate treatment with impact on survival – a potential that remains unfulfilled.
Next steps
Ms. Henriksen closed her presentation with the perspective that, for serial ctDNA monitoring to be implemented in clinical settings, testing in randomized clinical trials will be needed.
In Denmark, the IMPROVE-IT study is enrolling patients with stage I or low-risk stage II CRC. In this trial, ctDNA-positive patients will receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and ctDNA-negative patients will have longitudinal ctDNA testing but no adjuvant chemotherapy.
A second study, IMPROVE-IT2, will assess the value of ctDNA to direct intensified radiologic surveillance to improve the application of potentially curative treatment for patients with stage II (high-risk) or stage III CRC. Patients with negative ctDNA tests will be followed with longitudinal ctDNA testing only.
In his talk, Dr. Overman highlighted several prospective studies assessing the value of ctDNA testing.
One of these is the ongoing COBRA study (NRG-GI-005), which uses a ctDNA assay (Guardant Lunar-1) for patients with stage IIA CRC for whom standard adjuvant chemotherapy is not indicated.
The patients in COBRA are randomized to active surveillance or assay-directed therapy. Patients assigned to assay-directed therapy have samples analyzed for ctDNA, which would guide the decision about adjuvant chemotherapy. If the postoperative sample is ctDNA positive and the patient accepts adjuvant chemotherapy, the patient could receive one of two standard adjuvant chemotherapy regimens. If ctDNA negative, the patient would be followed with active surveillance alone.
Dr. Overman also highlighted the planned CIRCULATE US trial (NRG-GI008). The aim of this trial is to test intensified adjuvant treatment for stage III CRC patients with positive ctDNA tests. It will employ the Signatera assay.
Ideally, these ongoing trials will provide the evidence base needed for clinicians to optimize adjuvant therapy and surveillance using ctDNA technology.
The current study was sponsored by the Danish Council for Independent Research, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Danish Cancer Society, and Natera Inc. Ms. Henriksen disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Overman disclosed relationships with Array BioPharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gritstone Oncology, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Promega, Roche/Genentech, and Spectrum Pharmaceuticals.
The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.
FROM GI Cancers Symposium 2021
Guselkumab maintains psoriasis efficacy long after discontinuation
Fully half of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who achieve complete clearance after their first four doses of guselkumab (Tremfya) continue to maintain a PASI 90 response nearly 6 months after withdrawal of the biologic, according to a post hoc analysis of the pivotal phase 3 VOYAGE 2 trial.
“That’s impressive maintenance of efficacy,” said Curdin Conrad, MD, who presented the data at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“These findings are reassuring when you have to interrupt guselkumab therapy: For example, due to acute infection, pregnancy, or surgery. But it might also help when considering in the future a flexible dosing interval, particularly for patients who had complete clearance,” added Dr. Conrad, professor of dermatology and head of the polyclinic and the Center of Excellence for Psoriasis at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital.
The intriguing implication from VOYAGE 2 that guselkumab might lend itself to flexible dosing featuring lengthy drug-free intervals is being prospectively examined in the ongoing phase 3b GUIDE trial. This is a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial including 888 French and German patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and a study hypothesis that those who have a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of 0 at weeks 20 and 28 in response to on-label dosing – the so-called ‘super responders’ – will maintain disease control until week 68 if their dosing is reduced to 100 mg of guselkumab every 16 weeks instead of the standard 8-week intervals.
Dr. Conrad reported that in VOYAGE 2, 106 patients on standard-dose guselkumab who had a PASI score of 0 at weeks 20 and 28 were randomized to discontinue the interleukin-23 inhibitor after receiving their fourth dose at week 20. It took 25 weeks for 50% of them to lose their PASI 90 response as defined by regression to a PASI score of 1 or greater. Using a less stringent definition of maintenance of efficacy, the super responders’ median time off guselkumab until reaching a PASI score of 3 or more was 30.7 weeks, with a median of 35.4 weeks to a PASI score of 5 or more.
In addition, 34 other VOYAGE 2 participants who were almost clear on guselkumab at weeks 20 and 28, with a PASI score of more than 0 but less than 1, were randomized to guselkumab withdrawal after their week-20 dose. Median time to loss of their PASI 90 response was shorter than that of the super responders – not surprising since their mean PASI score when the biologic was halted was 0.5, rather than 0 as for the super responders. But Dr. Conrad said the maintenance of response was still impressive: A median of 16.2 weeks to reach a PASI score of 1 or more, 27.2 weeks for a PASI 3, and 33.7 weeks for a PASI score of 5.
He reported receiving research funding from and serving as a scientific adviser to Janssen, the study sponsor, as well as to more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.
Fully half of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who achieve complete clearance after their first four doses of guselkumab (Tremfya) continue to maintain a PASI 90 response nearly 6 months after withdrawal of the biologic, according to a post hoc analysis of the pivotal phase 3 VOYAGE 2 trial.
“That’s impressive maintenance of efficacy,” said Curdin Conrad, MD, who presented the data at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“These findings are reassuring when you have to interrupt guselkumab therapy: For example, due to acute infection, pregnancy, or surgery. But it might also help when considering in the future a flexible dosing interval, particularly for patients who had complete clearance,” added Dr. Conrad, professor of dermatology and head of the polyclinic and the Center of Excellence for Psoriasis at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital.
The intriguing implication from VOYAGE 2 that guselkumab might lend itself to flexible dosing featuring lengthy drug-free intervals is being prospectively examined in the ongoing phase 3b GUIDE trial. This is a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial including 888 French and German patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and a study hypothesis that those who have a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of 0 at weeks 20 and 28 in response to on-label dosing – the so-called ‘super responders’ – will maintain disease control until week 68 if their dosing is reduced to 100 mg of guselkumab every 16 weeks instead of the standard 8-week intervals.
Dr. Conrad reported that in VOYAGE 2, 106 patients on standard-dose guselkumab who had a PASI score of 0 at weeks 20 and 28 were randomized to discontinue the interleukin-23 inhibitor after receiving their fourth dose at week 20. It took 25 weeks for 50% of them to lose their PASI 90 response as defined by regression to a PASI score of 1 or greater. Using a less stringent definition of maintenance of efficacy, the super responders’ median time off guselkumab until reaching a PASI score of 3 or more was 30.7 weeks, with a median of 35.4 weeks to a PASI score of 5 or more.
In addition, 34 other VOYAGE 2 participants who were almost clear on guselkumab at weeks 20 and 28, with a PASI score of more than 0 but less than 1, were randomized to guselkumab withdrawal after their week-20 dose. Median time to loss of their PASI 90 response was shorter than that of the super responders – not surprising since their mean PASI score when the biologic was halted was 0.5, rather than 0 as for the super responders. But Dr. Conrad said the maintenance of response was still impressive: A median of 16.2 weeks to reach a PASI score of 1 or more, 27.2 weeks for a PASI 3, and 33.7 weeks for a PASI score of 5.
He reported receiving research funding from and serving as a scientific adviser to Janssen, the study sponsor, as well as to more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.
Fully half of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who achieve complete clearance after their first four doses of guselkumab (Tremfya) continue to maintain a PASI 90 response nearly 6 months after withdrawal of the biologic, according to a post hoc analysis of the pivotal phase 3 VOYAGE 2 trial.
“That’s impressive maintenance of efficacy,” said Curdin Conrad, MD, who presented the data at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
“These findings are reassuring when you have to interrupt guselkumab therapy: For example, due to acute infection, pregnancy, or surgery. But it might also help when considering in the future a flexible dosing interval, particularly for patients who had complete clearance,” added Dr. Conrad, professor of dermatology and head of the polyclinic and the Center of Excellence for Psoriasis at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital.
The intriguing implication from VOYAGE 2 that guselkumab might lend itself to flexible dosing featuring lengthy drug-free intervals is being prospectively examined in the ongoing phase 3b GUIDE trial. This is a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial including 888 French and German patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and a study hypothesis that those who have a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of 0 at weeks 20 and 28 in response to on-label dosing – the so-called ‘super responders’ – will maintain disease control until week 68 if their dosing is reduced to 100 mg of guselkumab every 16 weeks instead of the standard 8-week intervals.
Dr. Conrad reported that in VOYAGE 2, 106 patients on standard-dose guselkumab who had a PASI score of 0 at weeks 20 and 28 were randomized to discontinue the interleukin-23 inhibitor after receiving their fourth dose at week 20. It took 25 weeks for 50% of them to lose their PASI 90 response as defined by regression to a PASI score of 1 or greater. Using a less stringent definition of maintenance of efficacy, the super responders’ median time off guselkumab until reaching a PASI score of 3 or more was 30.7 weeks, with a median of 35.4 weeks to a PASI score of 5 or more.
In addition, 34 other VOYAGE 2 participants who were almost clear on guselkumab at weeks 20 and 28, with a PASI score of more than 0 but less than 1, were randomized to guselkumab withdrawal after their week-20 dose. Median time to loss of their PASI 90 response was shorter than that of the super responders – not surprising since their mean PASI score when the biologic was halted was 0.5, rather than 0 as for the super responders. But Dr. Conrad said the maintenance of response was still impressive: A median of 16.2 weeks to reach a PASI score of 1 or more, 27.2 weeks for a PASI 3, and 33.7 weeks for a PASI score of 5.
He reported receiving research funding from and serving as a scientific adviser to Janssen, the study sponsor, as well as to more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS