Conference Coverage

Preemptive monitoring and treatment of cytomegalovirus infections in CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients who receive organs from CMV-positive donors appears to be better at preventing infections than a viral prophylaxis strategy, according to infectious disease and organ transplant specialists.

In a study published in JAMA that may have gotten scant notice because of its publication during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at the University of Pittsburgh and other transplant centers reported results of a randomized clinical trial comparing the two CMV management strategies, and found that the incidence of CMV disease was significantly lower for patients who were started on valganciclovir when asymptomatic CMV viremia was detected, compared with patients on antiviral prophylaxis with valganciclovir.

The study “is a significant game changer for the field of transplantation,” commented Michael G. Ison, MD, professor of infectious diseases and organ transplantation at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Dr. Ison discussed the study and its implications during a session on potentially practice-changing clinical trials presented virtually during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

In the trial, Nina Singh, MD, and colleagues randomly assigned 100 CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients to receive preemptive therapy, in which patients underwent weekly testing for 100 days with a highly sensitive real-time plasma polymerase chain reaction assay for CMV. If viremia at any level was detected, the patients received oral valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily until two consecutive tests performed 1 week apart came back negative.

The remaining 105 patients were randomly assigned to 100 days of oral prophylaxis with 900 mg valganciclovir twice daily, started within 10 days of transplant.
 

CMV disease incidence lower

The incidence of CMV disease within 12 months of transplants, the primary outcome, was 9% in the preemptive therapy group, compared with 19% in the prophylaxis group (P = .04)

The difference between the groups was largely accounted for by a reduction in disease onset beyond 100 days in the preemptive therapy group (6% vs. 17%, respectively, P = .01)

There were no significant differences in secondary endpoints of rejection, opportunistic infections, graft loss because of retransplantation, neutropenia, or receipt of one or more doses of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor for the management of neutropenia.

At 1-year follow-up, the incidence of all-cause mortality was 15% in the preemptive therapy group, and 19% in the prophylaxis group; the difference was not statistically significant.

“While most transplant centers utilize universal prophylaxis, I think that this study really suggests that preemptive monitoring, if it can be safely accomplished at your center, may be of the greatest benefit to your patients,” Dr. Ison said.

He noted that Singh et al. also looked in an exploratory analysis at CMV-specific immunity and observed that patients assigned to preemptive therapy “clearly had better CMV-specific immunity, whether CD4 or CD8 cells, and had higher lymphocyte numbers than those patients that had received universal prophylaxis.”

In a comment, Sarah Doernberg, MD, from the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that “exploratory analysis of CMV-specific immune responses suggested increased CMV-specific immunity in those in the preemptive group, a finding that warrants further study. The feasibility of adopting reliable preemptive monitoring must be considered as individual centers ponder adopting this approach.”

Dr. Doernberg moderated the session where Dr. Ison discussed the data, but was not involved in the research.

The study by Singh et al. was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Singh reported research grants from NIH. Dr. Ison disclosed research support and paid consultation for several companies. Dr. Doernberg disclosed consulting for Basilea and Genentech.

Preemptive monitoring and treatment of cytomegalovirus infections in CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients who receive organs from CMV-positive donors appears to be better at preventing infections than a viral prophylaxis strategy, according to infectious disease and organ transplant specialists.

In a study published in JAMA that may have gotten scant notice because of its publication during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at the University of Pittsburgh and other transplant centers reported results of a randomized clinical trial comparing the two CMV management strategies, and found that the incidence of CMV disease was significantly lower for patients who were started on valganciclovir when asymptomatic CMV viremia was detected, compared with patients on antiviral prophylaxis with valganciclovir.

The study “is a significant game changer for the field of transplantation,” commented Michael G. Ison, MD, professor of infectious diseases and organ transplantation at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Dr. Ison discussed the study and its implications during a session on potentially practice-changing clinical trials presented virtually during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

In the trial, Nina Singh, MD, and colleagues randomly assigned 100 CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients to receive preemptive therapy, in which patients underwent weekly testing for 100 days with a highly sensitive real-time plasma polymerase chain reaction assay for CMV. If viremia at any level was detected, the patients received oral valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily until two consecutive tests performed 1 week apart came back negative.

The remaining 105 patients were randomly assigned to 100 days of oral prophylaxis with 900 mg valganciclovir twice daily, started within 10 days of transplant.
 

CMV disease incidence lower

The incidence of CMV disease within 12 months of transplants, the primary outcome, was 9% in the preemptive therapy group, compared with 19% in the prophylaxis group (P = .04)

The difference between the groups was largely accounted for by a reduction in disease onset beyond 100 days in the preemptive therapy group (6% vs. 17%, respectively, P = .01)

There were no significant differences in secondary endpoints of rejection, opportunistic infections, graft loss because of retransplantation, neutropenia, or receipt of one or more doses of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor for the management of neutropenia.

At 1-year follow-up, the incidence of all-cause mortality was 15% in the preemptive therapy group, and 19% in the prophylaxis group; the difference was not statistically significant.

“While most transplant centers utilize universal prophylaxis, I think that this study really suggests that preemptive monitoring, if it can be safely accomplished at your center, may be of the greatest benefit to your patients,” Dr. Ison said.

He noted that Singh et al. also looked in an exploratory analysis at CMV-specific immunity and observed that patients assigned to preemptive therapy “clearly had better CMV-specific immunity, whether CD4 or CD8 cells, and had higher lymphocyte numbers than those patients that had received universal prophylaxis.”

In a comment, Sarah Doernberg, MD, from the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that “exploratory analysis of CMV-specific immune responses suggested increased CMV-specific immunity in those in the preemptive group, a finding that warrants further study. The feasibility of adopting reliable preemptive monitoring must be considered as individual centers ponder adopting this approach.”

Dr. Doernberg moderated the session where Dr. Ison discussed the data, but was not involved in the research.

The study by Singh et al. was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Singh reported research grants from NIH. Dr. Ison disclosed research support and paid consultation for several companies. Dr. Doernberg disclosed consulting for Basilea and Genentech.

Preemptive monitoring and treatment of cytomegalovirus infections in CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients who receive organs from CMV-positive donors appears to be better at preventing infections than a viral prophylaxis strategy, according to infectious disease and organ transplant specialists.

In a study published in JAMA that may have gotten scant notice because of its publication during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators at the University of Pittsburgh and other transplant centers reported results of a randomized clinical trial comparing the two CMV management strategies, and found that the incidence of CMV disease was significantly lower for patients who were started on valganciclovir when asymptomatic CMV viremia was detected, compared with patients on antiviral prophylaxis with valganciclovir.

The study “is a significant game changer for the field of transplantation,” commented Michael G. Ison, MD, professor of infectious diseases and organ transplantation at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Dr. Ison discussed the study and its implications during a session on potentially practice-changing clinical trials presented virtually during IDWeek 2020, an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

In the trial, Nina Singh, MD, and colleagues randomly assigned 100 CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients to receive preemptive therapy, in which patients underwent weekly testing for 100 days with a highly sensitive real-time plasma polymerase chain reaction assay for CMV. If viremia at any level was detected, the patients received oral valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily until two consecutive tests performed 1 week apart came back negative.

The remaining 105 patients were randomly assigned to 100 days of oral prophylaxis with 900 mg valganciclovir twice daily, started within 10 days of transplant.
 

CMV disease incidence lower

The incidence of CMV disease within 12 months of transplants, the primary outcome, was 9% in the preemptive therapy group, compared with 19% in the prophylaxis group (P = .04)

The difference between the groups was largely accounted for by a reduction in disease onset beyond 100 days in the preemptive therapy group (6% vs. 17%, respectively, P = .01)

There were no significant differences in secondary endpoints of rejection, opportunistic infections, graft loss because of retransplantation, neutropenia, or receipt of one or more doses of granulocyte colony–stimulating factor for the management of neutropenia.

At 1-year follow-up, the incidence of all-cause mortality was 15% in the preemptive therapy group, and 19% in the prophylaxis group; the difference was not statistically significant.

“While most transplant centers utilize universal prophylaxis, I think that this study really suggests that preemptive monitoring, if it can be safely accomplished at your center, may be of the greatest benefit to your patients,” Dr. Ison said.

He noted that Singh et al. also looked in an exploratory analysis at CMV-specific immunity and observed that patients assigned to preemptive therapy “clearly had better CMV-specific immunity, whether CD4 or CD8 cells, and had higher lymphocyte numbers than those patients that had received universal prophylaxis.”

In a comment, Sarah Doernberg, MD, from the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that “exploratory analysis of CMV-specific immune responses suggested increased CMV-specific immunity in those in the preemptive group, a finding that warrants further study. The feasibility of adopting reliable preemptive monitoring must be considered as individual centers ponder adopting this approach.”

Dr. Doernberg moderated the session where Dr. Ison discussed the data, but was not involved in the research.

The study by Singh et al. was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Singh reported research grants from NIH. Dr. Ison disclosed research support and paid consultation for several companies. Dr. Doernberg disclosed consulting for Basilea and Genentech.

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

The investigational monoclonal antibody mirikizumab performed more robustly against placebo overall – and the interleukin-17 inhibitor secukinumab at key endpoints – for treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, according to new long-term OASIS-2 trial data.

Both doses of mirikizumab in the international, double-blind trial achieved improvements in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores in larger numbers of participants at week 52 than secukinumab (Cosentyx), with low adverse event rates.

If approved, mirikizumab, which binds the p19 subunit of IL-23, would join three other IL-23 drugs already marketed in the United States for moderate to severe psoriasis, said OASIS-2 lead investigator Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, founder and president of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

But Dr. Papp feels larger studies “will be necessary to put these data into perspective,” he said during a presentation at the virtual annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress.

“Probably the most important takeaway here is that we may have another option to choose from,” Dr. Papp said in an interview. “People tend to think we have an adequate stable of treatment options, and I would argue we do not.”

“There are variations over time that occur in terms of an individual’s biological response, and the consequence is that nothing we have works for everyone, and nothing we have works forever,” he added. Psoriasis biologics “are increasingly competent, compared to medications we had even 5 or 10 years ago ... but they still don’t satisfy all our needs, so we do need to keep replenishing our stock.”

The multicenter trial included 1,465 patients who were randomly split into four groups. Subcutaneously, one group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of the drug every 8 weeks starting at week 16. Another group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks and then 125 mg every 8 weeks starting at week 16.

The third group received 300 mg of secukinumab weekly for 4 weeks and then every 4 weeks starting at week 4. The last group received placebo every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks from week 16 to 32 and every 8 weeks thereafter.

Primary endpoints measured the percentage of patients achieving a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) of 0 or 1, with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline; and the proportion of patients with PASI 90 at week 16, compared with placebo.

Major secondary endpoints were PASI 75 and PASI 100, compared with placebo at week 16; an sPGA of 0 or 1 and PASI 90 noninferiority, compared with secukinumab at week 16; and sPGA of 0 or 1, PASI 90, and PASI 100 superiority, compared with secukinumab at week 52.

More than 91% of participants completed all 52 weeks in the trial. Mirikizumab met primary endpoints compared with placebo and major secondary endpoints vs secukinumab at week 16 (P < .001). PASI 90 and sPGA (0,1) response rates far exceeded placebo for both 250 mg mirikizumab (74.4% and 79.7%, respectively) and secukinumab (72.8% and 76.3%, respectively).

At week 52, major secondary endpoints for both mirikizumab doses were superior to secukinumab (all P < .001). PASI 90 was achieved by 81.4% of 125 mg and 82.4% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 69.4% of secukinumab patients; sPGA (0,1) by 83.1% of 125 mg and 83.3% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 68.5% of secukinumab patients; and PASI 100 by 53.9% of 125 mg and 58.8% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 42.9% of secukinumab patients.

Treatment-associated adverse effects were similar across all treatment groups and study periods. The most common were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, back pain, and arthralgia. But serious adverse effects were minimal, Dr. Papp said. One death occurred in a mirikizumab patient from acute MI, which was deemed unrelated to the study drug.

Myrto Georgia Trakatelli, MD, PhD, from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece), said the results indicate that dermatologists “should not be afraid to use” mirikizumab long term if it is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

“Sometimes patients use many treatments for a long time and all of a sudden, they stop working,” Dr. Trakatelli said in an interview. “A new biologic is always welcome because we do see patients not responding to other treatment.”

But Dr. Trakatelli said “a point that troubled me in the study” was that mirikizumab was compared with an IL-17 inhibitor “instead of a molecule targeting IL-23, such as guselkumab [Tremfya], for example.”

“I would have liked to see a head-to-head comparison with a molecule that blocks the same target,” said Dr. Trakatelli, chair of the EADV education committee.

Dr. Papp countered that “there are various reasons for running comparator studies.” Secukinumab, he said, “was the market leader and was widely used, so it makes sense that one is going to compare against a product as the market lead.”

“Not to say there won’t be future studies” in which mirikizumab is compared “head to head with IL-23s,” Dr. Papp added.

But larger patient numbers and longer treatment times are still needed with mirikizumab “to characterize the level of response, duration of response, and any adverse event profiles,” Dr. Papp stressed.

“One study does not a drug make,” he said. “It’s just exciting that we still have things to offer. This is an important example, and of course opportunity, for patients.”

The trial was funded by Lilly. Dr. Papp disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Valeant, Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Medimmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB. Dr. Trakatelli is a speaker for Novartis.

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

The investigational monoclonal antibody mirikizumab performed more robustly against placebo overall – and the interleukin-17 inhibitor secukinumab at key endpoints – for treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, according to new long-term OASIS-2 trial data.

Both doses of mirikizumab in the international, double-blind trial achieved improvements in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores in larger numbers of participants at week 52 than secukinumab (Cosentyx), with low adverse event rates.

If approved, mirikizumab, which binds the p19 subunit of IL-23, would join three other IL-23 drugs already marketed in the United States for moderate to severe psoriasis, said OASIS-2 lead investigator Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, founder and president of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

But Dr. Papp feels larger studies “will be necessary to put these data into perspective,” he said during a presentation at the virtual annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress.

“Probably the most important takeaway here is that we may have another option to choose from,” Dr. Papp said in an interview. “People tend to think we have an adequate stable of treatment options, and I would argue we do not.”

“There are variations over time that occur in terms of an individual’s biological response, and the consequence is that nothing we have works for everyone, and nothing we have works forever,” he added. Psoriasis biologics “are increasingly competent, compared to medications we had even 5 or 10 years ago ... but they still don’t satisfy all our needs, so we do need to keep replenishing our stock.”

The multicenter trial included 1,465 patients who were randomly split into four groups. Subcutaneously, one group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of the drug every 8 weeks starting at week 16. Another group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks and then 125 mg every 8 weeks starting at week 16.

The third group received 300 mg of secukinumab weekly for 4 weeks and then every 4 weeks starting at week 4. The last group received placebo every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks from week 16 to 32 and every 8 weeks thereafter.

Primary endpoints measured the percentage of patients achieving a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) of 0 or 1, with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline; and the proportion of patients with PASI 90 at week 16, compared with placebo.

Major secondary endpoints were PASI 75 and PASI 100, compared with placebo at week 16; an sPGA of 0 or 1 and PASI 90 noninferiority, compared with secukinumab at week 16; and sPGA of 0 or 1, PASI 90, and PASI 100 superiority, compared with secukinumab at week 52.

More than 91% of participants completed all 52 weeks in the trial. Mirikizumab met primary endpoints compared with placebo and major secondary endpoints vs secukinumab at week 16 (P < .001). PASI 90 and sPGA (0,1) response rates far exceeded placebo for both 250 mg mirikizumab (74.4% and 79.7%, respectively) and secukinumab (72.8% and 76.3%, respectively).

At week 52, major secondary endpoints for both mirikizumab doses were superior to secukinumab (all P < .001). PASI 90 was achieved by 81.4% of 125 mg and 82.4% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 69.4% of secukinumab patients; sPGA (0,1) by 83.1% of 125 mg and 83.3% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 68.5% of secukinumab patients; and PASI 100 by 53.9% of 125 mg and 58.8% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 42.9% of secukinumab patients.

Treatment-associated adverse effects were similar across all treatment groups and study periods. The most common were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, back pain, and arthralgia. But serious adverse effects were minimal, Dr. Papp said. One death occurred in a mirikizumab patient from acute MI, which was deemed unrelated to the study drug.

Myrto Georgia Trakatelli, MD, PhD, from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece), said the results indicate that dermatologists “should not be afraid to use” mirikizumab long term if it is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

“Sometimes patients use many treatments for a long time and all of a sudden, they stop working,” Dr. Trakatelli said in an interview. “A new biologic is always welcome because we do see patients not responding to other treatment.”

But Dr. Trakatelli said “a point that troubled me in the study” was that mirikizumab was compared with an IL-17 inhibitor “instead of a molecule targeting IL-23, such as guselkumab [Tremfya], for example.”

“I would have liked to see a head-to-head comparison with a molecule that blocks the same target,” said Dr. Trakatelli, chair of the EADV education committee.

Dr. Papp countered that “there are various reasons for running comparator studies.” Secukinumab, he said, “was the market leader and was widely used, so it makes sense that one is going to compare against a product as the market lead.”

“Not to say there won’t be future studies” in which mirikizumab is compared “head to head with IL-23s,” Dr. Papp added.

But larger patient numbers and longer treatment times are still needed with mirikizumab “to characterize the level of response, duration of response, and any adverse event profiles,” Dr. Papp stressed.

“One study does not a drug make,” he said. “It’s just exciting that we still have things to offer. This is an important example, and of course opportunity, for patients.”

The trial was funded by Lilly. Dr. Papp disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Valeant, Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Medimmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB. Dr. Trakatelli is a speaker for Novartis.

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

The investigational monoclonal antibody mirikizumab performed more robustly against placebo overall – and the interleukin-17 inhibitor secukinumab at key endpoints – for treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, according to new long-term OASIS-2 trial data.

Both doses of mirikizumab in the international, double-blind trial achieved improvements in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores in larger numbers of participants at week 52 than secukinumab (Cosentyx), with low adverse event rates.

If approved, mirikizumab, which binds the p19 subunit of IL-23, would join three other IL-23 drugs already marketed in the United States for moderate to severe psoriasis, said OASIS-2 lead investigator Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, founder and president of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

But Dr. Papp feels larger studies “will be necessary to put these data into perspective,” he said during a presentation at the virtual annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress.

“Probably the most important takeaway here is that we may have another option to choose from,” Dr. Papp said in an interview. “People tend to think we have an adequate stable of treatment options, and I would argue we do not.”

“There are variations over time that occur in terms of an individual’s biological response, and the consequence is that nothing we have works for everyone, and nothing we have works forever,” he added. Psoriasis biologics “are increasingly competent, compared to medications we had even 5 or 10 years ago ... but they still don’t satisfy all our needs, so we do need to keep replenishing our stock.”

The multicenter trial included 1,465 patients who were randomly split into four groups. Subcutaneously, one group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of the drug every 8 weeks starting at week 16. Another group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks and then 125 mg every 8 weeks starting at week 16.

The third group received 300 mg of secukinumab weekly for 4 weeks and then every 4 weeks starting at week 4. The last group received placebo every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks from week 16 to 32 and every 8 weeks thereafter.

Primary endpoints measured the percentage of patients achieving a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) of 0 or 1, with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline; and the proportion of patients with PASI 90 at week 16, compared with placebo.

Major secondary endpoints were PASI 75 and PASI 100, compared with placebo at week 16; an sPGA of 0 or 1 and PASI 90 noninferiority, compared with secukinumab at week 16; and sPGA of 0 or 1, PASI 90, and PASI 100 superiority, compared with secukinumab at week 52.

More than 91% of participants completed all 52 weeks in the trial. Mirikizumab met primary endpoints compared with placebo and major secondary endpoints vs secukinumab at week 16 (P < .001). PASI 90 and sPGA (0,1) response rates far exceeded placebo for both 250 mg mirikizumab (74.4% and 79.7%, respectively) and secukinumab (72.8% and 76.3%, respectively).

At week 52, major secondary endpoints for both mirikizumab doses were superior to secukinumab (all P < .001). PASI 90 was achieved by 81.4% of 125 mg and 82.4% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 69.4% of secukinumab patients; sPGA (0,1) by 83.1% of 125 mg and 83.3% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 68.5% of secukinumab patients; and PASI 100 by 53.9% of 125 mg and 58.8% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 42.9% of secukinumab patients.

Treatment-associated adverse effects were similar across all treatment groups and study periods. The most common were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, back pain, and arthralgia. But serious adverse effects were minimal, Dr. Papp said. One death occurred in a mirikizumab patient from acute MI, which was deemed unrelated to the study drug.

Myrto Georgia Trakatelli, MD, PhD, from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece), said the results indicate that dermatologists “should not be afraid to use” mirikizumab long term if it is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

“Sometimes patients use many treatments for a long time and all of a sudden, they stop working,” Dr. Trakatelli said in an interview. “A new biologic is always welcome because we do see patients not responding to other treatment.”

But Dr. Trakatelli said “a point that troubled me in the study” was that mirikizumab was compared with an IL-17 inhibitor “instead of a molecule targeting IL-23, such as guselkumab [Tremfya], for example.”

“I would have liked to see a head-to-head comparison with a molecule that blocks the same target,” said Dr. Trakatelli, chair of the EADV education committee.

Dr. Papp countered that “there are various reasons for running comparator studies.” Secukinumab, he said, “was the market leader and was widely used, so it makes sense that one is going to compare against a product as the market lead.”

“Not to say there won’t be future studies” in which mirikizumab is compared “head to head with IL-23s,” Dr. Papp added.

But larger patient numbers and longer treatment times are still needed with mirikizumab “to characterize the level of response, duration of response, and any adverse event profiles,” Dr. Papp stressed.

“One study does not a drug make,” he said. “It’s just exciting that we still have things to offer. This is an important example, and of course opportunity, for patients.”

The trial was funded by Lilly. Dr. Papp disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Valeant, Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Medimmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB. Dr. Trakatelli is a speaker for Novartis.

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

The molecular makeup of medulloblastoma may be used to identify patients who can be safely treated with less radiation therapy, according to a secondary analysis of the Children’s Oncology Group ACNS0331 trial.

Results from this analysis were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Today, molecular diagnostics play a critical role in the classification of tumors, particularly medulloblastoma,” noted lead investigator Jeff M. Michalski, MD, of Washington University St. Louis, Mo.

“It is now recognized that medulloblastoma can be subgrouped into four distinct entities with unique demographics and tumor behaviors,” he said.

Those four groups are the SHH subgroup, the WNT subgroup, group 3, and group 4.

Study rationale and details

The benefits of current multimodality therapy in controlling and curing medulloblastoma come at the cost of toxicity, especially for younger patients, in terms of neurocognitive deficits, secondary cancers, and growth and neuro-endocrine abnormalities.

With this in mind, Dr. Michalski and colleagues conducted a phase 3 trial to test two strategies for reducing radiation in average-risk medulloblastoma without compromising outcomes.

After craniospinal irradiation (CSI), all patients were randomized to a radiation boost to the whole posterior fossa (PFRT) or an involved field volume (IFRT). Patients aged 8-21 years received CSI at the standard dose (23.4 Gy). Patients aged 3-7 years were randomized to standard-dose CSI or low-dose CSI (18 Gy).

There were 464 patients in whom PFRT to IFRT could be compared and 226 patients in whom standard and low-dose CSI could be compared.

Only 362 patients had sufficient tumor tissue to allow for classification into molecular subgroups. Among these patients, 43.1% fell into the group 4 subgroup, 21.0% into the group 3 subgroup, 18.2% into the SHH subgroup, and 17.7% into the WNT subgroup.
 

Survival results

The trial’s primary outcomes were event-free and overall survival. Events were defined as progression, recurrence, death, or second malignancy.

For the whole cohort, boost volume did not significantly affect outcomes. IFRT and PFRT yielded similar 5-year event-free survival (82.5% vs. 80.5%; P = .44) and overall survival (84.6% vs. 85.2%; P = .44). However, CSI dose did affect outcomes, with the low dose inferior to the standard dose on both 5-year event-free survival (71.4% vs. 82.9%; P = .028) and overall survival (77.5% vs. 85.6%; P = .049).

In analyses stratified by molecular subgroup, event-free survival did not differ significantly by boost volume within subgroups, except for the SHH subgroup, within which PFRT yielded worse outcomes (P = .018). Similarly, event-free survival did not differ significantly by CSI dose within subgroups, except for group 4, within which the low dose yielded a worse outcome (P = .047).

When specific genomic alterations were also considered, patients in the SHH group had worse outcomes if they had chromosome 14q loss, chromosome 10q loss, or p53 mutation. Patients in group 3 had worse outcomes if they had MYC amplification, iso-chromosome 17q, or both of these abnormalities.

No significant correlations were seen for group 4 patients, and there were too few patients in the WNT subgroup to assess correlations.

“Survival rates following reduced radiation boost volumes were comparable to standard treatment volumes for the primary tumor site. Interestingly, the SHH subgroup had worse event-free survival with whole posterior fossa radiation therapy,” Dr. Michalski commented. “Reduced dose of craniospinal axis irradiation was associated with higher event rates and worse survival, and group 4 was the primary subgroup that drove these inferior outcomes.”

“Specific genomic abnormalities are associated with worse outcomes, and future trials should consider subgroup and these genomic abnormalities in their study design,” he recommended.
 

‘A new era’ of risk stratification

Current evidence “leads us to conclude that certain molecular subgroups and specific genetic abnormalities within the subgroups are primary drivers of outcome and can be associated with far worse outcomes than what the conventional risk definition might suggest,” said invited discussant Stephanie Terezakis, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

“In fact, differences in outcomes are greater between molecular subgroups and genomic abnormalities in large trial cohorts than between clinical trials when we use conventional risk definitions,” Dr. Terezakis said.

The ACNS0331 trial’s subgroup findings demonstrate that one size of therapy may not fit all, she elaborated. For example, some patients with favorable tumor biology may still be able to receive deintensified therapy and maintain excellent outcomes, whereas other patients with unfavorable tumor biology could potentially be newly classified as high risk and eligible for intensified therapy.

“This is the subject of ongoing discussions today to try to inform this next generation of trials, to see how we risk-stratify patients,” Dr. Terezakis concluded. “This model of conducting a national clinical trial with biologic endpoints has allowed us to usher in a new era where tumor biology may potentially guide our treatment approaches and lead to more personalized cancer care.”

The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute, The Brain Tumor Charity, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. Dr. Michalski disclosed relationships with ViewRay, Boston Scientific, Merck, and Blue Earth Diagnostics. Dr. Terezakis disclosed scientific grants from the Radiation Oncology Institute and the Sarcoma Foundation of America.

SOURCE: Michalski JM et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 1.

The molecular makeup of medulloblastoma may be used to identify patients who can be safely treated with less radiation therapy, according to a secondary analysis of the Children’s Oncology Group ACNS0331 trial.

Results from this analysis were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Today, molecular diagnostics play a critical role in the classification of tumors, particularly medulloblastoma,” noted lead investigator Jeff M. Michalski, MD, of Washington University St. Louis, Mo.

“It is now recognized that medulloblastoma can be subgrouped into four distinct entities with unique demographics and tumor behaviors,” he said.

Those four groups are the SHH subgroup, the WNT subgroup, group 3, and group 4.

Study rationale and details

The benefits of current multimodality therapy in controlling and curing medulloblastoma come at the cost of toxicity, especially for younger patients, in terms of neurocognitive deficits, secondary cancers, and growth and neuro-endocrine abnormalities.

With this in mind, Dr. Michalski and colleagues conducted a phase 3 trial to test two strategies for reducing radiation in average-risk medulloblastoma without compromising outcomes.

After craniospinal irradiation (CSI), all patients were randomized to a radiation boost to the whole posterior fossa (PFRT) or an involved field volume (IFRT). Patients aged 8-21 years received CSI at the standard dose (23.4 Gy). Patients aged 3-7 years were randomized to standard-dose CSI or low-dose CSI (18 Gy).

There were 464 patients in whom PFRT to IFRT could be compared and 226 patients in whom standard and low-dose CSI could be compared.

Only 362 patients had sufficient tumor tissue to allow for classification into molecular subgroups. Among these patients, 43.1% fell into the group 4 subgroup, 21.0% into the group 3 subgroup, 18.2% into the SHH subgroup, and 17.7% into the WNT subgroup.
 

Survival results

The trial’s primary outcomes were event-free and overall survival. Events were defined as progression, recurrence, death, or second malignancy.

For the whole cohort, boost volume did not significantly affect outcomes. IFRT and PFRT yielded similar 5-year event-free survival (82.5% vs. 80.5%; P = .44) and overall survival (84.6% vs. 85.2%; P = .44). However, CSI dose did affect outcomes, with the low dose inferior to the standard dose on both 5-year event-free survival (71.4% vs. 82.9%; P = .028) and overall survival (77.5% vs. 85.6%; P = .049).

In analyses stratified by molecular subgroup, event-free survival did not differ significantly by boost volume within subgroups, except for the SHH subgroup, within which PFRT yielded worse outcomes (P = .018). Similarly, event-free survival did not differ significantly by CSI dose within subgroups, except for group 4, within which the low dose yielded a worse outcome (P = .047).

When specific genomic alterations were also considered, patients in the SHH group had worse outcomes if they had chromosome 14q loss, chromosome 10q loss, or p53 mutation. Patients in group 3 had worse outcomes if they had MYC amplification, iso-chromosome 17q, or both of these abnormalities.

No significant correlations were seen for group 4 patients, and there were too few patients in the WNT subgroup to assess correlations.

“Survival rates following reduced radiation boost volumes were comparable to standard treatment volumes for the primary tumor site. Interestingly, the SHH subgroup had worse event-free survival with whole posterior fossa radiation therapy,” Dr. Michalski commented. “Reduced dose of craniospinal axis irradiation was associated with higher event rates and worse survival, and group 4 was the primary subgroup that drove these inferior outcomes.”

“Specific genomic abnormalities are associated with worse outcomes, and future trials should consider subgroup and these genomic abnormalities in their study design,” he recommended.
 

‘A new era’ of risk stratification

Current evidence “leads us to conclude that certain molecular subgroups and specific genetic abnormalities within the subgroups are primary drivers of outcome and can be associated with far worse outcomes than what the conventional risk definition might suggest,” said invited discussant Stephanie Terezakis, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

“In fact, differences in outcomes are greater between molecular subgroups and genomic abnormalities in large trial cohorts than between clinical trials when we use conventional risk definitions,” Dr. Terezakis said.

The ACNS0331 trial’s subgroup findings demonstrate that one size of therapy may not fit all, she elaborated. For example, some patients with favorable tumor biology may still be able to receive deintensified therapy and maintain excellent outcomes, whereas other patients with unfavorable tumor biology could potentially be newly classified as high risk and eligible for intensified therapy.

“This is the subject of ongoing discussions today to try to inform this next generation of trials, to see how we risk-stratify patients,” Dr. Terezakis concluded. “This model of conducting a national clinical trial with biologic endpoints has allowed us to usher in a new era where tumor biology may potentially guide our treatment approaches and lead to more personalized cancer care.”

The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute, The Brain Tumor Charity, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. Dr. Michalski disclosed relationships with ViewRay, Boston Scientific, Merck, and Blue Earth Diagnostics. Dr. Terezakis disclosed scientific grants from the Radiation Oncology Institute and the Sarcoma Foundation of America.

SOURCE: Michalski JM et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 1.

The molecular makeup of medulloblastoma may be used to identify patients who can be safely treated with less radiation therapy, according to a secondary analysis of the Children’s Oncology Group ACNS0331 trial.

Results from this analysis were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Today, molecular diagnostics play a critical role in the classification of tumors, particularly medulloblastoma,” noted lead investigator Jeff M. Michalski, MD, of Washington University St. Louis, Mo.

“It is now recognized that medulloblastoma can be subgrouped into four distinct entities with unique demographics and tumor behaviors,” he said.

Those four groups are the SHH subgroup, the WNT subgroup, group 3, and group 4.

Study rationale and details

The benefits of current multimodality therapy in controlling and curing medulloblastoma come at the cost of toxicity, especially for younger patients, in terms of neurocognitive deficits, secondary cancers, and growth and neuro-endocrine abnormalities.

With this in mind, Dr. Michalski and colleagues conducted a phase 3 trial to test two strategies for reducing radiation in average-risk medulloblastoma without compromising outcomes.

After craniospinal irradiation (CSI), all patients were randomized to a radiation boost to the whole posterior fossa (PFRT) or an involved field volume (IFRT). Patients aged 8-21 years received CSI at the standard dose (23.4 Gy). Patients aged 3-7 years were randomized to standard-dose CSI or low-dose CSI (18 Gy).

There were 464 patients in whom PFRT to IFRT could be compared and 226 patients in whom standard and low-dose CSI could be compared.

Only 362 patients had sufficient tumor tissue to allow for classification into molecular subgroups. Among these patients, 43.1% fell into the group 4 subgroup, 21.0% into the group 3 subgroup, 18.2% into the SHH subgroup, and 17.7% into the WNT subgroup.
 

Survival results

The trial’s primary outcomes were event-free and overall survival. Events were defined as progression, recurrence, death, or second malignancy.

For the whole cohort, boost volume did not significantly affect outcomes. IFRT and PFRT yielded similar 5-year event-free survival (82.5% vs. 80.5%; P = .44) and overall survival (84.6% vs. 85.2%; P = .44). However, CSI dose did affect outcomes, with the low dose inferior to the standard dose on both 5-year event-free survival (71.4% vs. 82.9%; P = .028) and overall survival (77.5% vs. 85.6%; P = .049).

In analyses stratified by molecular subgroup, event-free survival did not differ significantly by boost volume within subgroups, except for the SHH subgroup, within which PFRT yielded worse outcomes (P = .018). Similarly, event-free survival did not differ significantly by CSI dose within subgroups, except for group 4, within which the low dose yielded a worse outcome (P = .047).

When specific genomic alterations were also considered, patients in the SHH group had worse outcomes if they had chromosome 14q loss, chromosome 10q loss, or p53 mutation. Patients in group 3 had worse outcomes if they had MYC amplification, iso-chromosome 17q, or both of these abnormalities.

No significant correlations were seen for group 4 patients, and there were too few patients in the WNT subgroup to assess correlations.

“Survival rates following reduced radiation boost volumes were comparable to standard treatment volumes for the primary tumor site. Interestingly, the SHH subgroup had worse event-free survival with whole posterior fossa radiation therapy,” Dr. Michalski commented. “Reduced dose of craniospinal axis irradiation was associated with higher event rates and worse survival, and group 4 was the primary subgroup that drove these inferior outcomes.”

“Specific genomic abnormalities are associated with worse outcomes, and future trials should consider subgroup and these genomic abnormalities in their study design,” he recommended.
 

‘A new era’ of risk stratification

Current evidence “leads us to conclude that certain molecular subgroups and specific genetic abnormalities within the subgroups are primary drivers of outcome and can be associated with far worse outcomes than what the conventional risk definition might suggest,” said invited discussant Stephanie Terezakis, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

“In fact, differences in outcomes are greater between molecular subgroups and genomic abnormalities in large trial cohorts than between clinical trials when we use conventional risk definitions,” Dr. Terezakis said.

The ACNS0331 trial’s subgroup findings demonstrate that one size of therapy may not fit all, she elaborated. For example, some patients with favorable tumor biology may still be able to receive deintensified therapy and maintain excellent outcomes, whereas other patients with unfavorable tumor biology could potentially be newly classified as high risk and eligible for intensified therapy.

“This is the subject of ongoing discussions today to try to inform this next generation of trials, to see how we risk-stratify patients,” Dr. Terezakis concluded. “This model of conducting a national clinical trial with biologic endpoints has allowed us to usher in a new era where tumor biology may potentially guide our treatment approaches and lead to more personalized cancer care.”

The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute, The Brain Tumor Charity, and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. Dr. Michalski disclosed relationships with ViewRay, Boston Scientific, Merck, and Blue Earth Diagnostics. Dr. Terezakis disclosed scientific grants from the Radiation Oncology Institute and the Sarcoma Foundation of America.

SOURCE: Michalski JM et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 1.

Giving crushed prasugrel (Effient) to patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) en route to a planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve reperfusion rates, results of the COMPARE CRUSH trial show.

Patients assigned to prasugrel as crushed or integral tablets had similar rates of the study’s co-primary endpoints of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow in the infarct-related artery at first angiography (31% vs. 32.7%; P = .64) and complete ST-segment resolution 1 hour post PCI (59.9% vs. 57.3%; P = .55).

“These findings hold in spite of the fact that crushed tablets of prasugrel led to more potent platelet inhibition compared with integral tablets,” said study author Georgios Vlachojannis, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

“Whether faster and more potent antiplatelet therapy can improve coronary reperfusion in contemporary STEMI treatment regimen warrants further investigation.”

The results were reported in a late-breaking clinical science session at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting and published simultaneously in the journal Circulation. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Fibrinolytics and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have demonstrated improved coronary reperfusion and outcomes when given pre hospital. Prior studies have also shown that early administration of a crushed P2Y12 inhibitor increases bioavailability and speeds platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, Dr. Vlachojannis noted.

However, the large randomized ATLANTIC trial, which compared prehospital to cath lab administration of crushed or integral ticagrelor (Brilinta), also found no difference in either TIMI flow in the infarct-related artery or ST-segment resolution.

Between November 2017 and March 2020, the investigator-initiated COMPARE CRUSH trial randomly allocated 727 STEMI patients (mean age, 62 years; 23% female) undergoing primary PCI to receive in the ambulance a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel as either crushed or integral tablets.

The median time from onset of symptoms to first medical contact was 59 minutes, from first medical contact to study treatment 22 minutes, and from study treatment to primary PCI 57 minutes. These times did not differ between groups.

Platelet reactivity at the beginning of coronary angiography was significantly lower in the crushed group than in the integral group (P2Y12 reactivity units 192 vs. 227; P < .01). This resulted in significantly fewer patients in the crushed group with high platelet reactivity, defined as P2Y12 reactivity units >208, prior to the start of PCI (43.3% vs. 62.6%; P < .01).

There was no difference between the crushed and integral groups in the primary safety endpoint of TIMI major and BARC type 3 or higher bleeding within 48 hours after study treatment (0.4% vs 0.7%).

Death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization rates were also similar between groups during index hospitalization and at 30 days. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in one patient in the crushed group and two patients in the integral group.

In an exploratory analysis, the co-primary endpoint results were consistent across multiple subgroups, although there was a trend toward greater benefit on TIMI 3 flow in the crushed tablet group in patients older than age 75 years (P for interaction = .04), presenting with anterior infarction (P for interaction = .03), or with a history of prior PCI (P for interaction < .01).

“However, these results should be regarded as hypothesis-generating,” the authors wrote. “Opioids use in the ambulance was remarkably low in our study compared with the ATLANTIC trial, which might explain that we did not observe any significant interaction.”

Notably, morphine was used in half the ATLANTIC patients and was thought to have possibly delayed the absorption of ticagrelor.

During discussion following the presentation, Sunil V. Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., asked: “Based on what you found, which is really no clinical advantage but no safety issue either, are you having your patients with ST-segment MI administering crushed prasugrel now?”

Dr. Vlachojannis said they didn’t see any clinical impact but reiterated that high platelet reactivity was reduced by one-third. “If this now translates into a safer primary PCI procedure, we can’t say. The study wasn’t powered for this kind of endpoint. Is this enough to give you a recommendation, Sunil, I’m not sure.”

“What we know with COMPARE CRUSH, and this is important, is that we tried to give the medication as soon as possible and tried to give this medication in a formulation which has the most favorable pharmacodynamics profile, and we still see it’s not doing the job,” he added.

Fellow panelist Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, questioned whether treatment time may play a role in teasing out the relatively modest differences that platelet reactivity may have on clinical outcomes.

Dr. Vlachojannis said the time from symptom onset to first medical contact was very fast and similar to that in the ATLANTIC trial. “The short time intervals have certainly influenced the outcomes.”

Panelist Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, followed up on the morphine issue, asking whether the investigators tested for an interaction between morphine or opioid use and platelet reactivity at the time of PCI.

“We haven’t looked into this but you probably have the ON-TIME 3 data in your mind when you’re asking this, where crushed ticagrelor given in the ambulance didn’t influence platelet reactivity at the time point of PCI,” Dr. Vlachojannis said. “We are going to look further into the data and certainly the platelet reactivity analysis is going to be very interesting in this data set.”

The study was an investigator-initiated trial sponsored by Maasstad Cardiovascular Research B.V. with unrestricted grants from Shanghai MicroPort Medical and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Vlachojannis declared receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, and research grants from Daiichi Sankyo and Shanghai MicroPort.

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

Giving crushed prasugrel (Effient) to patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) en route to a planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve reperfusion rates, results of the COMPARE CRUSH trial show.

Patients assigned to prasugrel as crushed or integral tablets had similar rates of the study’s co-primary endpoints of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow in the infarct-related artery at first angiography (31% vs. 32.7%; P = .64) and complete ST-segment resolution 1 hour post PCI (59.9% vs. 57.3%; P = .55).

“These findings hold in spite of the fact that crushed tablets of prasugrel led to more potent platelet inhibition compared with integral tablets,” said study author Georgios Vlachojannis, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

“Whether faster and more potent antiplatelet therapy can improve coronary reperfusion in contemporary STEMI treatment regimen warrants further investigation.”

The results were reported in a late-breaking clinical science session at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting and published simultaneously in the journal Circulation. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Fibrinolytics and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have demonstrated improved coronary reperfusion and outcomes when given pre hospital. Prior studies have also shown that early administration of a crushed P2Y12 inhibitor increases bioavailability and speeds platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, Dr. Vlachojannis noted.

However, the large randomized ATLANTIC trial, which compared prehospital to cath lab administration of crushed or integral ticagrelor (Brilinta), also found no difference in either TIMI flow in the infarct-related artery or ST-segment resolution.

Between November 2017 and March 2020, the investigator-initiated COMPARE CRUSH trial randomly allocated 727 STEMI patients (mean age, 62 years; 23% female) undergoing primary PCI to receive in the ambulance a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel as either crushed or integral tablets.

The median time from onset of symptoms to first medical contact was 59 minutes, from first medical contact to study treatment 22 minutes, and from study treatment to primary PCI 57 minutes. These times did not differ between groups.

Platelet reactivity at the beginning of coronary angiography was significantly lower in the crushed group than in the integral group (P2Y12 reactivity units 192 vs. 227; P < .01). This resulted in significantly fewer patients in the crushed group with high platelet reactivity, defined as P2Y12 reactivity units >208, prior to the start of PCI (43.3% vs. 62.6%; P < .01).

There was no difference between the crushed and integral groups in the primary safety endpoint of TIMI major and BARC type 3 or higher bleeding within 48 hours after study treatment (0.4% vs 0.7%).

Death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization rates were also similar between groups during index hospitalization and at 30 days. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in one patient in the crushed group and two patients in the integral group.

In an exploratory analysis, the co-primary endpoint results were consistent across multiple subgroups, although there was a trend toward greater benefit on TIMI 3 flow in the crushed tablet group in patients older than age 75 years (P for interaction = .04), presenting with anterior infarction (P for interaction = .03), or with a history of prior PCI (P for interaction < .01).

“However, these results should be regarded as hypothesis-generating,” the authors wrote. “Opioids use in the ambulance was remarkably low in our study compared with the ATLANTIC trial, which might explain that we did not observe any significant interaction.”

Notably, morphine was used in half the ATLANTIC patients and was thought to have possibly delayed the absorption of ticagrelor.

During discussion following the presentation, Sunil V. Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., asked: “Based on what you found, which is really no clinical advantage but no safety issue either, are you having your patients with ST-segment MI administering crushed prasugrel now?”

Dr. Vlachojannis said they didn’t see any clinical impact but reiterated that high platelet reactivity was reduced by one-third. “If this now translates into a safer primary PCI procedure, we can’t say. The study wasn’t powered for this kind of endpoint. Is this enough to give you a recommendation, Sunil, I’m not sure.”

“What we know with COMPARE CRUSH, and this is important, is that we tried to give the medication as soon as possible and tried to give this medication in a formulation which has the most favorable pharmacodynamics profile, and we still see it’s not doing the job,” he added.

Fellow panelist Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, questioned whether treatment time may play a role in teasing out the relatively modest differences that platelet reactivity may have on clinical outcomes.

Dr. Vlachojannis said the time from symptom onset to first medical contact was very fast and similar to that in the ATLANTIC trial. “The short time intervals have certainly influenced the outcomes.”

Panelist Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, followed up on the morphine issue, asking whether the investigators tested for an interaction between morphine or opioid use and platelet reactivity at the time of PCI.

“We haven’t looked into this but you probably have the ON-TIME 3 data in your mind when you’re asking this, where crushed ticagrelor given in the ambulance didn’t influence platelet reactivity at the time point of PCI,” Dr. Vlachojannis said. “We are going to look further into the data and certainly the platelet reactivity analysis is going to be very interesting in this data set.”

The study was an investigator-initiated trial sponsored by Maasstad Cardiovascular Research B.V. with unrestricted grants from Shanghai MicroPort Medical and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Vlachojannis declared receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, and research grants from Daiichi Sankyo and Shanghai MicroPort.

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

Giving crushed prasugrel (Effient) to patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) en route to a planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve reperfusion rates, results of the COMPARE CRUSH trial show.

Patients assigned to prasugrel as crushed or integral tablets had similar rates of the study’s co-primary endpoints of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow in the infarct-related artery at first angiography (31% vs. 32.7%; P = .64) and complete ST-segment resolution 1 hour post PCI (59.9% vs. 57.3%; P = .55).

“These findings hold in spite of the fact that crushed tablets of prasugrel led to more potent platelet inhibition compared with integral tablets,” said study author Georgios Vlachojannis, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

“Whether faster and more potent antiplatelet therapy can improve coronary reperfusion in contemporary STEMI treatment regimen warrants further investigation.”

The results were reported in a late-breaking clinical science session at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting and published simultaneously in the journal Circulation. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Fibrinolytics and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have demonstrated improved coronary reperfusion and outcomes when given pre hospital. Prior studies have also shown that early administration of a crushed P2Y12 inhibitor increases bioavailability and speeds platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, Dr. Vlachojannis noted.

However, the large randomized ATLANTIC trial, which compared prehospital to cath lab administration of crushed or integral ticagrelor (Brilinta), also found no difference in either TIMI flow in the infarct-related artery or ST-segment resolution.

Between November 2017 and March 2020, the investigator-initiated COMPARE CRUSH trial randomly allocated 727 STEMI patients (mean age, 62 years; 23% female) undergoing primary PCI to receive in the ambulance a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel as either crushed or integral tablets.

The median time from onset of symptoms to first medical contact was 59 minutes, from first medical contact to study treatment 22 minutes, and from study treatment to primary PCI 57 minutes. These times did not differ between groups.

Platelet reactivity at the beginning of coronary angiography was significantly lower in the crushed group than in the integral group (P2Y12 reactivity units 192 vs. 227; P < .01). This resulted in significantly fewer patients in the crushed group with high platelet reactivity, defined as P2Y12 reactivity units >208, prior to the start of PCI (43.3% vs. 62.6%; P < .01).

There was no difference between the crushed and integral groups in the primary safety endpoint of TIMI major and BARC type 3 or higher bleeding within 48 hours after study treatment (0.4% vs 0.7%).

Death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization rates were also similar between groups during index hospitalization and at 30 days. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in one patient in the crushed group and two patients in the integral group.

In an exploratory analysis, the co-primary endpoint results were consistent across multiple subgroups, although there was a trend toward greater benefit on TIMI 3 flow in the crushed tablet group in patients older than age 75 years (P for interaction = .04), presenting with anterior infarction (P for interaction = .03), or with a history of prior PCI (P for interaction < .01).

“However, these results should be regarded as hypothesis-generating,” the authors wrote. “Opioids use in the ambulance was remarkably low in our study compared with the ATLANTIC trial, which might explain that we did not observe any significant interaction.”

Notably, morphine was used in half the ATLANTIC patients and was thought to have possibly delayed the absorption of ticagrelor.

During discussion following the presentation, Sunil V. Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., asked: “Based on what you found, which is really no clinical advantage but no safety issue either, are you having your patients with ST-segment MI administering crushed prasugrel now?”

Dr. Vlachojannis said they didn’t see any clinical impact but reiterated that high platelet reactivity was reduced by one-third. “If this now translates into a safer primary PCI procedure, we can’t say. The study wasn’t powered for this kind of endpoint. Is this enough to give you a recommendation, Sunil, I’m not sure.”

“What we know with COMPARE CRUSH, and this is important, is that we tried to give the medication as soon as possible and tried to give this medication in a formulation which has the most favorable pharmacodynamics profile, and we still see it’s not doing the job,” he added.

Fellow panelist Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, questioned whether treatment time may play a role in teasing out the relatively modest differences that platelet reactivity may have on clinical outcomes.

Dr. Vlachojannis said the time from symptom onset to first medical contact was very fast and similar to that in the ATLANTIC trial. “The short time intervals have certainly influenced the outcomes.”

Panelist Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, followed up on the morphine issue, asking whether the investigators tested for an interaction between morphine or opioid use and platelet reactivity at the time of PCI.

“We haven’t looked into this but you probably have the ON-TIME 3 data in your mind when you’re asking this, where crushed ticagrelor given in the ambulance didn’t influence platelet reactivity at the time point of PCI,” Dr. Vlachojannis said. “We are going to look further into the data and certainly the platelet reactivity analysis is going to be very interesting in this data set.”

The study was an investigator-initiated trial sponsored by Maasstad Cardiovascular Research B.V. with unrestricted grants from Shanghai MicroPort Medical and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Vlachojannis declared receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, and research grants from Daiichi Sankyo and Shanghai MicroPort.

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

Delgocitinib cream shows a dose-dependent response in easing chronic hand eczema, a common and difficult-to-treat disorder for which few other topical options are available, a new international phase 2b research suggests.

An investigational pan–Janus kinase inhibitor that blocks all four members of the JAK family, twice-daily delgocitinib doses of 8 mg/g and 20 mg/g demonstrated the highest efficacy in adults with mild to severe chronic hand eczema. By week 16, nearly 40% of patients receiving either dose were clear or almost clear of symptoms.

“By mode of action, we think delgocitinib is more selective in the way of acting,” said lead investigator Margitta Worm, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, venereology, and allergology at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, during a presentation of the results at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“We do know that JAKs play an important role in chronic inflammation and interfering with the JAK pathway can have anti-inflammatory effects,” Dr. Worm said in an interview. “Whenever it’s possible to use a molecule topically or locally, it’s advantageous for patients because it’s only acting where you apply it and there are no systemic side effects.”

Defined as lasting more than 3 months or relapsing twice or more within a year, chronic hand eczema is a particularly problematic form of atopic dermatitis because “we need our hands every day for almost every activity, so having eczema on your hands has a huge impact on quality of life,” Dr. Worm said.

Many people whose hands are integral to their occupations also have trouble working because of the disorder, she explained. But current topical treatments are limited to emollients, corticosteroids, and calcineurin inhibitors.

“Topical corticosteroids are efficacious, but can cause skin atrophy,” she said. “Their long-term side-effect profile limits their use.”

The number of patients in each treatment group was too small to focus on different subtypes of chronic hand eczema, “but this is something that will probably be looked at in the future,” Dr. Worm said. “At the moment it’s nice to see a dose-dependent clinical efficacy and good tolerability, and now we have to wait for phase 3 data in the future.”

Dr. Worm and colleagues aimed to establish the dose-response relationship of twice-daily applications of delgocitinib cream in doses of 1, 3, 8, and 20 mg/g and a delgocitinib cream vehicle for 16 weeks. The 258 participants (61% women; average age, 46 years) were randomly assigned in equal groups to each dose of delgocitinib cream or the vehicle cream twice daily at centers in Denmark, Germany, and the United States.

The primary endpoint for the double-blind, 26-center trial was the proportion of patients who achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 (“clear”) or 1 (“almost clear”), with a 2-point or higher improvement from baseline over the study period. A key secondary endpoint was a change in the Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI) from baseline to week 16.

At week 16, a statistically significant dose response was established for both primary and secondary endpoints (P < .025). More patients in the delgocitinib 8-mg/g and 20-mg/g groups met the primary endpoint (36.5% and 37.7%, respectively) than patients in the 1-mg/g and 3-mg/g groups (21.2% and 7.8%, respectively) and vehicle group (8%, P = .0004).

This primary skin clearance effect at week 16 was demonstrated from week 4 in the 8-mg/g group and week 6 in the 20-mg/g group. But all active doses achieved a statistically significant greater jump in HECSI from baseline to week 16 than the vehicle cream (P < .05).

“The strength of the trial is that there were different concentrations of the substance used,” Dr. Worm said. “When you look to the results, you can demonstrate a dose-dependent clinical efficacy. This is of great value to really compare the efficacy of single doses.”

Most adverse events reported were not considered treatment related and were mild or moderate. The most frequently reported side effects were nasopharyngitis, eczema, and headache.

Commenting on the results, Asli Bilgic, MD, from Akdeniz University in Antalya, Turkey, who was not involved with the study, said that phase 3 studies of delgocitinib should probe further into the effects of the 8-mg/g dosage in this patient group since it appears to show similar efficacy and safety to 20 mg/g.

It’s important for research to focus on hand eczema “because it’s a very common disease, and treatment options are really sparse,” Dr. Bilgic said in an interview.

“Especially in the COVID era, many health care professionals, along with cleaning, catering, and mechanical jobs” are essential workers affected by the condition, she said. “It affects people’s self-esteem and their ability to do their job.”

The study was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Worm received lecture honoraria from LEO Pharma. Dr. Bilgic disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Delgocitinib cream shows a dose-dependent response in easing chronic hand eczema, a common and difficult-to-treat disorder for which few other topical options are available, a new international phase 2b research suggests.

An investigational pan–Janus kinase inhibitor that blocks all four members of the JAK family, twice-daily delgocitinib doses of 8 mg/g and 20 mg/g demonstrated the highest efficacy in adults with mild to severe chronic hand eczema. By week 16, nearly 40% of patients receiving either dose were clear or almost clear of symptoms.

“By mode of action, we think delgocitinib is more selective in the way of acting,” said lead investigator Margitta Worm, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, venereology, and allergology at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, during a presentation of the results at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“We do know that JAKs play an important role in chronic inflammation and interfering with the JAK pathway can have anti-inflammatory effects,” Dr. Worm said in an interview. “Whenever it’s possible to use a molecule topically or locally, it’s advantageous for patients because it’s only acting where you apply it and there are no systemic side effects.”

Defined as lasting more than 3 months or relapsing twice or more within a year, chronic hand eczema is a particularly problematic form of atopic dermatitis because “we need our hands every day for almost every activity, so having eczema on your hands has a huge impact on quality of life,” Dr. Worm said.

Many people whose hands are integral to their occupations also have trouble working because of the disorder, she explained. But current topical treatments are limited to emollients, corticosteroids, and calcineurin inhibitors.

“Topical corticosteroids are efficacious, but can cause skin atrophy,” she said. “Their long-term side-effect profile limits their use.”

The number of patients in each treatment group was too small to focus on different subtypes of chronic hand eczema, “but this is something that will probably be looked at in the future,” Dr. Worm said. “At the moment it’s nice to see a dose-dependent clinical efficacy and good tolerability, and now we have to wait for phase 3 data in the future.”

Dr. Worm and colleagues aimed to establish the dose-response relationship of twice-daily applications of delgocitinib cream in doses of 1, 3, 8, and 20 mg/g and a delgocitinib cream vehicle for 16 weeks. The 258 participants (61% women; average age, 46 years) were randomly assigned in equal groups to each dose of delgocitinib cream or the vehicle cream twice daily at centers in Denmark, Germany, and the United States.

The primary endpoint for the double-blind, 26-center trial was the proportion of patients who achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 (“clear”) or 1 (“almost clear”), with a 2-point or higher improvement from baseline over the study period. A key secondary endpoint was a change in the Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI) from baseline to week 16.

At week 16, a statistically significant dose response was established for both primary and secondary endpoints (P < .025). More patients in the delgocitinib 8-mg/g and 20-mg/g groups met the primary endpoint (36.5% and 37.7%, respectively) than patients in the 1-mg/g and 3-mg/g groups (21.2% and 7.8%, respectively) and vehicle group (8%, P = .0004).

This primary skin clearance effect at week 16 was demonstrated from week 4 in the 8-mg/g group and week 6 in the 20-mg/g group. But all active doses achieved a statistically significant greater jump in HECSI from baseline to week 16 than the vehicle cream (P < .05).

“The strength of the trial is that there were different concentrations of the substance used,” Dr. Worm said. “When you look to the results, you can demonstrate a dose-dependent clinical efficacy. This is of great value to really compare the efficacy of single doses.”

Most adverse events reported were not considered treatment related and were mild or moderate. The most frequently reported side effects were nasopharyngitis, eczema, and headache.

Commenting on the results, Asli Bilgic, MD, from Akdeniz University in Antalya, Turkey, who was not involved with the study, said that phase 3 studies of delgocitinib should probe further into the effects of the 8-mg/g dosage in this patient group since it appears to show similar efficacy and safety to 20 mg/g.

It’s important for research to focus on hand eczema “because it’s a very common disease, and treatment options are really sparse,” Dr. Bilgic said in an interview.

“Especially in the COVID era, many health care professionals, along with cleaning, catering, and mechanical jobs” are essential workers affected by the condition, she said. “It affects people’s self-esteem and their ability to do their job.”

The study was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Worm received lecture honoraria from LEO Pharma. Dr. Bilgic disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Delgocitinib cream shows a dose-dependent response in easing chronic hand eczema, a common and difficult-to-treat disorder for which few other topical options are available, a new international phase 2b research suggests.

An investigational pan–Janus kinase inhibitor that blocks all four members of the JAK family, twice-daily delgocitinib doses of 8 mg/g and 20 mg/g demonstrated the highest efficacy in adults with mild to severe chronic hand eczema. By week 16, nearly 40% of patients receiving either dose were clear or almost clear of symptoms.

“By mode of action, we think delgocitinib is more selective in the way of acting,” said lead investigator Margitta Worm, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, venereology, and allergology at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, during a presentation of the results at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“We do know that JAKs play an important role in chronic inflammation and interfering with the JAK pathway can have anti-inflammatory effects,” Dr. Worm said in an interview. “Whenever it’s possible to use a molecule topically or locally, it’s advantageous for patients because it’s only acting where you apply it and there are no systemic side effects.”

Defined as lasting more than 3 months or relapsing twice or more within a year, chronic hand eczema is a particularly problematic form of atopic dermatitis because “we need our hands every day for almost every activity, so having eczema on your hands has a huge impact on quality of life,” Dr. Worm said.

Many people whose hands are integral to their occupations also have trouble working because of the disorder, she explained. But current topical treatments are limited to emollients, corticosteroids, and calcineurin inhibitors.

“Topical corticosteroids are efficacious, but can cause skin atrophy,” she said. “Their long-term side-effect profile limits their use.”

The number of patients in each treatment group was too small to focus on different subtypes of chronic hand eczema, “but this is something that will probably be looked at in the future,” Dr. Worm said. “At the moment it’s nice to see a dose-dependent clinical efficacy and good tolerability, and now we have to wait for phase 3 data in the future.”

Dr. Worm and colleagues aimed to establish the dose-response relationship of twice-daily applications of delgocitinib cream in doses of 1, 3, 8, and 20 mg/g and a delgocitinib cream vehicle for 16 weeks. The 258 participants (61% women; average age, 46 years) were randomly assigned in equal groups to each dose of delgocitinib cream or the vehicle cream twice daily at centers in Denmark, Germany, and the United States.

The primary endpoint for the double-blind, 26-center trial was the proportion of patients who achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 (“clear”) or 1 (“almost clear”), with a 2-point or higher improvement from baseline over the study period. A key secondary endpoint was a change in the Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI) from baseline to week 16.

At week 16, a statistically significant dose response was established for both primary and secondary endpoints (P < .025). More patients in the delgocitinib 8-mg/g and 20-mg/g groups met the primary endpoint (36.5% and 37.7%, respectively) than patients in the 1-mg/g and 3-mg/g groups (21.2% and 7.8%, respectively) and vehicle group (8%, P = .0004).

This primary skin clearance effect at week 16 was demonstrated from week 4 in the 8-mg/g group and week 6 in the 20-mg/g group. But all active doses achieved a statistically significant greater jump in HECSI from baseline to week 16 than the vehicle cream (P < .05).

“The strength of the trial is that there were different concentrations of the substance used,” Dr. Worm said. “When you look to the results, you can demonstrate a dose-dependent clinical efficacy. This is of great value to really compare the efficacy of single doses.”

Most adverse events reported were not considered treatment related and were mild or moderate. The most frequently reported side effects were nasopharyngitis, eczema, and headache.

Commenting on the results, Asli Bilgic, MD, from Akdeniz University in Antalya, Turkey, who was not involved with the study, said that phase 3 studies of delgocitinib should probe further into the effects of the 8-mg/g dosage in this patient group since it appears to show similar efficacy and safety to 20 mg/g.

It’s important for research to focus on hand eczema “because it’s a very common disease, and treatment options are really sparse,” Dr. Bilgic said in an interview.

“Especially in the COVID era, many health care professionals, along with cleaning, catering, and mechanical jobs” are essential workers affected by the condition, she said. “It affects people’s self-esteem and their ability to do their job.”

The study was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Worm received lecture honoraria from LEO Pharma. Dr. Bilgic disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

No clinically meaningful changes in laboratory values occurred in adolescents during 52 weeks on dupilumab for atopic dermatitis in a large, open-label safety study, Michael J. Cork, MBBS, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

These reassuring results from the ongoing LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study confirm that, as previously established in adults, no blood monitoring is required in adolescents on the monoclonal antibody, which inhibits signaling of interleukins-4 and -13, said Dr. Cork, professor of dermatology and head of Sheffield Dermatology Research at the University of Sheffield (England).

“The practical importance of this finding is that there are no other systemic drugs available that don’t require blood samples. Cyclosporine, methotrexate, and the others used for atopic dermatitis require a lot of blood monitoring, and they’re off-license anyway for use in children and adolescents,” he said in an interview.

Many pediatric patients are afraid of needles and have an intense dislike of blood draws. And in a pandemic, no one wants to come into the office for blood draws if they don’t need to.

“Blood draws are very different from the injection for dupilumab. Taking a blood sample is much more painful for children. The needle in the autoinjector is really, really tiny; you can hardly feel it, and with the autoinjector you can’t even see it,” noted Dr. Cork, who is both a pediatric and adult dermatologist.

This report from the ongoing LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study included 105 patients aged 12-17 years who completed 52 weeks on dupilumab (Dupixent) with assessments of hematologic and serum chemistry parameters at baseline and weeks 16 and 52.

“The results were anticipated, but we want to know the drug is safe in every age group. The immune system is different in different age groups, so we have to be really careful,” Dr. Cork said.

The clinical side-effect profile was the same as in adults, consisting mainly of mild conjunctivitis and injection-site reactions. It’s a much less problematic side effect picture than with the older drugs.

“We’re finding the conjunctivitis to be slightly less severe than in adults, maybe because we’ve learned from the first trials in adults and from clinical experience to use prophylactic therapy. There would be no child going on dupilumab now – and no adult – that I wouldn’t put on prophylactic eye drops with replacement tears. I start them 2 weeks before I start dupilumab,” the dermatologist explained.

He and others with extensive experience using the biologic agent also work closely with an ophthalmologist.

“If we see an eye problem before going on dupilumab we get an assessment and then ophthalmologic monitoring during treatment,” Dr. Cork said.

As a dermatologist specializing in atopic dermatitis, he confessed to feeling deprived over the years as he watched the multitude of targeted biologic agents being developed for psoriasis. When he became involved in the first pediatric clinical trials of dupilumab, he had a realization: “It’s a miraculous treatment.”

“The first child I put on dupilumab spent 70 days in the hospital for IV antibiotics in the prior year. Seventy days! He almost died from MRSA septicemia. His serum IgE was 155,000 kU/L. And his IgE just went down and down and down as the dupilumab took effect. It was just incredible,” he recalled.

Dr. Cork reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Sanofi and Regeneron, which fund the LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cork MJ. EADV 2020, Abstract 1772.

No clinically meaningful changes in laboratory values occurred in adolescents during 52 weeks on dupilumab for atopic dermatitis in a large, open-label safety study, Michael J. Cork, MBBS, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

These reassuring results from the ongoing LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study confirm that, as previously established in adults, no blood monitoring is required in adolescents on the monoclonal antibody, which inhibits signaling of interleukins-4 and -13, said Dr. Cork, professor of dermatology and head of Sheffield Dermatology Research at the University of Sheffield (England).

“The practical importance of this finding is that there are no other systemic drugs available that don’t require blood samples. Cyclosporine, methotrexate, and the others used for atopic dermatitis require a lot of blood monitoring, and they’re off-license anyway for use in children and adolescents,” he said in an interview.

Many pediatric patients are afraid of needles and have an intense dislike of blood draws. And in a pandemic, no one wants to come into the office for blood draws if they don’t need to.

“Blood draws are very different from the injection for dupilumab. Taking a blood sample is much more painful for children. The needle in the autoinjector is really, really tiny; you can hardly feel it, and with the autoinjector you can’t even see it,” noted Dr. Cork, who is both a pediatric and adult dermatologist.

This report from the ongoing LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study included 105 patients aged 12-17 years who completed 52 weeks on dupilumab (Dupixent) with assessments of hematologic and serum chemistry parameters at baseline and weeks 16 and 52.

“The results were anticipated, but we want to know the drug is safe in every age group. The immune system is different in different age groups, so we have to be really careful,” Dr. Cork said.

The clinical side-effect profile was the same as in adults, consisting mainly of mild conjunctivitis and injection-site reactions. It’s a much less problematic side effect picture than with the older drugs.

“We’re finding the conjunctivitis to be slightly less severe than in adults, maybe because we’ve learned from the first trials in adults and from clinical experience to use prophylactic therapy. There would be no child going on dupilumab now – and no adult – that I wouldn’t put on prophylactic eye drops with replacement tears. I start them 2 weeks before I start dupilumab,” the dermatologist explained.

He and others with extensive experience using the biologic agent also work closely with an ophthalmologist.

“If we see an eye problem before going on dupilumab we get an assessment and then ophthalmologic monitoring during treatment,” Dr. Cork said.

As a dermatologist specializing in atopic dermatitis, he confessed to feeling deprived over the years as he watched the multitude of targeted biologic agents being developed for psoriasis. When he became involved in the first pediatric clinical trials of dupilumab, he had a realization: “It’s a miraculous treatment.”

“The first child I put on dupilumab spent 70 days in the hospital for IV antibiotics in the prior year. Seventy days! He almost died from MRSA septicemia. His serum IgE was 155,000 kU/L. And his IgE just went down and down and down as the dupilumab took effect. It was just incredible,” he recalled.

Dr. Cork reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Sanofi and Regeneron, which fund the LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cork MJ. EADV 2020, Abstract 1772.

No clinically meaningful changes in laboratory values occurred in adolescents during 52 weeks on dupilumab for atopic dermatitis in a large, open-label safety study, Michael J. Cork, MBBS, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

These reassuring results from the ongoing LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study confirm that, as previously established in adults, no blood monitoring is required in adolescents on the monoclonal antibody, which inhibits signaling of interleukins-4 and -13, said Dr. Cork, professor of dermatology and head of Sheffield Dermatology Research at the University of Sheffield (England).

“The practical importance of this finding is that there are no other systemic drugs available that don’t require blood samples. Cyclosporine, methotrexate, and the others used for atopic dermatitis require a lot of blood monitoring, and they’re off-license anyway for use in children and adolescents,” he said in an interview.

Many pediatric patients are afraid of needles and have an intense dislike of blood draws. And in a pandemic, no one wants to come into the office for blood draws if they don’t need to.

“Blood draws are very different from the injection for dupilumab. Taking a blood sample is much more painful for children. The needle in the autoinjector is really, really tiny; you can hardly feel it, and with the autoinjector you can’t even see it,” noted Dr. Cork, who is both a pediatric and adult dermatologist.

This report from the ongoing LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study included 105 patients aged 12-17 years who completed 52 weeks on dupilumab (Dupixent) with assessments of hematologic and serum chemistry parameters at baseline and weeks 16 and 52.

“The results were anticipated, but we want to know the drug is safe in every age group. The immune system is different in different age groups, so we have to be really careful,” Dr. Cork said.

The clinical side-effect profile was the same as in adults, consisting mainly of mild conjunctivitis and injection-site reactions. It’s a much less problematic side effect picture than with the older drugs.

“We’re finding the conjunctivitis to be slightly less severe than in adults, maybe because we’ve learned from the first trials in adults and from clinical experience to use prophylactic therapy. There would be no child going on dupilumab now – and no adult – that I wouldn’t put on prophylactic eye drops with replacement tears. I start them 2 weeks before I start dupilumab,” the dermatologist explained.

He and others with extensive experience using the biologic agent also work closely with an ophthalmologist.

“If we see an eye problem before going on dupilumab we get an assessment and then ophthalmologic monitoring during treatment,” Dr. Cork said.

As a dermatologist specializing in atopic dermatitis, he confessed to feeling deprived over the years as he watched the multitude of targeted biologic agents being developed for psoriasis. When he became involved in the first pediatric clinical trials of dupilumab, he had a realization: “It’s a miraculous treatment.”

“The first child I put on dupilumab spent 70 days in the hospital for IV antibiotics in the prior year. Seventy days! He almost died from MRSA septicemia. His serum IgE was 155,000 kU/L. And his IgE just went down and down and down as the dupilumab took effect. It was just incredible,” he recalled.

Dr. Cork reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Sanofi and Regeneron, which fund the LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cork MJ. EADV 2020, Abstract 1772.

Two experts at IDWeek 2020 debated the best treatment for patients with the most severe type of Clostridioides difficile infection – fulminant C. diff. The discussion pitted fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) from the stool of healthy donors against traditional antibiotics.

Fulminant C. diff infection (CDI) represents about 8% of all CDI cases and is often fatal. Patients frequently don’t respond to maximum antibiotic therapy.

Should these patients be treated with FMT before surgery is considered?

“Unequivocally, yes,” said Jessica R. Allegretti, MD, MPH, associate director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
 

Patients face full colectomy

Fulminant infection, she says, typically requires a total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy.

“Patients have a quite high perioperative and intraoperative mortality because this is typically an older population with significant comorbidities,” she said.

Often the patients are poor candidates for surgery, she added.

She pointed to the efficacy of FMT in studies such as one published in Gut Microbes in 2017. The study, by Monika Fischer, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues showed a 91% cure rate at 1 month in severe patients with an average of 1.5 fecal transplants, noting that was “quite remarkable” in this very sick population.

Though FMT is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for fulminant CDI, Dr. Allegretti said, the FDA does allow treatment under “enforcement discretion,” which means no investigational new drug license is needed specifically if treating CDI patients who haven’t responded to standard therapy, as long as proper consent has been obtained.

“This is a patient population that is likely going to die,” she said. “If you were the one in the ICU with fulminant C. diff and you’ve been on maximum therapy for 3-5 days and you’re not getting better, wouldn’t you want somebody to offer you a fecal transplant and give you the chance to recover and leave the hospital with your colon intact? The data suggest that is possible, with a high likelihood and a good safety profile.”

She said the most recent guidelines have supported FMT, and emerging guidelines coming within months “will support this as well.”
 

Unknowns with FMT

Taking the other side of the debate, Kevin Garey, PharmD, chair of the department of pharmacy practice and translational research at University of Houston College of Pharmacy, warned against trading traditional antibiotics, such as vancomycin and fidaxomicin, for the novelty of FMT.

“With the science of the microbiome and the novelty of fecal microbiota transplantation in expanding use, I think people have somewhat forgotten pharmacotherapy,” he said.

He pointed out safety concerns with FMT reported in June 2019, after which the FDA issued an alert. Two immunocompromised patients who received FMT, both from the same donor, developed invasive infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli. One died.

The FDA explained that the donated FMT samples the patients received were not tested for ESBL-producing gram-negative organisms before use.

Dr. Allegretti agreed antibiotics play a role in treatment with FMT, but she argued that the safety profile of FMT remains strong and that the safety issues came from isolated incidents at a single center.

Dr. Garey countered that there are just too many unknowns with FMT.

“We will never know what the next superbug that’s going to land in an FMT is until we’ve identified that superbug in somebody – the next Candida auris, the next CRE [carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae], the next thing that’s going to show up in FMT – until we get rid of the ‘F,’ “ Dr. Garey said.

“[Until] we get microbial therapy that’s generated without the need for healthy donors, I think we’re always going to be in this problem.”

He said although FMT “has an amazing ability to alter a microbiome” it “pales in comparison” to vancomycin’s ability to do so.

Disruption of the microbiome is, without a doubt, a hallmark of C. diff, but we don’t have to run to FMT,” Dr. Garey said. “We can think about prophylaxis strategies, we can think about new drug development that spares the microbiota. The need for FMT might be a consequence of poor pharmacotherapy management, not a part of pharmacotherapy management.”

Moderator Sam Aitken, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacy specialist in infectious disease at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said in an interview the speakers found some common ground.

“I think there was a general consensus between both Dr. Allegretti and Dr. Garey that both traditional therapeutics and fecal microbiota transplantation have a role to play in these patients, although there is still quite a bit of discussion around where those might be best positioned,” Dr. Aitken said.

He added, “There’s also a general consensus that there is not likely to be one right answer for all patients with multiple recurrent CDI.”

Dr. Allegretti, Dr. Garey, and Dr. Aitken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The AGA Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) National Registry will assess short- and long-term patient outcomes associated with FMT. Learn more and register to participate at www.gastro.org/fmtregistry. 

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

Two experts at IDWeek 2020 debated the best treatment for patients with the most severe type of Clostridioides difficile infection – fulminant C. diff. The discussion pitted fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) from the stool of healthy donors against traditional antibiotics.

Fulminant C. diff infection (CDI) represents about 8% of all CDI cases and is often fatal. Patients frequently don’t respond to maximum antibiotic therapy.

Should these patients be treated with FMT before surgery is considered?

“Unequivocally, yes,” said Jessica R. Allegretti, MD, MPH, associate director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
 

Patients face full colectomy

Fulminant infection, she says, typically requires a total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy.

“Patients have a quite high perioperative and intraoperative mortality because this is typically an older population with significant comorbidities,” she said.

Often the patients are poor candidates for surgery, she added.

She pointed to the efficacy of FMT in studies such as one published in Gut Microbes in 2017. The study, by Monika Fischer, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues showed a 91% cure rate at 1 month in severe patients with an average of 1.5 fecal transplants, noting that was “quite remarkable” in this very sick population.

Though FMT is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for fulminant CDI, Dr. Allegretti said, the FDA does allow treatment under “enforcement discretion,” which means no investigational new drug license is needed specifically if treating CDI patients who haven’t responded to standard therapy, as long as proper consent has been obtained.

“This is a patient population that is likely going to die,” she said. “If you were the one in the ICU with fulminant C. diff and you’ve been on maximum therapy for 3-5 days and you’re not getting better, wouldn’t you want somebody to offer you a fecal transplant and give you the chance to recover and leave the hospital with your colon intact? The data suggest that is possible, with a high likelihood and a good safety profile.”

She said the most recent guidelines have supported FMT, and emerging guidelines coming within months “will support this as well.”
 

Unknowns with FMT

Taking the other side of the debate, Kevin Garey, PharmD, chair of the department of pharmacy practice and translational research at University of Houston College of Pharmacy, warned against trading traditional antibiotics, such as vancomycin and fidaxomicin, for the novelty of FMT.

“With the science of the microbiome and the novelty of fecal microbiota transplantation in expanding use, I think people have somewhat forgotten pharmacotherapy,” he said.

He pointed out safety concerns with FMT reported in June 2019, after which the FDA issued an alert. Two immunocompromised patients who received FMT, both from the same donor, developed invasive infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli. One died.

The FDA explained that the donated FMT samples the patients received were not tested for ESBL-producing gram-negative organisms before use.

Dr. Allegretti agreed antibiotics play a role in treatment with FMT, but she argued that the safety profile of FMT remains strong and that the safety issues came from isolated incidents at a single center.

Dr. Garey countered that there are just too many unknowns with FMT.

“We will never know what the next superbug that’s going to land in an FMT is until we’ve identified that superbug in somebody – the next Candida auris, the next CRE [carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae], the next thing that’s going to show up in FMT – until we get rid of the ‘F,’ “ Dr. Garey said.

“[Until] we get microbial therapy that’s generated without the need for healthy donors, I think we’re always going to be in this problem.”

He said although FMT “has an amazing ability to alter a microbiome” it “pales in comparison” to vancomycin’s ability to do so.

Disruption of the microbiome is, without a doubt, a hallmark of C. diff, but we don’t have to run to FMT,” Dr. Garey said. “We can think about prophylaxis strategies, we can think about new drug development that spares the microbiota. The need for FMT might be a consequence of poor pharmacotherapy management, not a part of pharmacotherapy management.”

Moderator Sam Aitken, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacy specialist in infectious disease at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said in an interview the speakers found some common ground.

“I think there was a general consensus between both Dr. Allegretti and Dr. Garey that both traditional therapeutics and fecal microbiota transplantation have a role to play in these patients, although there is still quite a bit of discussion around where those might be best positioned,” Dr. Aitken said.

He added, “There’s also a general consensus that there is not likely to be one right answer for all patients with multiple recurrent CDI.”

Dr. Allegretti, Dr. Garey, and Dr. Aitken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The AGA Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) National Registry will assess short- and long-term patient outcomes associated with FMT. Learn more and register to participate at www.gastro.org/fmtregistry. 

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

Two experts at IDWeek 2020 debated the best treatment for patients with the most severe type of Clostridioides difficile infection – fulminant C. diff. The discussion pitted fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) from the stool of healthy donors against traditional antibiotics.

Fulminant C. diff infection (CDI) represents about 8% of all CDI cases and is often fatal. Patients frequently don’t respond to maximum antibiotic therapy.

Should these patients be treated with FMT before surgery is considered?

“Unequivocally, yes,” said Jessica R. Allegretti, MD, MPH, associate director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
 

Patients face full colectomy

Fulminant infection, she says, typically requires a total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy.

“Patients have a quite high perioperative and intraoperative mortality because this is typically an older population with significant comorbidities,” she said.

Often the patients are poor candidates for surgery, she added.

She pointed to the efficacy of FMT in studies such as one published in Gut Microbes in 2017. The study, by Monika Fischer, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues showed a 91% cure rate at 1 month in severe patients with an average of 1.5 fecal transplants, noting that was “quite remarkable” in this very sick population.

Though FMT is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for fulminant CDI, Dr. Allegretti said, the FDA does allow treatment under “enforcement discretion,” which means no investigational new drug license is needed specifically if treating CDI patients who haven’t responded to standard therapy, as long as proper consent has been obtained.

“This is a patient population that is likely going to die,” she said. “If you were the one in the ICU with fulminant C. diff and you’ve been on maximum therapy for 3-5 days and you’re not getting better, wouldn’t you want somebody to offer you a fecal transplant and give you the chance to recover and leave the hospital with your colon intact? The data suggest that is possible, with a high likelihood and a good safety profile.”

She said the most recent guidelines have supported FMT, and emerging guidelines coming within months “will support this as well.”
 

Unknowns with FMT

Taking the other side of the debate, Kevin Garey, PharmD, chair of the department of pharmacy practice and translational research at University of Houston College of Pharmacy, warned against trading traditional antibiotics, such as vancomycin and fidaxomicin, for the novelty of FMT.

“With the science of the microbiome and the novelty of fecal microbiota transplantation in expanding use, I think people have somewhat forgotten pharmacotherapy,” he said.

He pointed out safety concerns with FMT reported in June 2019, after which the FDA issued an alert. Two immunocompromised patients who received FMT, both from the same donor, developed invasive infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli. One died.

The FDA explained that the donated FMT samples the patients received were not tested for ESBL-producing gram-negative organisms before use.

Dr. Allegretti agreed antibiotics play a role in treatment with FMT, but she argued that the safety profile of FMT remains strong and that the safety issues came from isolated incidents at a single center.

Dr. Garey countered that there are just too many unknowns with FMT.

“We will never know what the next superbug that’s going to land in an FMT is until we’ve identified that superbug in somebody – the next Candida auris, the next CRE [carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae], the next thing that’s going to show up in FMT – until we get rid of the ‘F,’ “ Dr. Garey said.

“[Until] we get microbial therapy that’s generated without the need for healthy donors, I think we’re always going to be in this problem.”

He said although FMT “has an amazing ability to alter a microbiome” it “pales in comparison” to vancomycin’s ability to do so.

Disruption of the microbiome is, without a doubt, a hallmark of C. diff, but we don’t have to run to FMT,” Dr. Garey said. “We can think about prophylaxis strategies, we can think about new drug development that spares the microbiota. The need for FMT might be a consequence of poor pharmacotherapy management, not a part of pharmacotherapy management.”

Moderator Sam Aitken, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacy specialist in infectious disease at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said in an interview the speakers found some common ground.

“I think there was a general consensus between both Dr. Allegretti and Dr. Garey that both traditional therapeutics and fecal microbiota transplantation have a role to play in these patients, although there is still quite a bit of discussion around where those might be best positioned,” Dr. Aitken said.

He added, “There’s also a general consensus that there is not likely to be one right answer for all patients with multiple recurrent CDI.”

Dr. Allegretti, Dr. Garey, and Dr. Aitken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The AGA Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) National Registry will assess short- and long-term patient outcomes associated with FMT. Learn more and register to participate at www.gastro.org/fmtregistry. 

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

Although “biologics have been really revolutionary for the treatment of severe uncontrolled asthma, we still don’t have evidence to know the right drug for the right patient,” said Wendy Moore, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

“You start with your best guess and then switch,” she said in an interview.

There are no real-world contemporary measurements of biologic therapy in the United States at this time, Dr. Moore explained during her presentation of findings from the CHRONICLE trial at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST 2020), held virtually this year.

The agents have different targets: omalizumab targets immunoglobulin E, mepolizumab and reslizumab target interleukin (IL)-5, benralizumab targets the IL-5 receptor, and dupilumab targets the common receptor IL-4 receptor A for IL-4 and IL-13.

When the starting biologic doesn’t get the desired results, there is no evidence to show whether another will work better. What we say is, “This one is not working as well as I’d like, let’s try something new?” said Dr. Moore.

However, when looking at data on patients with severe asthma who change from one biologic to another, “I was actually pleased to see that only 10% are switching,” she said in an interview.

But, she added, “if you add that up with the 8% who are stopping, that means that almost 20% don’t get the clinical response they want.”
 

CHRONICLE trial

In the ongoing observational CHRONICLE trial, Dr. Moore and colleagues assessed biologic initiations, discontinuations, and switches to a different agent.

All 1,884 study participants had a diagnosis of severe asthma and were being treated by an allergist/immunologist or a pulmonologist. All were taking high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and additional controllers, or had received an Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibody, systemic corticosteroid, or another systemic immunosuppressant for at least half of the previous 12 months.

In the study cohort, 1,219 participants were receiving one biologic and 27 were receiving two.

Before November 2018, “it was almost universally all benralizumab being prescribed.” An earlier preference was omalizumab, which was prescribed to 99% of patients before November 2015 and to 45% from November 2017 to November 2018.

“As new drugs were introduced, patients were switched if the desired outcome was not achieved,” Dr. Moore explained.

Over the 2-year period from February 2018 to February 2020, 134 patients – about 10% of all participants taking a biologic – made 148 switches to another biologic.

“The most common reasons reported for switching were lack of efficacy, worsening of asthma control, or waning efficacy,” Dr. Moore reported.

Of the 101 patients (8%) who discontinued 106 biologics, reasons cited were a worsening of asthma symptoms, a desire to change to a cheaper medication, and a waning of effectiveness.

“It seems that the biologic used depended on when you started and whether you were prescribed by an immunologist or pulmonologist,” said Dr. Moore. “I don’t think we understand the perfect patient for any one of these drugs.”

Large-population studies need to be done on each of the drugs. “You have to look at who’s the super responder, the partial responder, compared with the nonresponders, for each medication, but those comparative studies are unlikely to happen,” she said.

In her own practice, her 175 patients are “pretty evenly split between dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab.”

I have opinions on what works, said Dr. Moore, but none of it is evidence-based. “Those with upper airway involvement with chronic sinusitis tend to do better with mepolizumab than benralizumab. My opinion,” she emphasized.

“People with nasal problems may do better with dupilumab and mepolizumab,” she added. “Also in my opinion.

“But more likely, the issue is you have a partial responder who’s on a T2 high drug but has a T2 low problem too.”
 

PATHWAY study

Findings from the phase 2B PATHWAY study showed that tezepelumab reduced exacerbations in patients with uncontrolled asthma better than inhaled corticosteroids, and improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second.

“Adherence was monitored very carefully,” said investigator Jonathan Corren, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, who presented the PATHWAY data. This could explain, in part, why some patients in the control group “showed improvement from baseline.”

Before switching to a biologic, “we should always consider some of these issues that might contribute to better asthma control, like patient adherence or the inability to use an inhaler properly,” Dr. Corren said.

Some people have never been “shown how to use their inhalers properly,” said Moore. “Some of them come back fine when we show them.”

Dr. Moore has been on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Corren reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca.
 

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

Although “biologics have been really revolutionary for the treatment of severe uncontrolled asthma, we still don’t have evidence to know the right drug for the right patient,” said Wendy Moore, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

“You start with your best guess and then switch,” she said in an interview.

There are no real-world contemporary measurements of biologic therapy in the United States at this time, Dr. Moore explained during her presentation of findings from the CHRONICLE trial at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST 2020), held virtually this year.

The agents have different targets: omalizumab targets immunoglobulin E, mepolizumab and reslizumab target interleukin (IL)-5, benralizumab targets the IL-5 receptor, and dupilumab targets the common receptor IL-4 receptor A for IL-4 and IL-13.

When the starting biologic doesn’t get the desired results, there is no evidence to show whether another will work better. What we say is, “This one is not working as well as I’d like, let’s try something new?” said Dr. Moore.

However, when looking at data on patients with severe asthma who change from one biologic to another, “I was actually pleased to see that only 10% are switching,” she said in an interview.

But, she added, “if you add that up with the 8% who are stopping, that means that almost 20% don’t get the clinical response they want.”
 

CHRONICLE trial

In the ongoing observational CHRONICLE trial, Dr. Moore and colleagues assessed biologic initiations, discontinuations, and switches to a different agent.

All 1,884 study participants had a diagnosis of severe asthma and were being treated by an allergist/immunologist or a pulmonologist. All were taking high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and additional controllers, or had received an Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibody, systemic corticosteroid, or another systemic immunosuppressant for at least half of the previous 12 months.

In the study cohort, 1,219 participants were receiving one biologic and 27 were receiving two.

Before November 2018, “it was almost universally all benralizumab being prescribed.” An earlier preference was omalizumab, which was prescribed to 99% of patients before November 2015 and to 45% from November 2017 to November 2018.

“As new drugs were introduced, patients were switched if the desired outcome was not achieved,” Dr. Moore explained.

Over the 2-year period from February 2018 to February 2020, 134 patients – about 10% of all participants taking a biologic – made 148 switches to another biologic.

“The most common reasons reported for switching were lack of efficacy, worsening of asthma control, or waning efficacy,” Dr. Moore reported.

Of the 101 patients (8%) who discontinued 106 biologics, reasons cited were a worsening of asthma symptoms, a desire to change to a cheaper medication, and a waning of effectiveness.

“It seems that the biologic used depended on when you started and whether you were prescribed by an immunologist or pulmonologist,” said Dr. Moore. “I don’t think we understand the perfect patient for any one of these drugs.”

Large-population studies need to be done on each of the drugs. “You have to look at who’s the super responder, the partial responder, compared with the nonresponders, for each medication, but those comparative studies are unlikely to happen,” she said.

In her own practice, her 175 patients are “pretty evenly split between dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab.”

I have opinions on what works, said Dr. Moore, but none of it is evidence-based. “Those with upper airway involvement with chronic sinusitis tend to do better with mepolizumab than benralizumab. My opinion,” she emphasized.

“People with nasal problems may do better with dupilumab and mepolizumab,” she added. “Also in my opinion.

“But more likely, the issue is you have a partial responder who’s on a T2 high drug but has a T2 low problem too.”
 

PATHWAY study

Findings from the phase 2B PATHWAY study showed that tezepelumab reduced exacerbations in patients with uncontrolled asthma better than inhaled corticosteroids, and improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second.

“Adherence was monitored very carefully,” said investigator Jonathan Corren, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, who presented the PATHWAY data. This could explain, in part, why some patients in the control group “showed improvement from baseline.”

Before switching to a biologic, “we should always consider some of these issues that might contribute to better asthma control, like patient adherence or the inability to use an inhaler properly,” Dr. Corren said.

Some people have never been “shown how to use their inhalers properly,” said Moore. “Some of them come back fine when we show them.”

Dr. Moore has been on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Corren reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca.
 

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

Although “biologics have been really revolutionary for the treatment of severe uncontrolled asthma, we still don’t have evidence to know the right drug for the right patient,” said Wendy Moore, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

“You start with your best guess and then switch,” she said in an interview.

There are no real-world contemporary measurements of biologic therapy in the United States at this time, Dr. Moore explained during her presentation of findings from the CHRONICLE trial at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST 2020), held virtually this year.

The agents have different targets: omalizumab targets immunoglobulin E, mepolizumab and reslizumab target interleukin (IL)-5, benralizumab targets the IL-5 receptor, and dupilumab targets the common receptor IL-4 receptor A for IL-4 and IL-13.

When the starting biologic doesn’t get the desired results, there is no evidence to show whether another will work better. What we say is, “This one is not working as well as I’d like, let’s try something new?” said Dr. Moore.

However, when looking at data on patients with severe asthma who change from one biologic to another, “I was actually pleased to see that only 10% are switching,” she said in an interview.

But, she added, “if you add that up with the 8% who are stopping, that means that almost 20% don’t get the clinical response they want.”
 

CHRONICLE trial

In the ongoing observational CHRONICLE trial, Dr. Moore and colleagues assessed biologic initiations, discontinuations, and switches to a different agent.

All 1,884 study participants had a diagnosis of severe asthma and were being treated by an allergist/immunologist or a pulmonologist. All were taking high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and additional controllers, or had received an Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibody, systemic corticosteroid, or another systemic immunosuppressant for at least half of the previous 12 months.

In the study cohort, 1,219 participants were receiving one biologic and 27 were receiving two.

Before November 2018, “it was almost universally all benralizumab being prescribed.” An earlier preference was omalizumab, which was prescribed to 99% of patients before November 2015 and to 45% from November 2017 to November 2018.

“As new drugs were introduced, patients were switched if the desired outcome was not achieved,” Dr. Moore explained.

Over the 2-year period from February 2018 to February 2020, 134 patients – about 10% of all participants taking a biologic – made 148 switches to another biologic.

“The most common reasons reported for switching were lack of efficacy, worsening of asthma control, or waning efficacy,” Dr. Moore reported.

Of the 101 patients (8%) who discontinued 106 biologics, reasons cited were a worsening of asthma symptoms, a desire to change to a cheaper medication, and a waning of effectiveness.

“It seems that the biologic used depended on when you started and whether you were prescribed by an immunologist or pulmonologist,” said Dr. Moore. “I don’t think we understand the perfect patient for any one of these drugs.”

Large-population studies need to be done on each of the drugs. “You have to look at who’s the super responder, the partial responder, compared with the nonresponders, for each medication, but those comparative studies are unlikely to happen,” she said.

In her own practice, her 175 patients are “pretty evenly split between dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab.”

I have opinions on what works, said Dr. Moore, but none of it is evidence-based. “Those with upper airway involvement with chronic sinusitis tend to do better with mepolizumab than benralizumab. My opinion,” she emphasized.

“People with nasal problems may do better with dupilumab and mepolizumab,” she added. “Also in my opinion.

“But more likely, the issue is you have a partial responder who’s on a T2 high drug but has a T2 low problem too.”
 

PATHWAY study

Findings from the phase 2B PATHWAY study showed that tezepelumab reduced exacerbations in patients with uncontrolled asthma better than inhaled corticosteroids, and improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second.

“Adherence was monitored very carefully,” said investigator Jonathan Corren, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, who presented the PATHWAY data. This could explain, in part, why some patients in the control group “showed improvement from baseline.”

Before switching to a biologic, “we should always consider some of these issues that might contribute to better asthma control, like patient adherence or the inability to use an inhaler properly,” Dr. Corren said.

Some people have never been “shown how to use their inhalers properly,” said Moore. “Some of them come back fine when we show them.”

Dr. Moore has been on the advisory board for AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Corren reports receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca.
 

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

A small subset of SARS-CoV-2 patients with “COVID toes” can be categorized as COVID-19 long-haulers, with skin symptoms sometimes enduring for more than 150 days, a new analysis revealed.

Evaluating data from an international registry of COVID-19 patients with dermatologic symptoms, researchers found that retiform purpura rashes are linked to severe COVID-19, with 100% of these patients requiring hospitalization and 82% experiencing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Meanwhile, pernio/chilblains rashes, dubbed “COVID toes,” are associated with milder disease and a 16% hospitalization rate. For all COVID-19–related skin symptoms, the average duration is 12 days.

“The skin is another organ system that we didn’t know could have long COVID” effects, said principal investigator Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“The skin is really a window into how the body is working overall, so the fact that we could visually see persistent inflammation in long-hauler patients is particularly fascinating and gives us a chance to explore what’s going on,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “It certainly makes sense to me, knowing what we know about other organ systems, that there might be some long-lasting inflammation” in the skin as well.

The study is a result of the collaboration between the American Academy of Dermatology and the International League of Dermatological Societies, the international registry launched this past April. While the study included provider-supplied data from 990 cases spanning 39 countries, the registry now encompasses more than 1,000 patients from 41 countries, Dr. Freeman noted.

Dr. Freeman presented the data at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Many studies have reported dermatologic effects of COVID-19 infection, but information was lacking about duration. The registry represents the largest dataset to date detailing these persistent skin symptoms and offers insight about how COVID-19 can affect many different organ systems even after patients recover from acute infection, Dr. Freeman said.

Eight different types of skin rashes were noted in the study group, of which 303 were lab-confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients with skin symptoms. Of those, 224 total cases and 90 lab-confirmed cases included information on how long skin symptoms lasted. Lab tests for SARS-CoV-2 included polymerase chain reaction and serum antibody assays.

Dr. Freeman and associates defined “long-haulers” as patients with dermatologic symptoms of COVID-19 lasting 60 days or longer. These “outliers” are likely more prevalent than the registry suggests, she said, since not all providers initially reporting skin symptoms in patients updated that information over time.

“It’s important to understand that the registry is probably significantly underreporting the duration of symptoms and number of long-hauler patients,” she explained. “A registry is often a glimpse into a moment in time to these patients. To combat that, we followed up by email twice with providers to ask if patients’ symptoms were still ongoing or completed.”

Results showed a wide spectrum in average duration of symptoms among lab-confirmed COVID-19 patients, depending on specific rash. Urticaria lasted for a median of 4 days; morbilliform eruptions, 7 days; pernio/chilblains, 10 days; and papulosquamous eruptions, 20 days, with one long-hauler case lasting 70 days.

Five patients with pernio/chilblains were long-haulers, with toe symptoms enduring 60 days or longer. Only one went beyond 133 days with severe pernio and fatigue.

“The fact that we’re not necessarily seeing these long-hauler symptoms across every type of skin rash makes sense,” Dr. Freeman said. “Hives, for example, usually comes on acutely and leaves pretty rapidly. There are no reports of long-hauler hives.”

“That we’re really seeing these long-hauler symptoms in certain skin rashes really suggests that there’s a certain pathophysiology going in within that group of patients,” she added.

Dr. Freeman said not enough data have yet been generated to correlate long-standing COVID-19 skin symptoms with lasting cardiac, neurologic, or other symptoms of prolonged inflammation stemming from the virus.

Meanwhile, an EADV survey of 490 dermatologists revealed that just over one-third have seen patients presenting with skin signs of COVID-19. Moreover, 4% of dermatologists themselves tested positive for the virus.

Dr. Freeman encouraged all frontline clinicians assessing COVID-19 patients with skin symptoms to enter patients into the registry. But despite its strengths, the registry “can’t tell us what percentage of everyone who gets COVID will develop a skin finding or what percentage will be a long-hauler,” she said.

“A registry doesn’t have a denominator, so it’s like a giant case series,” she added.

“It will be very helpful going forward, as many places around the world experience second or third waves of COVID-19, to follow patients prospectively, acknowledge that patients will have symptoms lasting different amounts of time, and be aware these symptoms can occur on the skin,” she said.

Christopher Griffiths, MD, of the University of Manchester (England), praised the international registry as a valuable tool that will help clinicians better manage patients with COVID-19–related skin effects and predict prognosis.

“This has really brought the international dermatology community together, working on a focused goal relevant to all of us around the world,” Dr. Griffiths said in an interview. “It shows the power of communication and collaboration and what can be achieved in a short period of time.”

Dr. Freeman and Dr. Griffiths disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A small subset of SARS-CoV-2 patients with “COVID toes” can be categorized as COVID-19 long-haulers, with skin symptoms sometimes enduring for more than 150 days, a new analysis revealed.

Evaluating data from an international registry of COVID-19 patients with dermatologic symptoms, researchers found that retiform purpura rashes are linked to severe COVID-19, with 100% of these patients requiring hospitalization and 82% experiencing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Meanwhile, pernio/chilblains rashes, dubbed “COVID toes,” are associated with milder disease and a 16% hospitalization rate. For all COVID-19–related skin symptoms, the average duration is 12 days.

“The skin is another organ system that we didn’t know could have long COVID” effects, said principal investigator Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“The skin is really a window into how the body is working overall, so the fact that we could visually see persistent inflammation in long-hauler patients is particularly fascinating and gives us a chance to explore what’s going on,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “It certainly makes sense to me, knowing what we know about other organ systems, that there might be some long-lasting inflammation” in the skin as well.

The study is a result of the collaboration between the American Academy of Dermatology and the International League of Dermatological Societies, the international registry launched this past April. While the study included provider-supplied data from 990 cases spanning 39 countries, the registry now encompasses more than 1,000 patients from 41 countries, Dr. Freeman noted.

Dr. Freeman presented the data at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Many studies have reported dermatologic effects of COVID-19 infection, but information was lacking about duration. The registry represents the largest dataset to date detailing these persistent skin symptoms and offers insight about how COVID-19 can affect many different organ systems even after patients recover from acute infection, Dr. Freeman said.

Eight different types of skin rashes were noted in the study group, of which 303 were lab-confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients with skin symptoms. Of those, 224 total cases and 90 lab-confirmed cases included information on how long skin symptoms lasted. Lab tests for SARS-CoV-2 included polymerase chain reaction and serum antibody assays.

Dr. Freeman and associates defined “long-haulers” as patients with dermatologic symptoms of COVID-19 lasting 60 days or longer. These “outliers” are likely more prevalent than the registry suggests, she said, since not all providers initially reporting skin symptoms in patients updated that information over time.

“It’s important to understand that the registry is probably significantly underreporting the duration of symptoms and number of long-hauler patients,” she explained. “A registry is often a glimpse into a moment in time to these patients. To combat that, we followed up by email twice with providers to ask if patients’ symptoms were still ongoing or completed.”

Results showed a wide spectrum in average duration of symptoms among lab-confirmed COVID-19 patients, depending on specific rash. Urticaria lasted for a median of 4 days; morbilliform eruptions, 7 days; pernio/chilblains, 10 days; and papulosquamous eruptions, 20 days, with one long-hauler case lasting 70 days.

Five patients with pernio/chilblains were long-haulers, with toe symptoms enduring 60 days or longer. Only one went beyond 133 days with severe pernio and fatigue.

“The fact that we’re not necessarily seeing these long-hauler symptoms across every type of skin rash makes sense,” Dr. Freeman said. “Hives, for example, usually comes on acutely and leaves pretty rapidly. There are no reports of long-hauler hives.”

“That we’re really seeing these long-hauler symptoms in certain skin rashes really suggests that there’s a certain pathophysiology going in within that group of patients,” she added.

Dr. Freeman said not enough data have yet been generated to correlate long-standing COVID-19 skin symptoms with lasting cardiac, neurologic, or other symptoms of prolonged inflammation stemming from the virus.

Meanwhile, an EADV survey of 490 dermatologists revealed that just over one-third have seen patients presenting with skin signs of COVID-19. Moreover, 4% of dermatologists themselves tested positive for the virus.

Dr. Freeman encouraged all frontline clinicians assessing COVID-19 patients with skin symptoms to enter patients into the registry. But despite its strengths, the registry “can’t tell us what percentage of everyone who gets COVID will develop a skin finding or what percentage will be a long-hauler,” she said.

“A registry doesn’t have a denominator, so it’s like a giant case series,” she added.

“It will be very helpful going forward, as many places around the world experience second or third waves of COVID-19, to follow patients prospectively, acknowledge that patients will have symptoms lasting different amounts of time, and be aware these symptoms can occur on the skin,” she said.

Christopher Griffiths, MD, of the University of Manchester (England), praised the international registry as a valuable tool that will help clinicians better manage patients with COVID-19–related skin effects and predict prognosis.

“This has really brought the international dermatology community together, working on a focused goal relevant to all of us around the world,” Dr. Griffiths said in an interview. “It shows the power of communication and collaboration and what can be achieved in a short period of time.”

Dr. Freeman and Dr. Griffiths disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A small subset of SARS-CoV-2 patients with “COVID toes” can be categorized as COVID-19 long-haulers, with skin symptoms sometimes enduring for more than 150 days, a new analysis revealed.

Evaluating data from an international registry of COVID-19 patients with dermatologic symptoms, researchers found that retiform purpura rashes are linked to severe COVID-19, with 100% of these patients requiring hospitalization and 82% experiencing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Meanwhile, pernio/chilblains rashes, dubbed “COVID toes,” are associated with milder disease and a 16% hospitalization rate. For all COVID-19–related skin symptoms, the average duration is 12 days.

“The skin is another organ system that we didn’t know could have long COVID” effects, said principal investigator Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“The skin is really a window into how the body is working overall, so the fact that we could visually see persistent inflammation in long-hauler patients is particularly fascinating and gives us a chance to explore what’s going on,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “It certainly makes sense to me, knowing what we know about other organ systems, that there might be some long-lasting inflammation” in the skin as well.

The study is a result of the collaboration between the American Academy of Dermatology and the International League of Dermatological Societies, the international registry launched this past April. While the study included provider-supplied data from 990 cases spanning 39 countries, the registry now encompasses more than 1,000 patients from 41 countries, Dr. Freeman noted.

Dr. Freeman presented the data at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Many studies have reported dermatologic effects of COVID-19 infection, but information was lacking about duration. The registry represents the largest dataset to date detailing these persistent skin symptoms and offers insight about how COVID-19 can affect many different organ systems even after patients recover from acute infection, Dr. Freeman said.

Eight different types of skin rashes were noted in the study group, of which 303 were lab-confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients with skin symptoms. Of those, 224 total cases and 90 lab-confirmed cases included information on how long skin symptoms lasted. Lab tests for SARS-CoV-2 included polymerase chain reaction and serum antibody assays.

Dr. Freeman and associates defined “long-haulers” as patients with dermatologic symptoms of COVID-19 lasting 60 days or longer. These “outliers” are likely more prevalent than the registry suggests, she said, since not all providers initially reporting skin symptoms in patients updated that information over time.

“It’s important to understand that the registry is probably significantly underreporting the duration of symptoms and number of long-hauler patients,” she explained. “A registry is often a glimpse into a moment in time to these patients. To combat that, we followed up by email twice with providers to ask if patients’ symptoms were still ongoing or completed.”

Results showed a wide spectrum in average duration of symptoms among lab-confirmed COVID-19 patients, depending on specific rash. Urticaria lasted for a median of 4 days; morbilliform eruptions, 7 days; pernio/chilblains, 10 days; and papulosquamous eruptions, 20 days, with one long-hauler case lasting 70 days.

Five patients with pernio/chilblains were long-haulers, with toe symptoms enduring 60 days or longer. Only one went beyond 133 days with severe pernio and fatigue.

“The fact that we’re not necessarily seeing these long-hauler symptoms across every type of skin rash makes sense,” Dr. Freeman said. “Hives, for example, usually comes on acutely and leaves pretty rapidly. There are no reports of long-hauler hives.”

“That we’re really seeing these long-hauler symptoms in certain skin rashes really suggests that there’s a certain pathophysiology going in within that group of patients,” she added.

Dr. Freeman said not enough data have yet been generated to correlate long-standing COVID-19 skin symptoms with lasting cardiac, neurologic, or other symptoms of prolonged inflammation stemming from the virus.

Meanwhile, an EADV survey of 490 dermatologists revealed that just over one-third have seen patients presenting with skin signs of COVID-19. Moreover, 4% of dermatologists themselves tested positive for the virus.

Dr. Freeman encouraged all frontline clinicians assessing COVID-19 patients with skin symptoms to enter patients into the registry. But despite its strengths, the registry “can’t tell us what percentage of everyone who gets COVID will develop a skin finding or what percentage will be a long-hauler,” she said.

“A registry doesn’t have a denominator, so it’s like a giant case series,” she added.

“It will be very helpful going forward, as many places around the world experience second or third waves of COVID-19, to follow patients prospectively, acknowledge that patients will have symptoms lasting different amounts of time, and be aware these symptoms can occur on the skin,” she said.

Christopher Griffiths, MD, of the University of Manchester (England), praised the international registry as a valuable tool that will help clinicians better manage patients with COVID-19–related skin effects and predict prognosis.

“This has really brought the international dermatology community together, working on a focused goal relevant to all of us around the world,” Dr. Griffiths said in an interview. “It shows the power of communication and collaboration and what can be achieved in a short period of time.”

Dr. Freeman and Dr. Griffiths disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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