Conference Coverage

A new group of nonhormonal drugs currently in clinical trials shows strong promise for treating menopausal hot flashes as effectively as hormones, researchers told attendees at the virtual North American Menopause Society 2020 Annual Meeting.

“The KNDy [kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin] neuron manipulation is really exciting and holds great promise for rapid and highly effective amelioration of hot flashes, up to 80%, and improvement in other menopausal symptoms, though we’re still looking at the safety in phase 3 trials,” reported Susan D. Reed, MD, MPH, director of the Women’s Reproductive Health Research Program at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“If we continue to see good safety data, these are going to be the greatest things since sliced bread,” Dr. Reed said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this in menopause therapeutics in a long time.”

While several nonhormonal drugs are already used to treat vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women with and without breast cancer, none are as effective as hormone treatments.

“For now, the SSRIs, SNRIs [serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors], and GABAergics are the best frontline nonhormonal options with a moderate effect, and clonidine and oxybutynin are effective, but we see more side effects with these,” Dr. Reed said. She noted the importance of considering patients’ mood, sleep, pain, sexual function, weight gain, overactive bladder, blood pressure, and individual quality of life (QOL) goals in tailoring those therapies.

But women still need more nonhormonal options that are at least as effective as hormonal options, Dr. Reed said. Some women are unable to take hormonal options because they are at risk for blood clots or breast cancer.

“Then there’s preference,” she said. “Sometimes people don’t like the way they feel when they take hormones, or they just don’t want hormones in their body. It’s absolutely critical to have these options available for women.”

Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the presentation, said in an interview that physicians may not always realize the extent to which vasomotor symptoms interfere with women’s daily lives.

“They have an eroding effect on QOL that is not appreciated sometimes,” she said. Though hot flashes eventually subside in most women, others may continue to experience them into their 70s, when hormonal therapies can begin causing more harm than benefit.

“It goes underappreciated that, for a proportion of women, hot flashes will never go away, and they’re just as bad [as] when they were in their 50s,” Dr. Santoro said. “They need to be treated, and the nonhormonal treatments do not work for everybody.”
 

Promising KNDy therapeutics

Autopsy studies of postmenopausal women revealed that a complex of neurons in the hypothalamus was “massively hypertrophied” and sits right next to the thermoregulatory center of the brain, Dr. Reed explained.

The complex produces three types of molecules: kisspeptin (a neuropeptide), neurokinin B (a neuropeptide), and dynorphin (a kappa opioid), collectively referred to as the KNDy. The KNDy neural complex is located in the same place as the majority of hormone receptors in the arcuate nucleus, a collection of nerve cells in the hypothalamus.

The current hypothesis is that the KNDy neurons, which communicate with each other, become hyperactivated and cause hot flashes by spilling over to and triggering the thermoregulatory center next door. NKB (kisspeptin and neurokinin B) agonists activate KNDy neurons and dynorphin agonists inactivate KNDy, so the expectation is that NKB antagonists or dynorphin agonists would stop hot flashes.

Indeed, research published in 2015 showed that women taking kappa agonists experienced fewer hot flashes than women in the placebo group. However, no peripherally restricted kappa agonists are currently in clinical trials, so their future as therapeutics is unclear.

Right now, three different NK antagonists are in the pipeline for reducing vasomotor symptoms: MLE 4901 (pavinetant) and ESN364 (fezolinetant) are both NK3R antagonists, and NT-814 is a dual NK1R/NK3R antagonist. All three of these drugs were originally developed to treat schizophrenia.

Phase 2 clinical trials of pavinetant were discontinued in November 2017 by Millendo Therapeutics because 3 of 28 women experienced abnormal liver function, which normalized within 90 days. However, the study had shown an 80% decrease in hot flashes in women taking pavinetant, compared with a 30% decrease in the placebo group.

Fezolinetant, currently in phase 3 trials with Astellas, showed a dose response effect on reproductive hormones in phase 1 studies and a short half-life (4-6 hours) in women. It also showed no concerning side effects.

“There was, in fact, a decrease in the endometrial thickness, a delayed or impeded ovulation and a prolonged cycle duration,” Reed said.

The subsequent phase 2a study showed a reduction of five hot flashes a day (93% decrease), compared with placebo (54% decrease, P <.001) “with an abrupt return to baseline hot flash frequency after cessation,” she said. Improvements also occurred in sleep quality, quality of life, disability, and interference of hot flashes in daily life.

The phase 2b study found no difference in effects between once-daily versus twice-daily doses. However, two severe adverse events occurred: a drug-induced liver injury in one woman and cholelithiasis in another, both on the 60-mg, once-daily dose. Additionally, five women on varying doses had transient increases (above 1000 U/L) in creatinine kinase, though apparently without dose response.

A 52-week, three-arm, phase 3 trial of fezolinetant is currently under way with a goal of enrolling 1,740 participants, and plans to be completed by December 2021. Participants will undergo regular adverse event screening first biweekly, then monthly, with vital signs, blood, and urine monitoring.

Meanwhile, NT-814 from KaNDy Therapeutics, has completed phase 2a and phase 2b trials with phase 3 slated to begin in 2021. Adverse events in phase 1 included sleepiness and headache, and it had a long half-life (about 26 hours) and rapid absorption (an hour).

The phase 2a trial found a reduction of five hot flashes a day, compared with placebo, with main side effects again being sleepiness and headache. No events of abnormal liver function occurred. Phase 2b results have not been published.

So far, existing research suggests that KNDy interventions will involve a single daily oral dose that begins taking effect within 3 days and is fully in effect within 1-2 weeks. The reduction in hot flashes, about five fewer a day, is more effective than any other currently used nonhormonal medications for vasomotor symptoms. SSRIs and SNRIs tend to result in 1.5-2 fewer hot flashes a day, and gabapentin results in about 3 fewer per day. It will take longer-term studies, however, and paying attention to liver concerns for the NK3R antagonists to move into clinic.

“We want to keep our eye on the [luteinizing hormone] because if it decreases too much, it could adversely affect sexual function, and this does appear to be a dose-response finding,” Dr. Reed said. It would also be ideal, she said, to target only the KNDy neurons with NK3 antagonists without effects on the NK3 receptors in the liver.
 

Other nonhormonal options

Oxybutynin is another a nonhormonal agent under investigation for vasomotor symptoms. It’s an anticholinergic that resulted in 80% fewer hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo in a 2016 trial, but 52% of women complained of dry mouth. A more recent study similarly found high efficacy – a 60%-80% drop in hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo – but also side effects of dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain.

Finally, Dr. Reed mentioned three other agents under investigation as possible nonhormonal therapeutics, though she has little information about them. They include MT-8554 by Mitsubishi Tanabe; FP-101 by Fervent Pharmaceuticals; and Q-122 by QUE Oncology with Emory University, Atlanta, and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

None of the currently available nonhormonal options provide as high efficacy as hormones, but they do reduce symptoms:

Clonidine is an off-label option some physicians already use as a nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but again, the side effects are problematic: dry mouth, constipation, drowsiness, postural hypotension, and poor sleep.

Paroxetine, at 7.5-10 mg, is the only FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but she listed other off-label options found effective in evidence reviews: gabapentin (100-2,400 mg), venlafaxine (37.5-75 mg), citalopram (10 mg), desvenlafaxine (150 mg), and escitalopram (10 mg).

“I want you to take note of the lower doses in all of these products that are efficacious above those doses that might be used for mood,” Dr. Reed added.

Dr. Reed receives royalties from UpToDate and research funding from Bayer. Dr. Santoro owns stock in MenoGeniX and serves as a consultant or advisor to Ansh Labs, MenoGeniX, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

A new group of nonhormonal drugs currently in clinical trials shows strong promise for treating menopausal hot flashes as effectively as hormones, researchers told attendees at the virtual North American Menopause Society 2020 Annual Meeting.

“The KNDy [kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin] neuron manipulation is really exciting and holds great promise for rapid and highly effective amelioration of hot flashes, up to 80%, and improvement in other menopausal symptoms, though we’re still looking at the safety in phase 3 trials,” reported Susan D. Reed, MD, MPH, director of the Women’s Reproductive Health Research Program at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“If we continue to see good safety data, these are going to be the greatest things since sliced bread,” Dr. Reed said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this in menopause therapeutics in a long time.”

While several nonhormonal drugs are already used to treat vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women with and without breast cancer, none are as effective as hormone treatments.

“For now, the SSRIs, SNRIs [serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors], and GABAergics are the best frontline nonhormonal options with a moderate effect, and clonidine and oxybutynin are effective, but we see more side effects with these,” Dr. Reed said. She noted the importance of considering patients’ mood, sleep, pain, sexual function, weight gain, overactive bladder, blood pressure, and individual quality of life (QOL) goals in tailoring those therapies.

But women still need more nonhormonal options that are at least as effective as hormonal options, Dr. Reed said. Some women are unable to take hormonal options because they are at risk for blood clots or breast cancer.

“Then there’s preference,” she said. “Sometimes people don’t like the way they feel when they take hormones, or they just don’t want hormones in their body. It’s absolutely critical to have these options available for women.”

Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the presentation, said in an interview that physicians may not always realize the extent to which vasomotor symptoms interfere with women’s daily lives.

“They have an eroding effect on QOL that is not appreciated sometimes,” she said. Though hot flashes eventually subside in most women, others may continue to experience them into their 70s, when hormonal therapies can begin causing more harm than benefit.

“It goes underappreciated that, for a proportion of women, hot flashes will never go away, and they’re just as bad [as] when they were in their 50s,” Dr. Santoro said. “They need to be treated, and the nonhormonal treatments do not work for everybody.”
 

Promising KNDy therapeutics

Autopsy studies of postmenopausal women revealed that a complex of neurons in the hypothalamus was “massively hypertrophied” and sits right next to the thermoregulatory center of the brain, Dr. Reed explained.

The complex produces three types of molecules: kisspeptin (a neuropeptide), neurokinin B (a neuropeptide), and dynorphin (a kappa opioid), collectively referred to as the KNDy. The KNDy neural complex is located in the same place as the majority of hormone receptors in the arcuate nucleus, a collection of nerve cells in the hypothalamus.

The current hypothesis is that the KNDy neurons, which communicate with each other, become hyperactivated and cause hot flashes by spilling over to and triggering the thermoregulatory center next door. NKB (kisspeptin and neurokinin B) agonists activate KNDy neurons and dynorphin agonists inactivate KNDy, so the expectation is that NKB antagonists or dynorphin agonists would stop hot flashes.

Indeed, research published in 2015 showed that women taking kappa agonists experienced fewer hot flashes than women in the placebo group. However, no peripherally restricted kappa agonists are currently in clinical trials, so their future as therapeutics is unclear.

Right now, three different NK antagonists are in the pipeline for reducing vasomotor symptoms: MLE 4901 (pavinetant) and ESN364 (fezolinetant) are both NK3R antagonists, and NT-814 is a dual NK1R/NK3R antagonist. All three of these drugs were originally developed to treat schizophrenia.

Phase 2 clinical trials of pavinetant were discontinued in November 2017 by Millendo Therapeutics because 3 of 28 women experienced abnormal liver function, which normalized within 90 days. However, the study had shown an 80% decrease in hot flashes in women taking pavinetant, compared with a 30% decrease in the placebo group.

Fezolinetant, currently in phase 3 trials with Astellas, showed a dose response effect on reproductive hormones in phase 1 studies and a short half-life (4-6 hours) in women. It also showed no concerning side effects.

“There was, in fact, a decrease in the endometrial thickness, a delayed or impeded ovulation and a prolonged cycle duration,” Reed said.

The subsequent phase 2a study showed a reduction of five hot flashes a day (93% decrease), compared with placebo (54% decrease, P <.001) “with an abrupt return to baseline hot flash frequency after cessation,” she said. Improvements also occurred in sleep quality, quality of life, disability, and interference of hot flashes in daily life.

The phase 2b study found no difference in effects between once-daily versus twice-daily doses. However, two severe adverse events occurred: a drug-induced liver injury in one woman and cholelithiasis in another, both on the 60-mg, once-daily dose. Additionally, five women on varying doses had transient increases (above 1000 U/L) in creatinine kinase, though apparently without dose response.

A 52-week, three-arm, phase 3 trial of fezolinetant is currently under way with a goal of enrolling 1,740 participants, and plans to be completed by December 2021. Participants will undergo regular adverse event screening first biweekly, then monthly, with vital signs, blood, and urine monitoring.

Meanwhile, NT-814 from KaNDy Therapeutics, has completed phase 2a and phase 2b trials with phase 3 slated to begin in 2021. Adverse events in phase 1 included sleepiness and headache, and it had a long half-life (about 26 hours) and rapid absorption (an hour).

The phase 2a trial found a reduction of five hot flashes a day, compared with placebo, with main side effects again being sleepiness and headache. No events of abnormal liver function occurred. Phase 2b results have not been published.

So far, existing research suggests that KNDy interventions will involve a single daily oral dose that begins taking effect within 3 days and is fully in effect within 1-2 weeks. The reduction in hot flashes, about five fewer a day, is more effective than any other currently used nonhormonal medications for vasomotor symptoms. SSRIs and SNRIs tend to result in 1.5-2 fewer hot flashes a day, and gabapentin results in about 3 fewer per day. It will take longer-term studies, however, and paying attention to liver concerns for the NK3R antagonists to move into clinic.

“We want to keep our eye on the [luteinizing hormone] because if it decreases too much, it could adversely affect sexual function, and this does appear to be a dose-response finding,” Dr. Reed said. It would also be ideal, she said, to target only the KNDy neurons with NK3 antagonists without effects on the NK3 receptors in the liver.
 

Other nonhormonal options

Oxybutynin is another a nonhormonal agent under investigation for vasomotor symptoms. It’s an anticholinergic that resulted in 80% fewer hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo in a 2016 trial, but 52% of women complained of dry mouth. A more recent study similarly found high efficacy – a 60%-80% drop in hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo – but also side effects of dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain.

Finally, Dr. Reed mentioned three other agents under investigation as possible nonhormonal therapeutics, though she has little information about them. They include MT-8554 by Mitsubishi Tanabe; FP-101 by Fervent Pharmaceuticals; and Q-122 by QUE Oncology with Emory University, Atlanta, and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

None of the currently available nonhormonal options provide as high efficacy as hormones, but they do reduce symptoms:

Clonidine is an off-label option some physicians already use as a nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but again, the side effects are problematic: dry mouth, constipation, drowsiness, postural hypotension, and poor sleep.

Paroxetine, at 7.5-10 mg, is the only FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but she listed other off-label options found effective in evidence reviews: gabapentin (100-2,400 mg), venlafaxine (37.5-75 mg), citalopram (10 mg), desvenlafaxine (150 mg), and escitalopram (10 mg).

“I want you to take note of the lower doses in all of these products that are efficacious above those doses that might be used for mood,” Dr. Reed added.

Dr. Reed receives royalties from UpToDate and research funding from Bayer. Dr. Santoro owns stock in MenoGeniX and serves as a consultant or advisor to Ansh Labs, MenoGeniX, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

A new group of nonhormonal drugs currently in clinical trials shows strong promise for treating menopausal hot flashes as effectively as hormones, researchers told attendees at the virtual North American Menopause Society 2020 Annual Meeting.

“The KNDy [kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin] neuron manipulation is really exciting and holds great promise for rapid and highly effective amelioration of hot flashes, up to 80%, and improvement in other menopausal symptoms, though we’re still looking at the safety in phase 3 trials,” reported Susan D. Reed, MD, MPH, director of the Women’s Reproductive Health Research Program at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“If we continue to see good safety data, these are going to be the greatest things since sliced bread,” Dr. Reed said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this in menopause therapeutics in a long time.”

While several nonhormonal drugs are already used to treat vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women with and without breast cancer, none are as effective as hormone treatments.

“For now, the SSRIs, SNRIs [serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors], and GABAergics are the best frontline nonhormonal options with a moderate effect, and clonidine and oxybutynin are effective, but we see more side effects with these,” Dr. Reed said. She noted the importance of considering patients’ mood, sleep, pain, sexual function, weight gain, overactive bladder, blood pressure, and individual quality of life (QOL) goals in tailoring those therapies.

But women still need more nonhormonal options that are at least as effective as hormonal options, Dr. Reed said. Some women are unable to take hormonal options because they are at risk for blood clots or breast cancer.

“Then there’s preference,” she said. “Sometimes people don’t like the way they feel when they take hormones, or they just don’t want hormones in their body. It’s absolutely critical to have these options available for women.”

Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the presentation, said in an interview that physicians may not always realize the extent to which vasomotor symptoms interfere with women’s daily lives.

“They have an eroding effect on QOL that is not appreciated sometimes,” she said. Though hot flashes eventually subside in most women, others may continue to experience them into their 70s, when hormonal therapies can begin causing more harm than benefit.

“It goes underappreciated that, for a proportion of women, hot flashes will never go away, and they’re just as bad [as] when they were in their 50s,” Dr. Santoro said. “They need to be treated, and the nonhormonal treatments do not work for everybody.”
 

Promising KNDy therapeutics

Autopsy studies of postmenopausal women revealed that a complex of neurons in the hypothalamus was “massively hypertrophied” and sits right next to the thermoregulatory center of the brain, Dr. Reed explained.

The complex produces three types of molecules: kisspeptin (a neuropeptide), neurokinin B (a neuropeptide), and dynorphin (a kappa opioid), collectively referred to as the KNDy. The KNDy neural complex is located in the same place as the majority of hormone receptors in the arcuate nucleus, a collection of nerve cells in the hypothalamus.

The current hypothesis is that the KNDy neurons, which communicate with each other, become hyperactivated and cause hot flashes by spilling over to and triggering the thermoregulatory center next door. NKB (kisspeptin and neurokinin B) agonists activate KNDy neurons and dynorphin agonists inactivate KNDy, so the expectation is that NKB antagonists or dynorphin agonists would stop hot flashes.

Indeed, research published in 2015 showed that women taking kappa agonists experienced fewer hot flashes than women in the placebo group. However, no peripherally restricted kappa agonists are currently in clinical trials, so their future as therapeutics is unclear.

Right now, three different NK antagonists are in the pipeline for reducing vasomotor symptoms: MLE 4901 (pavinetant) and ESN364 (fezolinetant) are both NK3R antagonists, and NT-814 is a dual NK1R/NK3R antagonist. All three of these drugs were originally developed to treat schizophrenia.

Phase 2 clinical trials of pavinetant were discontinued in November 2017 by Millendo Therapeutics because 3 of 28 women experienced abnormal liver function, which normalized within 90 days. However, the study had shown an 80% decrease in hot flashes in women taking pavinetant, compared with a 30% decrease in the placebo group.

Fezolinetant, currently in phase 3 trials with Astellas, showed a dose response effect on reproductive hormones in phase 1 studies and a short half-life (4-6 hours) in women. It also showed no concerning side effects.

“There was, in fact, a decrease in the endometrial thickness, a delayed or impeded ovulation and a prolonged cycle duration,” Reed said.

The subsequent phase 2a study showed a reduction of five hot flashes a day (93% decrease), compared with placebo (54% decrease, P <.001) “with an abrupt return to baseline hot flash frequency after cessation,” she said. Improvements also occurred in sleep quality, quality of life, disability, and interference of hot flashes in daily life.

The phase 2b study found no difference in effects between once-daily versus twice-daily doses. However, two severe adverse events occurred: a drug-induced liver injury in one woman and cholelithiasis in another, both on the 60-mg, once-daily dose. Additionally, five women on varying doses had transient increases (above 1000 U/L) in creatinine kinase, though apparently without dose response.

A 52-week, three-arm, phase 3 trial of fezolinetant is currently under way with a goal of enrolling 1,740 participants, and plans to be completed by December 2021. Participants will undergo regular adverse event screening first biweekly, then monthly, with vital signs, blood, and urine monitoring.

Meanwhile, NT-814 from KaNDy Therapeutics, has completed phase 2a and phase 2b trials with phase 3 slated to begin in 2021. Adverse events in phase 1 included sleepiness and headache, and it had a long half-life (about 26 hours) and rapid absorption (an hour).

The phase 2a trial found a reduction of five hot flashes a day, compared with placebo, with main side effects again being sleepiness and headache. No events of abnormal liver function occurred. Phase 2b results have not been published.

So far, existing research suggests that KNDy interventions will involve a single daily oral dose that begins taking effect within 3 days and is fully in effect within 1-2 weeks. The reduction in hot flashes, about five fewer a day, is more effective than any other currently used nonhormonal medications for vasomotor symptoms. SSRIs and SNRIs tend to result in 1.5-2 fewer hot flashes a day, and gabapentin results in about 3 fewer per day. It will take longer-term studies, however, and paying attention to liver concerns for the NK3R antagonists to move into clinic.

“We want to keep our eye on the [luteinizing hormone] because if it decreases too much, it could adversely affect sexual function, and this does appear to be a dose-response finding,” Dr. Reed said. It would also be ideal, she said, to target only the KNDy neurons with NK3 antagonists without effects on the NK3 receptors in the liver.
 

Other nonhormonal options

Oxybutynin is another a nonhormonal agent under investigation for vasomotor symptoms. It’s an anticholinergic that resulted in 80% fewer hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo in a 2016 trial, but 52% of women complained of dry mouth. A more recent study similarly found high efficacy – a 60%-80% drop in hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo – but also side effects of dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain.

Finally, Dr. Reed mentioned three other agents under investigation as possible nonhormonal therapeutics, though she has little information about them. They include MT-8554 by Mitsubishi Tanabe; FP-101 by Fervent Pharmaceuticals; and Q-122 by QUE Oncology with Emory University, Atlanta, and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

None of the currently available nonhormonal options provide as high efficacy as hormones, but they do reduce symptoms:

Clonidine is an off-label option some physicians already use as a nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but again, the side effects are problematic: dry mouth, constipation, drowsiness, postural hypotension, and poor sleep.

Paroxetine, at 7.5-10 mg, is the only FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but she listed other off-label options found effective in evidence reviews: gabapentin (100-2,400 mg), venlafaxine (37.5-75 mg), citalopram (10 mg), desvenlafaxine (150 mg), and escitalopram (10 mg).

“I want you to take note of the lower doses in all of these products that are efficacious above those doses that might be used for mood,” Dr. Reed added.

Dr. Reed receives royalties from UpToDate and research funding from Bayer. Dr. Santoro owns stock in MenoGeniX and serves as a consultant or advisor to Ansh Labs, MenoGeniX, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

In the opinion of Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, recent advances in the medical treatment of acne make it “an exciting time” for treating patients with the condition.

During the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium, he highlighted the following new acne treatment options:

• Trifarotene cream 0.005% (Aklief). This marks the first new retinoid indicated for acne in several decades. It is indicated for the topical treatment of acne vulgaris in patients 9 years of age and older and has been studied in acne of the face, chest, and back. “It’s nice to have in our armamentarium,” he said.
• Tazarotene lotion 0.045% (Arazlo). The 0.1% formulation of tazarotene is commonly used for acne, but it can cause skin irritation, dryness, and erythema. The new 0.045% formulation was developed in a three-dimensional mesh matrix, with ingredients from an oil-in-water emulsion. “This allows for graduated dosing on the skin without as much irritation,” said Dr. Eichenfield, who is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.
• Minocycline 4% topical foam (Amzeeq). This marks the first and only topical minocycline prescription treatment for acne. “Its hydrophobic composition allows for stable and efficient delivery of inherently unstable pharmaceutical ingredients,” he said. “There is no evidence of photosensitivity as you’d expect from a minocycline-based product, and there are low systemic levels compared with oral minocycline.”
• Clascoterone cream 1% (Winlevi). This first-in-class topical androgen receptor inhibitor has been approved for the treatment of acne in patients 12 years and older. It competes with dihydrotestosterone and selectively targets androgen receptors in sebocytes and hair papilla cells. “It has been studied on the face and trunk and has been shown to inhibit sebum production, reduce secretion of inflammatory cytokines, and inhibit inflammatory pathways,” said Dr. Eichenfield, who is also professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego.
• From a systemic standpoint, sarecycline, a new tetracycline class antibiotic, has been approved for the treatment of inflammatory lesions of nonnodular moderate to severe acne vulgaris in patients 9 years and older. The once-daily drug can be taken with or without food in a weight-based dose. “This medicine appears to have a narrow spectrum of antibacterial activity compared with other tetracyclines,” he said. “It may have less of a negative effect on gut microbiome than traditional oral antibiotics.”

As for integrating these new options into existing clinical practice, Dr. Eichenfield predicts that the general approach to acne treatment will remain the same. “We’ll have to wait to see where the topical androgens fit into the treatment algorithms,” he said. “Our goal is to minimize scarring, minimize disease, and to modulate the disease course.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he has been an investigator and/or consultant for Almirall, Cassiopea, Dermata, Foamix, Galderma, L’Oreal, and Ortho Dermatologics.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In the opinion of Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, recent advances in the medical treatment of acne make it “an exciting time” for treating patients with the condition.

During the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium, he highlighted the following new acne treatment options:

• Trifarotene cream 0.005% (Aklief). This marks the first new retinoid indicated for acne in several decades. It is indicated for the topical treatment of acne vulgaris in patients 9 years of age and older and has been studied in acne of the face, chest, and back. “It’s nice to have in our armamentarium,” he said.
• Tazarotene lotion 0.045% (Arazlo). The 0.1% formulation of tazarotene is commonly used for acne, but it can cause skin irritation, dryness, and erythema. The new 0.045% formulation was developed in a three-dimensional mesh matrix, with ingredients from an oil-in-water emulsion. “This allows for graduated dosing on the skin without as much irritation,” said Dr. Eichenfield, who is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.
• Minocycline 4% topical foam (Amzeeq). This marks the first and only topical minocycline prescription treatment for acne. “Its hydrophobic composition allows for stable and efficient delivery of inherently unstable pharmaceutical ingredients,” he said. “There is no evidence of photosensitivity as you’d expect from a minocycline-based product, and there are low systemic levels compared with oral minocycline.”
• Clascoterone cream 1% (Winlevi). This first-in-class topical androgen receptor inhibitor has been approved for the treatment of acne in patients 12 years and older. It competes with dihydrotestosterone and selectively targets androgen receptors in sebocytes and hair papilla cells. “It has been studied on the face and trunk and has been shown to inhibit sebum production, reduce secretion of inflammatory cytokines, and inhibit inflammatory pathways,” said Dr. Eichenfield, who is also professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego.
• From a systemic standpoint, sarecycline, a new tetracycline class antibiotic, has been approved for the treatment of inflammatory lesions of nonnodular moderate to severe acne vulgaris in patients 9 years and older. The once-daily drug can be taken with or without food in a weight-based dose. “This medicine appears to have a narrow spectrum of antibacterial activity compared with other tetracyclines,” he said. “It may have less of a negative effect on gut microbiome than traditional oral antibiotics.”

As for integrating these new options into existing clinical practice, Dr. Eichenfield predicts that the general approach to acne treatment will remain the same. “We’ll have to wait to see where the topical androgens fit into the treatment algorithms,” he said. “Our goal is to minimize scarring, minimize disease, and to modulate the disease course.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he has been an investigator and/or consultant for Almirall, Cassiopea, Dermata, Foamix, Galderma, L’Oreal, and Ortho Dermatologics.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In the opinion of Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, recent advances in the medical treatment of acne make it “an exciting time” for treating patients with the condition.

During the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium, he highlighted the following new acne treatment options:

• Trifarotene cream 0.005% (Aklief). This marks the first new retinoid indicated for acne in several decades. It is indicated for the topical treatment of acne vulgaris in patients 9 years of age and older and has been studied in acne of the face, chest, and back. “It’s nice to have in our armamentarium,” he said.
• Tazarotene lotion 0.045% (Arazlo). The 0.1% formulation of tazarotene is commonly used for acne, but it can cause skin irritation, dryness, and erythema. The new 0.045% formulation was developed in a three-dimensional mesh matrix, with ingredients from an oil-in-water emulsion. “This allows for graduated dosing on the skin without as much irritation,” said Dr. Eichenfield, who is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.
• Minocycline 4% topical foam (Amzeeq). This marks the first and only topical minocycline prescription treatment for acne. “Its hydrophobic composition allows for stable and efficient delivery of inherently unstable pharmaceutical ingredients,” he said. “There is no evidence of photosensitivity as you’d expect from a minocycline-based product, and there are low systemic levels compared with oral minocycline.”
• Clascoterone cream 1% (Winlevi). This first-in-class topical androgen receptor inhibitor has been approved for the treatment of acne in patients 12 years and older. It competes with dihydrotestosterone and selectively targets androgen receptors in sebocytes and hair papilla cells. “It has been studied on the face and trunk and has been shown to inhibit sebum production, reduce secretion of inflammatory cytokines, and inhibit inflammatory pathways,” said Dr. Eichenfield, who is also professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego.
• From a systemic standpoint, sarecycline, a new tetracycline class antibiotic, has been approved for the treatment of inflammatory lesions of nonnodular moderate to severe acne vulgaris in patients 9 years and older. The once-daily drug can be taken with or without food in a weight-based dose. “This medicine appears to have a narrow spectrum of antibacterial activity compared with other tetracyclines,” he said. “It may have less of a negative effect on gut microbiome than traditional oral antibiotics.”

As for integrating these new options into existing clinical practice, Dr. Eichenfield predicts that the general approach to acne treatment will remain the same. “We’ll have to wait to see where the topical androgens fit into the treatment algorithms,” he said. “Our goal is to minimize scarring, minimize disease, and to modulate the disease course.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he has been an investigator and/or consultant for Almirall, Cassiopea, Dermata, Foamix, Galderma, L’Oreal, and Ortho Dermatologics.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Restarting breast cancer screening programs after the COVID-19 disruption will be challenging given a trade-off between minimizing excess mortality from the disease and strain on programs, according to a modeling study reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

Fallout of the pandemic has included reductions in cancer screening and diagnosis, said study investigator Lindy M. Kregting, a PhD student in the department of public health at Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands).

In the Netherlands, new breast cancer diagnoses fell dramatically from historical levels starting in February. The number in April was less than half of that expected.

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used modeling to assess the impact of four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening in the Netherlands. The strategies differed regarding the population affected, the duration of the effects, and changes in stopping age. The usual situation, without any disruption, served as the comparator.

Results showed wide variation across strategies with respect to the increase in screening capacity needed during the latter half of this year – from 0% to 100% – and the excess breast cancer mortality occurring during 2020-2030 – from as many as 181 excess breast cancer deaths to as few as 14.

“The effects of the disruption are dependent on the chosen restart strategy,” Ms. Kregting summarized. “It would be preferred to immediately catch up because this minimizes the impact, but it also requires a very high capacity, so it may not always be possible. A proper alternative would be to increase the stopping age, so no screens are omitted, because this requires a rather normal capacity, and it will result in only small effects on incidence and mortality.”

As screening programs restart in some countries, there are still a lot of unknowns that could affect outcomes, including how many women will attend given that some may stay away out of fear, Ms. Kregting cautioned.

“We plan to do further model calculations when we know exactly what has happened. ... For now, we just assumed some reasonable disruption periods, and we assumed that capacity would be back to the original, before COVID-19, but I think we can say this is probably not the case,” she added.
 

Study details

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used Dutch breast cancer screening program parameters (biennial digital mammography for women aged 50-75 years) and a microsimulation screening analysis model to simulate four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening after a 6-month disruption:

• “Everyone delay,” a strategy in which all screening continues in the order planned with no change in the stopping age of 75 years (so that one in four women ultimately miss a screening during their lifetime)
• “First rounds no delay,” in which there is a delay in screening except for women having their first screening
• “Continue after stopping age,” in which there is a delay in screening but temporary increasing of the stopping age (to 76.5 years) to ensure all women get their final screen
• “Catch-up after stop,” in which capacity is increased to ensure full catch-up, with all delayed screens caught up in a 6-month period (the second half of 2020).

Results showed that 5,872 women would be screened in the latter half of 2020 if screening proceeded as usual without disruption. The necessary capacity was essentially the same with all of the restarting strategies, except for the catch-up-after-stop strategy, which would require a doubling of that number.

The temporal pattern of breast cancer incidence varied according to restart strategy early on, but incidence essentially returned to that expected with undisrupted screening by 2025 for all four strategies, with some small fluctuations thereafter.

The impact on breast cancer mortality differed considerably long term. It increased slightly and transiently above the expected level with the catch-up-after-stop strategy, but there were sizable, long-lasting increases with the other strategies, with excess deaths still seen in 2060 for the everyone-delay strategy.

In absolute terms, the excess number of breast cancer deaths during 2020-2030, compared with undisrupted screening, was 181 with the everyone-delay strategy, 155 with the first-rounds-no-delay strategy, 145 with the continue-after-stopping-age strategy, and just 14 with the catch-up-after-stop strategy. Ms. Kregting declined to provide numbers for other countries, given that the model is based on the Dutch population and screening program.
 

Results in context

“The unprecedented burden of COVID-19 on health systems worldwide has important implications for cancer care,” said invited discussant Alessandra Gennari, MD, PhD, of the University of Eastern Piedmont and Maggiore della Carità Hospital, both in Novara, Italy.

“There is a delay in diagnosis due to the fact that screening programs and diagnostic programs have been decreased or suspended in many Western countries where this is standard of care. Patients also are more reluctant to present to health care services, delaying their diagnosis,” Dr. Gennari said.

Findings of this new study add to those of similar studies undertaken in Italy (published in In Vivo) and the United Kingdom (published in The Lancet Oncology) showing the likely marked toll of the pandemic on cancer diagnosis and mortality, Dr. Gennari noted. Taken together, the findings underscore the urgent need for policy interventions to mitigate this impact.

“These interventions should focus on increasing routine diagnostic capacity, through which up to 40% of patients with cancer are diagnosed,” Dr. Gennari recommended. “Public health messaging is needed that accurately conveys the risk of severe illness from COVID-19 versus the risks of not seeking health care advice if patients are symptomatic. Finally, there is a need for provision of evidence-based data on which clinicians can adequately base their decision on how to manage the risks of cancer patients and the risks and benefits of procedures during the pandemic.”

The current study did not have any specific funding, and Ms. Kregting disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gennari disclosed relationships with Roche, Eisai, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Kregting L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Conference, Abstract 24.

Restarting breast cancer screening programs after the COVID-19 disruption will be challenging given a trade-off between minimizing excess mortality from the disease and strain on programs, according to a modeling study reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

Fallout of the pandemic has included reductions in cancer screening and diagnosis, said study investigator Lindy M. Kregting, a PhD student in the department of public health at Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands).

In the Netherlands, new breast cancer diagnoses fell dramatically from historical levels starting in February. The number in April was less than half of that expected.

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used modeling to assess the impact of four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening in the Netherlands. The strategies differed regarding the population affected, the duration of the effects, and changes in stopping age. The usual situation, without any disruption, served as the comparator.

Results showed wide variation across strategies with respect to the increase in screening capacity needed during the latter half of this year – from 0% to 100% – and the excess breast cancer mortality occurring during 2020-2030 – from as many as 181 excess breast cancer deaths to as few as 14.

“The effects of the disruption are dependent on the chosen restart strategy,” Ms. Kregting summarized. “It would be preferred to immediately catch up because this minimizes the impact, but it also requires a very high capacity, so it may not always be possible. A proper alternative would be to increase the stopping age, so no screens are omitted, because this requires a rather normal capacity, and it will result in only small effects on incidence and mortality.”

As screening programs restart in some countries, there are still a lot of unknowns that could affect outcomes, including how many women will attend given that some may stay away out of fear, Ms. Kregting cautioned.

“We plan to do further model calculations when we know exactly what has happened. ... For now, we just assumed some reasonable disruption periods, and we assumed that capacity would be back to the original, before COVID-19, but I think we can say this is probably not the case,” she added.
 

Study details

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used Dutch breast cancer screening program parameters (biennial digital mammography for women aged 50-75 years) and a microsimulation screening analysis model to simulate four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening after a 6-month disruption:

• “Everyone delay,” a strategy in which all screening continues in the order planned with no change in the stopping age of 75 years (so that one in four women ultimately miss a screening during their lifetime)
• “First rounds no delay,” in which there is a delay in screening except for women having their first screening
• “Continue after stopping age,” in which there is a delay in screening but temporary increasing of the stopping age (to 76.5 years) to ensure all women get their final screen
• “Catch-up after stop,” in which capacity is increased to ensure full catch-up, with all delayed screens caught up in a 6-month period (the second half of 2020).

Results showed that 5,872 women would be screened in the latter half of 2020 if screening proceeded as usual without disruption. The necessary capacity was essentially the same with all of the restarting strategies, except for the catch-up-after-stop strategy, which would require a doubling of that number.

The temporal pattern of breast cancer incidence varied according to restart strategy early on, but incidence essentially returned to that expected with undisrupted screening by 2025 for all four strategies, with some small fluctuations thereafter.

The impact on breast cancer mortality differed considerably long term. It increased slightly and transiently above the expected level with the catch-up-after-stop strategy, but there were sizable, long-lasting increases with the other strategies, with excess deaths still seen in 2060 for the everyone-delay strategy.

In absolute terms, the excess number of breast cancer deaths during 2020-2030, compared with undisrupted screening, was 181 with the everyone-delay strategy, 155 with the first-rounds-no-delay strategy, 145 with the continue-after-stopping-age strategy, and just 14 with the catch-up-after-stop strategy. Ms. Kregting declined to provide numbers for other countries, given that the model is based on the Dutch population and screening program.
 

Results in context

“The unprecedented burden of COVID-19 on health systems worldwide has important implications for cancer care,” said invited discussant Alessandra Gennari, MD, PhD, of the University of Eastern Piedmont and Maggiore della Carità Hospital, both in Novara, Italy.

“There is a delay in diagnosis due to the fact that screening programs and diagnostic programs have been decreased or suspended in many Western countries where this is standard of care. Patients also are more reluctant to present to health care services, delaying their diagnosis,” Dr. Gennari said.

Findings of this new study add to those of similar studies undertaken in Italy (published in In Vivo) and the United Kingdom (published in The Lancet Oncology) showing the likely marked toll of the pandemic on cancer diagnosis and mortality, Dr. Gennari noted. Taken together, the findings underscore the urgent need for policy interventions to mitigate this impact.

“These interventions should focus on increasing routine diagnostic capacity, through which up to 40% of patients with cancer are diagnosed,” Dr. Gennari recommended. “Public health messaging is needed that accurately conveys the risk of severe illness from COVID-19 versus the risks of not seeking health care advice if patients are symptomatic. Finally, there is a need for provision of evidence-based data on which clinicians can adequately base their decision on how to manage the risks of cancer patients and the risks and benefits of procedures during the pandemic.”

The current study did not have any specific funding, and Ms. Kregting disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gennari disclosed relationships with Roche, Eisai, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Kregting L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Conference, Abstract 24.

Restarting breast cancer screening programs after the COVID-19 disruption will be challenging given a trade-off between minimizing excess mortality from the disease and strain on programs, according to a modeling study reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

Fallout of the pandemic has included reductions in cancer screening and diagnosis, said study investigator Lindy M. Kregting, a PhD student in the department of public health at Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands).

In the Netherlands, new breast cancer diagnoses fell dramatically from historical levels starting in February. The number in April was less than half of that expected.

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used modeling to assess the impact of four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening in the Netherlands. The strategies differed regarding the population affected, the duration of the effects, and changes in stopping age. The usual situation, without any disruption, served as the comparator.

Results showed wide variation across strategies with respect to the increase in screening capacity needed during the latter half of this year – from 0% to 100% – and the excess breast cancer mortality occurring during 2020-2030 – from as many as 181 excess breast cancer deaths to as few as 14.

“The effects of the disruption are dependent on the chosen restart strategy,” Ms. Kregting summarized. “It would be preferred to immediately catch up because this minimizes the impact, but it also requires a very high capacity, so it may not always be possible. A proper alternative would be to increase the stopping age, so no screens are omitted, because this requires a rather normal capacity, and it will result in only small effects on incidence and mortality.”

As screening programs restart in some countries, there are still a lot of unknowns that could affect outcomes, including how many women will attend given that some may stay away out of fear, Ms. Kregting cautioned.

“We plan to do further model calculations when we know exactly what has happened. ... For now, we just assumed some reasonable disruption periods, and we assumed that capacity would be back to the original, before COVID-19, but I think we can say this is probably not the case,” she added.
 

Study details

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used Dutch breast cancer screening program parameters (biennial digital mammography for women aged 50-75 years) and a microsimulation screening analysis model to simulate four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening after a 6-month disruption:

• “Everyone delay,” a strategy in which all screening continues in the order planned with no change in the stopping age of 75 years (so that one in four women ultimately miss a screening during their lifetime)
• “First rounds no delay,” in which there is a delay in screening except for women having their first screening
• “Continue after stopping age,” in which there is a delay in screening but temporary increasing of the stopping age (to 76.5 years) to ensure all women get their final screen
• “Catch-up after stop,” in which capacity is increased to ensure full catch-up, with all delayed screens caught up in a 6-month period (the second half of 2020).

Results showed that 5,872 women would be screened in the latter half of 2020 if screening proceeded as usual without disruption. The necessary capacity was essentially the same with all of the restarting strategies, except for the catch-up-after-stop strategy, which would require a doubling of that number.

The temporal pattern of breast cancer incidence varied according to restart strategy early on, but incidence essentially returned to that expected with undisrupted screening by 2025 for all four strategies, with some small fluctuations thereafter.

The impact on breast cancer mortality differed considerably long term. It increased slightly and transiently above the expected level with the catch-up-after-stop strategy, but there were sizable, long-lasting increases with the other strategies, with excess deaths still seen in 2060 for the everyone-delay strategy.

In absolute terms, the excess number of breast cancer deaths during 2020-2030, compared with undisrupted screening, was 181 with the everyone-delay strategy, 155 with the first-rounds-no-delay strategy, 145 with the continue-after-stopping-age strategy, and just 14 with the catch-up-after-stop strategy. Ms. Kregting declined to provide numbers for other countries, given that the model is based on the Dutch population and screening program.
 

Results in context

“The unprecedented burden of COVID-19 on health systems worldwide has important implications for cancer care,” said invited discussant Alessandra Gennari, MD, PhD, of the University of Eastern Piedmont and Maggiore della Carità Hospital, both in Novara, Italy.

“There is a delay in diagnosis due to the fact that screening programs and diagnostic programs have been decreased or suspended in many Western countries where this is standard of care. Patients also are more reluctant to present to health care services, delaying their diagnosis,” Dr. Gennari said.

Findings of this new study add to those of similar studies undertaken in Italy (published in In Vivo) and the United Kingdom (published in The Lancet Oncology) showing the likely marked toll of the pandemic on cancer diagnosis and mortality, Dr. Gennari noted. Taken together, the findings underscore the urgent need for policy interventions to mitigate this impact.

“These interventions should focus on increasing routine diagnostic capacity, through which up to 40% of patients with cancer are diagnosed,” Dr. Gennari recommended. “Public health messaging is needed that accurately conveys the risk of severe illness from COVID-19 versus the risks of not seeking health care advice if patients are symptomatic. Finally, there is a need for provision of evidence-based data on which clinicians can adequately base their decision on how to manage the risks of cancer patients and the risks and benefits of procedures during the pandemic.”

The current study did not have any specific funding, and Ms. Kregting disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gennari disclosed relationships with Roche, Eisai, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Kregting L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Conference, Abstract 24.

Atezolizumab failed to improve progression-free survival (PFS) when added to first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in a phase 3 trial of patients with stage III/IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer.

“Despite notable success with the incorporation of bevacizumab and atezolizumab in the treatment of other solid tumors ... the first such study in ovarian cancer did not meet its first primary endpoint” of extending PFS in the intention-to-treat population or in patients positive for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), said investigator Kathleen Moore, MD, of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.

Dr. Moore presented this study, IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
 

Explaining the negative results

The rationale for this study was good, said discussant Isabelle Ray-Coquard, MD, PhD, of the University Claude Bernard Lyon I in Villeurbanne, France, who was an investigator on the study but not an author on the meeting report.

Unfortunately, the study’s results were ultimately negative. A prior phase 3 trial of an immune checkpoint inhibitor in ovarian cancer also had negative results. In the JAVELIN OVARIAN 100 trial, adding avelumab to chemotherapy did not improve PFS, and the trial was stopped early for futility.

Dr. Ray-Coquard posed the question of whether checkpoint inhibitors are “dead” for epithelial ovarian cancer but said the answer isn’t clear.

There might be something unique about the tumor microenvironment that shields ovarian cancer from the immune system, or perhaps the PD-L1 pathway is the wrong target for immunotherapy.

It might also be that the first-line setting is the wrong place for checkpoint inhibitors, and they might work better in the second line, Dr. Ray-Coquard said.

Another possibility is that the delayed effect of immunotherapy means that overall survival – which isn’t yet mature for IMagyn050 – might be a better primary outcome than PFS.
 

Patient and treatment details

IMagyn050 enrolled 1,301 patients with newly diagnosed, stage III/IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer.

Patients were randomized to atezolizumab (n = 651) or placebo (n = 650) in combination with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin every 3 weeks for six cycles. For cycles 7-22, patients received bevacizumab with placebo or atezolizumab.

Most patients had ovarian cancer (73% in the placebo arm and 75% in the atezolizumab arm), followed by fallopian tube cancer (17% and 15%, respectively) and primary peritoneal cancer (10% and 9%, respectively).

In both arms, 31% of patients had stage IV disease, and 60% were PD-L1 positive (at least 1% of tumor cells staining positive).

Treatment was given in the neoadjuvant setting for 25% of patients in both arms and after primary cytoreductive surgery for the remaining patients.
 

Efficacy and safety

In the intention-to-treat population, the median PFS was 19.5 months with atezolizumab and 18.4 months in the placebo arm. In PD-L1–positive patients, the median PFS was 20.8 months and 18.5 months, respectively.

The differences in PFS were not statistically significant or clinically meaningful, Dr. Ray-Coquard said.

She noted that results were not stratified by BRCA status, which has been linked to PFS in ovarian cancer, and a potential imbalance between the groups might have contributed to the negative results.

Overall survival data won’t be mature until 2023, but, in the first interim analysis, “there was no apparent difference in the curves,” Dr. Moore said.

In the intention-to-treat population, the median overall survival was not reached in either treatment arm. In the PD-L1–positive population, the median overall survival was 31.2 months in the placebo arm and was not reached in the atezolizumab arm.

Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of atezolizumab and the other drugs, Dr. Moore said. There were more serious events and more events leading to discontinuation with atezolizumab.

Adverse events more common with atezolizumab included febrile neutropenia, pyrexia, thyroid abnormalities, and rash, including severe cutaneous reactions. Colitis, pancreatitis, and infusion-related reactions were relatively infrequent but more common with atezolizumab, Dr. Moore said.
 

What the future holds

Dr. Ray-Coquard said there are signals in IMagyn050 that warrant follow-up, including a trend toward improved PFS among women who had high-grade nonserous clear cell histology. In this group, the median PFS was 12.3 months in the placebo arm and 13.6 months in the atezolizumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.64).

Additionally, there was a significant PFS improvement in women with at least 5% of their tumor cells staining positive for PD-L1. The median PFS was 20.2 months in the placebo arm but was not reached in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.64; P = .0278).

Dr. Ray-Coquard said we need to know who these PD-L1–high patients are in terms of BRCA status, histology, and residual disease.

She went on to say that companies haven’t given up on checkpoint inhibitors for ovarian cancer. Phase 3 trials are testing the atezolizumab/bevacizumab/chemotherapy combination for late relapsed disease, atezolizumab with niraparib and chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer, and nivolumab with rucaparib following response to chemotherapy.

The IMagyn050 study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche, the company developing atezolizumab. Dr. Moore and Dr. Ray-Coquard disclosed relationships with Roche and many other companies.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Moore K et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA31.

Atezolizumab failed to improve progression-free survival (PFS) when added to first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in a phase 3 trial of patients with stage III/IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer.

“Despite notable success with the incorporation of bevacizumab and atezolizumab in the treatment of other solid tumors ... the first such study in ovarian cancer did not meet its first primary endpoint” of extending PFS in the intention-to-treat population or in patients positive for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), said investigator Kathleen Moore, MD, of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.

Dr. Moore presented this study, IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
 

Explaining the negative results

The rationale for this study was good, said discussant Isabelle Ray-Coquard, MD, PhD, of the University Claude Bernard Lyon I in Villeurbanne, France, who was an investigator on the study but not an author on the meeting report.

Unfortunately, the study’s results were ultimately negative. A prior phase 3 trial of an immune checkpoint inhibitor in ovarian cancer also had negative results. In the JAVELIN OVARIAN 100 trial, adding avelumab to chemotherapy did not improve PFS, and the trial was stopped early for futility.

Dr. Ray-Coquard posed the question of whether checkpoint inhibitors are “dead” for epithelial ovarian cancer but said the answer isn’t clear.

There might be something unique about the tumor microenvironment that shields ovarian cancer from the immune system, or perhaps the PD-L1 pathway is the wrong target for immunotherapy.

It might also be that the first-line setting is the wrong place for checkpoint inhibitors, and they might work better in the second line, Dr. Ray-Coquard said.

Another possibility is that the delayed effect of immunotherapy means that overall survival – which isn’t yet mature for IMagyn050 – might be a better primary outcome than PFS.
 

Patient and treatment details

IMagyn050 enrolled 1,301 patients with newly diagnosed, stage III/IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer.

Patients were randomized to atezolizumab (n = 651) or placebo (n = 650) in combination with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin every 3 weeks for six cycles. For cycles 7-22, patients received bevacizumab with placebo or atezolizumab.

Most patients had ovarian cancer (73% in the placebo arm and 75% in the atezolizumab arm), followed by fallopian tube cancer (17% and 15%, respectively) and primary peritoneal cancer (10% and 9%, respectively).

In both arms, 31% of patients had stage IV disease, and 60% were PD-L1 positive (at least 1% of tumor cells staining positive).

Treatment was given in the neoadjuvant setting for 25% of patients in both arms and after primary cytoreductive surgery for the remaining patients.
 

Efficacy and safety

In the intention-to-treat population, the median PFS was 19.5 months with atezolizumab and 18.4 months in the placebo arm. In PD-L1–positive patients, the median PFS was 20.8 months and 18.5 months, respectively.

The differences in PFS were not statistically significant or clinically meaningful, Dr. Ray-Coquard said.

She noted that results were not stratified by BRCA status, which has been linked to PFS in ovarian cancer, and a potential imbalance between the groups might have contributed to the negative results.

Overall survival data won’t be mature until 2023, but, in the first interim analysis, “there was no apparent difference in the curves,” Dr. Moore said.

In the intention-to-treat population, the median overall survival was not reached in either treatment arm. In the PD-L1–positive population, the median overall survival was 31.2 months in the placebo arm and was not reached in the atezolizumab arm.

Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of atezolizumab and the other drugs, Dr. Moore said. There were more serious events and more events leading to discontinuation with atezolizumab.

Adverse events more common with atezolizumab included febrile neutropenia, pyrexia, thyroid abnormalities, and rash, including severe cutaneous reactions. Colitis, pancreatitis, and infusion-related reactions were relatively infrequent but more common with atezolizumab, Dr. Moore said.
 

What the future holds

Dr. Ray-Coquard said there are signals in IMagyn050 that warrant follow-up, including a trend toward improved PFS among women who had high-grade nonserous clear cell histology. In this group, the median PFS was 12.3 months in the placebo arm and 13.6 months in the atezolizumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.64).

Additionally, there was a significant PFS improvement in women with at least 5% of their tumor cells staining positive for PD-L1. The median PFS was 20.2 months in the placebo arm but was not reached in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.64; P = .0278).

Dr. Ray-Coquard said we need to know who these PD-L1–high patients are in terms of BRCA status, histology, and residual disease.

She went on to say that companies haven’t given up on checkpoint inhibitors for ovarian cancer. Phase 3 trials are testing the atezolizumab/bevacizumab/chemotherapy combination for late relapsed disease, atezolizumab with niraparib and chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer, and nivolumab with rucaparib following response to chemotherapy.

The IMagyn050 study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche, the company developing atezolizumab. Dr. Moore and Dr. Ray-Coquard disclosed relationships with Roche and many other companies.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Moore K et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA31.

Atezolizumab failed to improve progression-free survival (PFS) when added to first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in a phase 3 trial of patients with stage III/IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer.

“Despite notable success with the incorporation of bevacizumab and atezolizumab in the treatment of other solid tumors ... the first such study in ovarian cancer did not meet its first primary endpoint” of extending PFS in the intention-to-treat population or in patients positive for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), said investigator Kathleen Moore, MD, of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.

Dr. Moore presented this study, IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.
 

Explaining the negative results

The rationale for this study was good, said discussant Isabelle Ray-Coquard, MD, PhD, of the University Claude Bernard Lyon I in Villeurbanne, France, who was an investigator on the study but not an author on the meeting report.

Unfortunately, the study’s results were ultimately negative. A prior phase 3 trial of an immune checkpoint inhibitor in ovarian cancer also had negative results. In the JAVELIN OVARIAN 100 trial, adding avelumab to chemotherapy did not improve PFS, and the trial was stopped early for futility.

Dr. Ray-Coquard posed the question of whether checkpoint inhibitors are “dead” for epithelial ovarian cancer but said the answer isn’t clear.

There might be something unique about the tumor microenvironment that shields ovarian cancer from the immune system, or perhaps the PD-L1 pathway is the wrong target for immunotherapy.

It might also be that the first-line setting is the wrong place for checkpoint inhibitors, and they might work better in the second line, Dr. Ray-Coquard said.

Another possibility is that the delayed effect of immunotherapy means that overall survival – which isn’t yet mature for IMagyn050 – might be a better primary outcome than PFS.
 

Patient and treatment details

IMagyn050 enrolled 1,301 patients with newly diagnosed, stage III/IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer.

Patients were randomized to atezolizumab (n = 651) or placebo (n = 650) in combination with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin every 3 weeks for six cycles. For cycles 7-22, patients received bevacizumab with placebo or atezolizumab.

Most patients had ovarian cancer (73% in the placebo arm and 75% in the atezolizumab arm), followed by fallopian tube cancer (17% and 15%, respectively) and primary peritoneal cancer (10% and 9%, respectively).

In both arms, 31% of patients had stage IV disease, and 60% were PD-L1 positive (at least 1% of tumor cells staining positive).

Treatment was given in the neoadjuvant setting for 25% of patients in both arms and after primary cytoreductive surgery for the remaining patients.
 

Efficacy and safety

In the intention-to-treat population, the median PFS was 19.5 months with atezolizumab and 18.4 months in the placebo arm. In PD-L1–positive patients, the median PFS was 20.8 months and 18.5 months, respectively.

The differences in PFS were not statistically significant or clinically meaningful, Dr. Ray-Coquard said.

She noted that results were not stratified by BRCA status, which has been linked to PFS in ovarian cancer, and a potential imbalance between the groups might have contributed to the negative results.

Overall survival data won’t be mature until 2023, but, in the first interim analysis, “there was no apparent difference in the curves,” Dr. Moore said.

In the intention-to-treat population, the median overall survival was not reached in either treatment arm. In the PD-L1–positive population, the median overall survival was 31.2 months in the placebo arm and was not reached in the atezolizumab arm.

Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of atezolizumab and the other drugs, Dr. Moore said. There were more serious events and more events leading to discontinuation with atezolizumab.

Adverse events more common with atezolizumab included febrile neutropenia, pyrexia, thyroid abnormalities, and rash, including severe cutaneous reactions. Colitis, pancreatitis, and infusion-related reactions were relatively infrequent but more common with atezolizumab, Dr. Moore said.
 

What the future holds

Dr. Ray-Coquard said there are signals in IMagyn050 that warrant follow-up, including a trend toward improved PFS among women who had high-grade nonserous clear cell histology. In this group, the median PFS was 12.3 months in the placebo arm and 13.6 months in the atezolizumab arm (hazard ratio, 0.64).

Additionally, there was a significant PFS improvement in women with at least 5% of their tumor cells staining positive for PD-L1. The median PFS was 20.2 months in the placebo arm but was not reached in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.64; P = .0278).

Dr. Ray-Coquard said we need to know who these PD-L1–high patients are in terms of BRCA status, histology, and residual disease.

She went on to say that companies haven’t given up on checkpoint inhibitors for ovarian cancer. Phase 3 trials are testing the atezolizumab/bevacizumab/chemotherapy combination for late relapsed disease, atezolizumab with niraparib and chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer, and nivolumab with rucaparib following response to chemotherapy.

The IMagyn050 study was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche, the company developing atezolizumab. Dr. Moore and Dr. Ray-Coquard disclosed relationships with Roche and many other companies.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Moore K et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA31.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) may be an effective option for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), new research suggests. However, until further studies are conducted, the treatment should only be considered for the most severe cases.

ipopba/Getty Images

The first clinical trial to assess DBS in this challenging patient population included eight patients initially randomly assigned to receive electrode placement in one of two locations in the brain. Once a clinical response was achieved and participants were stabilized, they were randomly assigned to a second crossover phase.

Preliminary findings from the first phase of the DBS-SCHIZO pilot study, which were reported in 2017, showed promising efficacy.

The newly released final results revealed an association between DBS and significant improvements in Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS) scores, as well as reductions in doses of antipsychotic medication. Moreover, the effect reversed when the electrode was switched off.

“DBS may be a potential option for severe treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients,” lead investigator Iluminada Corripio, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, said during her presentation at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology. The new data were updated results of a study published in EBioMedicine earlier this year.

Dr. Corripio underlined that it is important to balance the risks and benefits of the intervention. DBS is “not useful for all phenotypes,” and benefits have been seen in patients with hallucinations but not in those with a disorganized phenotype, she added.
 

High economic burden

Managing TRS is challenging and is associated with a high clinical and economic burden, Corripio noted. Relapse rates can reach 80%, increasing resource use by between 200% and 900%.

There is a strong rationale for studying the use of DBS in schizophrenia, because schizophrenia shares a neurologic basis with other neurologic and psychiatric disorders centered around the cortical-striatal-thalamic-cortical circuit, said Dr. Corripio.

The study included eight patients with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of schizophrenia whose conditions were resistant to at least two different atypical antipsychotics and who had not responded to clozapine monotherapy, combination therapy, or electroconvulsive therapy.

All were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to DBS electrode implantation in one of two locations. Investigators chose the nucleus accumbens (NAcc), because recent studies have shown that DBS can increase dopamine levels there, and the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Deactivation failure in the ACC region has been observed in patients with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses.

Stimulation began 48-72 hours postoperatively with unilateral left stimulation at 2.5 volts. It was increased in 0.5 volt increments to a maximum of 7.5 volts. Patients who did not respond were switched to bilateral stimulation.

Follow-up was conducted every 2 weeks for up to 20 months. The study’s primary outcome was a symptomatic response, defined as an improvement of at least 25% on the PANSS.

Once that was achieved, patients could enter a second randomization phase in which they were assigned, in a 24-week, double-blind crossover design, to on- or off-treatment DBS arms such that patients received stimulation for 12 weeks before the device was turned off for 12 weeks, or vice versa.

Those who experienced relapse while off treatment were crossed over to the on-treatment arm; those who experienced relapsed while on treatment were withdrawn from the study. The patients’ average age was 42.5 years, and 50% were women. All were taking clozapine in combination with another antipsychotic.
 

Adverse events

Five patients experienced adverse events during the first phase, four of which were associated with rechargeable battery replacement. One experienced akathisia, another experienced behavioral changes, and a third experienced electrical disturbances.

A fourth patient experienced postsurgical hemorrhage of the right internal capsule on day 4, followed by encephalitis at week 8. He had a clinical improvement but experienced relapsed during follow-up.

The fifth patient accidentally switched off the device and withdrew from the study.

During the first randomization phase, DBS was associated with significant improvements on total, positive, and negative PANSS scores in comparison with the postoperative baseline measure in the seven remaining patients (P < .001).

When the team compared the baseline measure with the last observation, the improvement in PANSS scores remained significant for total scores (P = .007) and positive scores (P = .002), but not for negative scores (P = .18).

Three patients entered the second crossover phase of the study. Two began in the off-treatment arm and experienced relapsed within 1 and 2 weeks, respectively. Total PANSS scores increased from 79 to 98 for the first patient and from 47 to 93 for the second patient.

Neuroimaging showed that, among patients who responded to DBS, brain metabolism increased in some brain areas and decreased in others. Dr. Corripio said this suggests a “rebalancing” of neural circuits.

As of July 2020, one of three patients with an electrode placed in the NAcc had experienced remission of positive symptoms and now has predominant negative symptoms. Another experienced significant improvements in negative symptoms. Two patients currently require psychosocial rehabilitation.

Patients for whom an electrode was placed in the ACC required higher voltages and more time to achieve an effect in comparison with those for whom an electrode was placed in the NAcc. Two patients required bilateral stimulation.

However, for all three patients who remained in the study, their clozapine dose was reduced.

Dr. Corripio reported that the team has observed negative thoughts and obsessive symptoms in patients with electrodes in the ACC, and all have needed either psychosocial rehabilitation or cognitive-behavioral therapy.

The investigators are now planning another DBS study involving patients with TRS, although this one will include a clinical recovery program focusing on family interventions and cognitive-behavioral therapy.
 

“Last-resort” treatment

In the postpresentation debate, Damiaan Denys, PhD, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry at the Academic Medical Canter, University of Amsterdam, said that DBS remains a treatment of “last resort” in TRS.

This is because it is both costly and invasive, and although the associated risk of bleeding and infection is low, he noted that the consequences are significant.

Dr. Denys added that patients need to have the potential for improvement; electrodes can be easily implanted, and the approach may tempt clinicians who sometimes “struggle with a huge amount of treatment-refractory cases.”

He also pointed to results achieved in studies of obsessive-compulsive disorder and depression, in which around 50% of patients responded to DBS.

“I think that’s the reason why we should be reluctant and not treat anyone at any stage, but first look for the more severe cases,” Dr. Denys said.
 

Unmet need

Judith M. Gault, PhD, associate research professor of neurosurgery at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, also took part in the debate.

She said in an interview that patients with TRS have a lot of unmet needs and that DBS is worth trying in this patient population, with the goal being to “conduct a really good clinical trial” similar to the current study.

Antipsychotic drugs work well in responsive patients, but “in some cases the person is treatment refractory ... and in other cases the patient relapses,” Dr. Gault said.

She believes that DBS has the “potential to be more potent than antipsychotics in modulating the circuit of interest” and so fulfills the unmet needs of these patients while alleviating their symptoms.

Dr. Gault added that some patients experience “breakthrough symptoms” even while they are medication adherent. “That is a call for an intervention that is more potent” and suggests another potential role for DBS.

Overall, there are “a lot of really compelling reasons to pursue” DBS. However, there are also questions about how motivated patients with TRS are to participate in a clinical trial, Dr. Gault noted.

Patients with schizophrenia “tend not to be very motivated, especially if they have negative symptoms.” However, “if you were able to consider more of the population and not just the most severely affected, eventually you would find more people who are interested,” she said.

Still, it will take a better understanding of the efficacy and safety of the intervention for more people to be interested in trying it, said Dr. Gault.

“I think it’s hard early on, when you don’t actually know what the outcomes would be, if it’s even effective at all. But as you get more and more data in the population and at the different targets, people would be more open to it,” she said.

Another issue in generating interest among patients with schizophrenia is that many have not considered DBS as an option.

“It takes a while to think about it,” she noted. “You don’t want to rush into something that you just heard about, and so part of it is just education.”

The study was funded by Instituto Carlos III. Dr. Corripio reported having received research grants and conducting consultancy for Otsuka, Ferrer, Janssen, and Lilly. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) may be an effective option for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), new research suggests. However, until further studies are conducted, the treatment should only be considered for the most severe cases.

ipopba/Getty Images

The first clinical trial to assess DBS in this challenging patient population included eight patients initially randomly assigned to receive electrode placement in one of two locations in the brain. Once a clinical response was achieved and participants were stabilized, they were randomly assigned to a second crossover phase.

Preliminary findings from the first phase of the DBS-SCHIZO pilot study, which were reported in 2017, showed promising efficacy.

The newly released final results revealed an association between DBS and significant improvements in Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS) scores, as well as reductions in doses of antipsychotic medication. Moreover, the effect reversed when the electrode was switched off.

“DBS may be a potential option for severe treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients,” lead investigator Iluminada Corripio, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, said during her presentation at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology. The new data were updated results of a study published in EBioMedicine earlier this year.

Dr. Corripio underlined that it is important to balance the risks and benefits of the intervention. DBS is “not useful for all phenotypes,” and benefits have been seen in patients with hallucinations but not in those with a disorganized phenotype, she added.
 

High economic burden

Managing TRS is challenging and is associated with a high clinical and economic burden, Corripio noted. Relapse rates can reach 80%, increasing resource use by between 200% and 900%.

There is a strong rationale for studying the use of DBS in schizophrenia, because schizophrenia shares a neurologic basis with other neurologic and psychiatric disorders centered around the cortical-striatal-thalamic-cortical circuit, said Dr. Corripio.

The study included eight patients with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of schizophrenia whose conditions were resistant to at least two different atypical antipsychotics and who had not responded to clozapine monotherapy, combination therapy, or electroconvulsive therapy.

All were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to DBS electrode implantation in one of two locations. Investigators chose the nucleus accumbens (NAcc), because recent studies have shown that DBS can increase dopamine levels there, and the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Deactivation failure in the ACC region has been observed in patients with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses.

Stimulation began 48-72 hours postoperatively with unilateral left stimulation at 2.5 volts. It was increased in 0.5 volt increments to a maximum of 7.5 volts. Patients who did not respond were switched to bilateral stimulation.

Follow-up was conducted every 2 weeks for up to 20 months. The study’s primary outcome was a symptomatic response, defined as an improvement of at least 25% on the PANSS.

Once that was achieved, patients could enter a second randomization phase in which they were assigned, in a 24-week, double-blind crossover design, to on- or off-treatment DBS arms such that patients received stimulation for 12 weeks before the device was turned off for 12 weeks, or vice versa.

Those who experienced relapse while off treatment were crossed over to the on-treatment arm; those who experienced relapsed while on treatment were withdrawn from the study. The patients’ average age was 42.5 years, and 50% were women. All were taking clozapine in combination with another antipsychotic.
 

Adverse events

Five patients experienced adverse events during the first phase, four of which were associated with rechargeable battery replacement. One experienced akathisia, another experienced behavioral changes, and a third experienced electrical disturbances.

A fourth patient experienced postsurgical hemorrhage of the right internal capsule on day 4, followed by encephalitis at week 8. He had a clinical improvement but experienced relapsed during follow-up.

The fifth patient accidentally switched off the device and withdrew from the study.

During the first randomization phase, DBS was associated with significant improvements on total, positive, and negative PANSS scores in comparison with the postoperative baseline measure in the seven remaining patients (P < .001).

When the team compared the baseline measure with the last observation, the improvement in PANSS scores remained significant for total scores (P = .007) and positive scores (P = .002), but not for negative scores (P = .18).

Three patients entered the second crossover phase of the study. Two began in the off-treatment arm and experienced relapsed within 1 and 2 weeks, respectively. Total PANSS scores increased from 79 to 98 for the first patient and from 47 to 93 for the second patient.

Neuroimaging showed that, among patients who responded to DBS, brain metabolism increased in some brain areas and decreased in others. Dr. Corripio said this suggests a “rebalancing” of neural circuits.

As of July 2020, one of three patients with an electrode placed in the NAcc had experienced remission of positive symptoms and now has predominant negative symptoms. Another experienced significant improvements in negative symptoms. Two patients currently require psychosocial rehabilitation.

Patients for whom an electrode was placed in the ACC required higher voltages and more time to achieve an effect in comparison with those for whom an electrode was placed in the NAcc. Two patients required bilateral stimulation.

However, for all three patients who remained in the study, their clozapine dose was reduced.

Dr. Corripio reported that the team has observed negative thoughts and obsessive symptoms in patients with electrodes in the ACC, and all have needed either psychosocial rehabilitation or cognitive-behavioral therapy.

The investigators are now planning another DBS study involving patients with TRS, although this one will include a clinical recovery program focusing on family interventions and cognitive-behavioral therapy.
 

“Last-resort” treatment

In the postpresentation debate, Damiaan Denys, PhD, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry at the Academic Medical Canter, University of Amsterdam, said that DBS remains a treatment of “last resort” in TRS.

This is because it is both costly and invasive, and although the associated risk of bleeding and infection is low, he noted that the consequences are significant.

Dr. Denys added that patients need to have the potential for improvement; electrodes can be easily implanted, and the approach may tempt clinicians who sometimes “struggle with a huge amount of treatment-refractory cases.”

He also pointed to results achieved in studies of obsessive-compulsive disorder and depression, in which around 50% of patients responded to DBS.

“I think that’s the reason why we should be reluctant and not treat anyone at any stage, but first look for the more severe cases,” Dr. Denys said.
 

Unmet need

Judith M. Gault, PhD, associate research professor of neurosurgery at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, also took part in the debate.

She said in an interview that patients with TRS have a lot of unmet needs and that DBS is worth trying in this patient population, with the goal being to “conduct a really good clinical trial” similar to the current study.

Antipsychotic drugs work well in responsive patients, but “in some cases the person is treatment refractory ... and in other cases the patient relapses,” Dr. Gault said.

She believes that DBS has the “potential to be more potent than antipsychotics in modulating the circuit of interest” and so fulfills the unmet needs of these patients while alleviating their symptoms.

Dr. Gault added that some patients experience “breakthrough symptoms” even while they are medication adherent. “That is a call for an intervention that is more potent” and suggests another potential role for DBS.

Overall, there are “a lot of really compelling reasons to pursue” DBS. However, there are also questions about how motivated patients with TRS are to participate in a clinical trial, Dr. Gault noted.

Patients with schizophrenia “tend not to be very motivated, especially if they have negative symptoms.” However, “if you were able to consider more of the population and not just the most severely affected, eventually you would find more people who are interested,” she said.

Still, it will take a better understanding of the efficacy and safety of the intervention for more people to be interested in trying it, said Dr. Gault.

“I think it’s hard early on, when you don’t actually know what the outcomes would be, if it’s even effective at all. But as you get more and more data in the population and at the different targets, people would be more open to it,” she said.

Another issue in generating interest among patients with schizophrenia is that many have not considered DBS as an option.

“It takes a while to think about it,” she noted. “You don’t want to rush into something that you just heard about, and so part of it is just education.”

The study was funded by Instituto Carlos III. Dr. Corripio reported having received research grants and conducting consultancy for Otsuka, Ferrer, Janssen, and Lilly. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) may be an effective option for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), new research suggests. However, until further studies are conducted, the treatment should only be considered for the most severe cases.

ipopba/Getty Images

The first clinical trial to assess DBS in this challenging patient population included eight patients initially randomly assigned to receive electrode placement in one of two locations in the brain. Once a clinical response was achieved and participants were stabilized, they were randomly assigned to a second crossover phase.

Preliminary findings from the first phase of the DBS-SCHIZO pilot study, which were reported in 2017, showed promising efficacy.

The newly released final results revealed an association between DBS and significant improvements in Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS) scores, as well as reductions in doses of antipsychotic medication. Moreover, the effect reversed when the electrode was switched off.

“DBS may be a potential option for severe treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients,” lead investigator Iluminada Corripio, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, said during her presentation at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology. The new data were updated results of a study published in EBioMedicine earlier this year.

Dr. Corripio underlined that it is important to balance the risks and benefits of the intervention. DBS is “not useful for all phenotypes,” and benefits have been seen in patients with hallucinations but not in those with a disorganized phenotype, she added.
 

High economic burden

Managing TRS is challenging and is associated with a high clinical and economic burden, Corripio noted. Relapse rates can reach 80%, increasing resource use by between 200% and 900%.

There is a strong rationale for studying the use of DBS in schizophrenia, because schizophrenia shares a neurologic basis with other neurologic and psychiatric disorders centered around the cortical-striatal-thalamic-cortical circuit, said Dr. Corripio.

The study included eight patients with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of schizophrenia whose conditions were resistant to at least two different atypical antipsychotics and who had not responded to clozapine monotherapy, combination therapy, or electroconvulsive therapy.

All were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to DBS electrode implantation in one of two locations. Investigators chose the nucleus accumbens (NAcc), because recent studies have shown that DBS can increase dopamine levels there, and the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Deactivation failure in the ACC region has been observed in patients with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses.

Stimulation began 48-72 hours postoperatively with unilateral left stimulation at 2.5 volts. It was increased in 0.5 volt increments to a maximum of 7.5 volts. Patients who did not respond were switched to bilateral stimulation.

Follow-up was conducted every 2 weeks for up to 20 months. The study’s primary outcome was a symptomatic response, defined as an improvement of at least 25% on the PANSS.

Once that was achieved, patients could enter a second randomization phase in which they were assigned, in a 24-week, double-blind crossover design, to on- or off-treatment DBS arms such that patients received stimulation for 12 weeks before the device was turned off for 12 weeks, or vice versa.

Those who experienced relapse while off treatment were crossed over to the on-treatment arm; those who experienced relapsed while on treatment were withdrawn from the study. The patients’ average age was 42.5 years, and 50% were women. All were taking clozapine in combination with another antipsychotic.
 

Adverse events

Five patients experienced adverse events during the first phase, four of which were associated with rechargeable battery replacement. One experienced akathisia, another experienced behavioral changes, and a third experienced electrical disturbances.

A fourth patient experienced postsurgical hemorrhage of the right internal capsule on day 4, followed by encephalitis at week 8. He had a clinical improvement but experienced relapsed during follow-up.

The fifth patient accidentally switched off the device and withdrew from the study.

During the first randomization phase, DBS was associated with significant improvements on total, positive, and negative PANSS scores in comparison with the postoperative baseline measure in the seven remaining patients (P < .001).

When the team compared the baseline measure with the last observation, the improvement in PANSS scores remained significant for total scores (P = .007) and positive scores (P = .002), but not for negative scores (P = .18).

Three patients entered the second crossover phase of the study. Two began in the off-treatment arm and experienced relapsed within 1 and 2 weeks, respectively. Total PANSS scores increased from 79 to 98 for the first patient and from 47 to 93 for the second patient.

Neuroimaging showed that, among patients who responded to DBS, brain metabolism increased in some brain areas and decreased in others. Dr. Corripio said this suggests a “rebalancing” of neural circuits.

As of July 2020, one of three patients with an electrode placed in the NAcc had experienced remission of positive symptoms and now has predominant negative symptoms. Another experienced significant improvements in negative symptoms. Two patients currently require psychosocial rehabilitation.

Patients for whom an electrode was placed in the ACC required higher voltages and more time to achieve an effect in comparison with those for whom an electrode was placed in the NAcc. Two patients required bilateral stimulation.

However, for all three patients who remained in the study, their clozapine dose was reduced.

Dr. Corripio reported that the team has observed negative thoughts and obsessive symptoms in patients with electrodes in the ACC, and all have needed either psychosocial rehabilitation or cognitive-behavioral therapy.

The investigators are now planning another DBS study involving patients with TRS, although this one will include a clinical recovery program focusing on family interventions and cognitive-behavioral therapy.
 

“Last-resort” treatment

In the postpresentation debate, Damiaan Denys, PhD, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry at the Academic Medical Canter, University of Amsterdam, said that DBS remains a treatment of “last resort” in TRS.

This is because it is both costly and invasive, and although the associated risk of bleeding and infection is low, he noted that the consequences are significant.

Dr. Denys added that patients need to have the potential for improvement; electrodes can be easily implanted, and the approach may tempt clinicians who sometimes “struggle with a huge amount of treatment-refractory cases.”

He also pointed to results achieved in studies of obsessive-compulsive disorder and depression, in which around 50% of patients responded to DBS.

“I think that’s the reason why we should be reluctant and not treat anyone at any stage, but first look for the more severe cases,” Dr. Denys said.
 

Unmet need

Judith M. Gault, PhD, associate research professor of neurosurgery at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, also took part in the debate.

She said in an interview that patients with TRS have a lot of unmet needs and that DBS is worth trying in this patient population, with the goal being to “conduct a really good clinical trial” similar to the current study.

Antipsychotic drugs work well in responsive patients, but “in some cases the person is treatment refractory ... and in other cases the patient relapses,” Dr. Gault said.

She believes that DBS has the “potential to be more potent than antipsychotics in modulating the circuit of interest” and so fulfills the unmet needs of these patients while alleviating their symptoms.

Dr. Gault added that some patients experience “breakthrough symptoms” even while they are medication adherent. “That is a call for an intervention that is more potent” and suggests another potential role for DBS.

Overall, there are “a lot of really compelling reasons to pursue” DBS. However, there are also questions about how motivated patients with TRS are to participate in a clinical trial, Dr. Gault noted.

Patients with schizophrenia “tend not to be very motivated, especially if they have negative symptoms.” However, “if you were able to consider more of the population and not just the most severely affected, eventually you would find more people who are interested,” she said.

Still, it will take a better understanding of the efficacy and safety of the intervention for more people to be interested in trying it, said Dr. Gault.

“I think it’s hard early on, when you don’t actually know what the outcomes would be, if it’s even effective at all. But as you get more and more data in the population and at the different targets, people would be more open to it,” she said.

Another issue in generating interest among patients with schizophrenia is that many have not considered DBS as an option.

“It takes a while to think about it,” she noted. “You don’t want to rush into something that you just heard about, and so part of it is just education.”

The study was funded by Instituto Carlos III. Dr. Corripio reported having received research grants and conducting consultancy for Otsuka, Ferrer, Janssen, and Lilly. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

The way Sandra Lee, MD, sees it, establishing a presence on Instagram, Twitter, and other social media channels may not float your boat, but its potential influence deserves your attention.

“We can no longer hide from social media; it is part of our lives now,” Dr. Lee, a dermatologist who practices in Upland, Calif., said at the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “You’re missing some real opportunities without it.”

In October of 2014, Dr. Lee began using Instagram to provide followers a glimpse into her life as a dermatologist, everything from Mohs surgery and Botox to keloid removals and ear lobe repair surgeries. “Early on, I happened to post an extraction video,” she recalled. “It got a notable increase in attention. I thought it was weird. I did it again, and it happened again. I just started posting extraction videos every day: finding blackheads and whiteheads or milia or whatnot on my patients and just posting them. I watched in amazement as followers’ comments and attention grew.”

Soon after Dr. Lee started posting videos, she discovered Reddit, which has a subreddit for “popping addicts” and the “pop-curious,” she said. “It’s a group of tens of thousands of people who share popping videos with each other,” she explained. “I thought that was really strange. I also thought that maybe I could be their queen, so I decided to share my videos there. This meant that I would have to start a YouTube channel where I could upload my videos.”

With this, Dr. Lee formed her alter ego, “Dr. Pimple Popper,” and became a YouTube sensation, building 6.6 million subscribers over the course of a few years. She also grew 4 million followers on Instagram, 2.9 million on Facebook, and more than 138,000 on Twitter. About 80% of her followers are women who range between 18 and 40 years of age. “They are very interested in skin care,” she said. “This is the target audience that advertisers want.”

Dr. Lee’s rapid rise to fame caused some soul-searching about her intentions. “What is really important to me is to not embarrass my patients and not embarrass myself or my specialty,” she said. “I wanted to show that we as dermatologists are so much more than pimple poppers, that we have an amazing specialty. Could I do this and still grow followers? Could I entertain them and keep their interest and educate them at the same time? Show them why we are experts?”

She added: “How could I reach people who have never seen a dermatologist and maybe teach them how to take care of their skin? And help them to know when the best time is to see a dermatologist. How can we distinguish ourselves from the rest of them: the estheticians, the nurse practitioners, the physician assistants, and the physicians who are board-certified in other specialties but who present themselves on social media as dermatologists? Our specialty is getting taken over by nondermatologists on social media from all angles, so it’s become important to me to remind people, in a positive way, that there’s a difference between a board-certified dermatologist and others.”

She offered the following six pearls of advice for building and maintaining your social media presence:

• Entertain, and secretly educate, without teaching them. “People want to learn about the world, and they want to know more about skin care,” said Dr. Lee, who also stars in her own TV reality show on TLC. “They want to know more about dermatology.”
• Know your audience. “Notice what posts get the most attention and try to figure out why that content resonates,” she advised. “Read your comments.”
• Show that you’re human. “They want to follow you because they like you as a person, not just because you’re a dermatologist,” she said. “Distinguish yourself amongst us dermatologists.”
• Don’t bad mouth other specialties or other so-called skin specialists. “Don’t invite the conflict,” she said. “In my opinion, the best way to fight this is to stay on the positive side and to showcase dermatology and how amazing it is to be a board-certified dermatologist.”
• Don’t hire someone to post for you, at least not initially. Handle your social media accounts yourself, “because otherwise you really can’t understand what is driving it,” said Dr. Lee, who launched her own skin care line, SLMD Skincare. “I don’t think it can grow to a large degree without you being directly involved.”
• Use the feedback and responses to make yourself a better dermatologist. “I think that social media has made my bedside manner better, my techniques better,” she said. “It has made me a better dermatologist and, I think, a better person, too.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The way Sandra Lee, MD, sees it, establishing a presence on Instagram, Twitter, and other social media channels may not float your boat, but its potential influence deserves your attention.

“We can no longer hide from social media; it is part of our lives now,” Dr. Lee, a dermatologist who practices in Upland, Calif., said at the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “You’re missing some real opportunities without it.”

In October of 2014, Dr. Lee began using Instagram to provide followers a glimpse into her life as a dermatologist, everything from Mohs surgery and Botox to keloid removals and ear lobe repair surgeries. “Early on, I happened to post an extraction video,” she recalled. “It got a notable increase in attention. I thought it was weird. I did it again, and it happened again. I just started posting extraction videos every day: finding blackheads and whiteheads or milia or whatnot on my patients and just posting them. I watched in amazement as followers’ comments and attention grew.”

Soon after Dr. Lee started posting videos, she discovered Reddit, which has a subreddit for “popping addicts” and the “pop-curious,” she said. “It’s a group of tens of thousands of people who share popping videos with each other,” she explained. “I thought that was really strange. I also thought that maybe I could be their queen, so I decided to share my videos there. This meant that I would have to start a YouTube channel where I could upload my videos.”

With this, Dr. Lee formed her alter ego, “Dr. Pimple Popper,” and became a YouTube sensation, building 6.6 million subscribers over the course of a few years. She also grew 4 million followers on Instagram, 2.9 million on Facebook, and more than 138,000 on Twitter. About 80% of her followers are women who range between 18 and 40 years of age. “They are very interested in skin care,” she said. “This is the target audience that advertisers want.”

Dr. Lee’s rapid rise to fame caused some soul-searching about her intentions. “What is really important to me is to not embarrass my patients and not embarrass myself or my specialty,” she said. “I wanted to show that we as dermatologists are so much more than pimple poppers, that we have an amazing specialty. Could I do this and still grow followers? Could I entertain them and keep their interest and educate them at the same time? Show them why we are experts?”

She added: “How could I reach people who have never seen a dermatologist and maybe teach them how to take care of their skin? And help them to know when the best time is to see a dermatologist. How can we distinguish ourselves from the rest of them: the estheticians, the nurse practitioners, the physician assistants, and the physicians who are board-certified in other specialties but who present themselves on social media as dermatologists? Our specialty is getting taken over by nondermatologists on social media from all angles, so it’s become important to me to remind people, in a positive way, that there’s a difference between a board-certified dermatologist and others.”

She offered the following six pearls of advice for building and maintaining your social media presence:

• Entertain, and secretly educate, without teaching them. “People want to learn about the world, and they want to know more about skin care,” said Dr. Lee, who also stars in her own TV reality show on TLC. “They want to know more about dermatology.”
• Know your audience. “Notice what posts get the most attention and try to figure out why that content resonates,” she advised. “Read your comments.”
• Show that you’re human. “They want to follow you because they like you as a person, not just because you’re a dermatologist,” she said. “Distinguish yourself amongst us dermatologists.”
• Don’t bad mouth other specialties or other so-called skin specialists. “Don’t invite the conflict,” she said. “In my opinion, the best way to fight this is to stay on the positive side and to showcase dermatology and how amazing it is to be a board-certified dermatologist.”
• Don’t hire someone to post for you, at least not initially. Handle your social media accounts yourself, “because otherwise you really can’t understand what is driving it,” said Dr. Lee, who launched her own skin care line, SLMD Skincare. “I don’t think it can grow to a large degree without you being directly involved.”
• Use the feedback and responses to make yourself a better dermatologist. “I think that social media has made my bedside manner better, my techniques better,” she said. “It has made me a better dermatologist and, I think, a better person, too.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The way Sandra Lee, MD, sees it, establishing a presence on Instagram, Twitter, and other social media channels may not float your boat, but its potential influence deserves your attention.

“We can no longer hide from social media; it is part of our lives now,” Dr. Lee, a dermatologist who practices in Upland, Calif., said at the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “You’re missing some real opportunities without it.”

In October of 2014, Dr. Lee began using Instagram to provide followers a glimpse into her life as a dermatologist, everything from Mohs surgery and Botox to keloid removals and ear lobe repair surgeries. “Early on, I happened to post an extraction video,” she recalled. “It got a notable increase in attention. I thought it was weird. I did it again, and it happened again. I just started posting extraction videos every day: finding blackheads and whiteheads or milia or whatnot on my patients and just posting them. I watched in amazement as followers’ comments and attention grew.”

Soon after Dr. Lee started posting videos, she discovered Reddit, which has a subreddit for “popping addicts” and the “pop-curious,” she said. “It’s a group of tens of thousands of people who share popping videos with each other,” she explained. “I thought that was really strange. I also thought that maybe I could be their queen, so I decided to share my videos there. This meant that I would have to start a YouTube channel where I could upload my videos.”

With this, Dr. Lee formed her alter ego, “Dr. Pimple Popper,” and became a YouTube sensation, building 6.6 million subscribers over the course of a few years. She also grew 4 million followers on Instagram, 2.9 million on Facebook, and more than 138,000 on Twitter. About 80% of her followers are women who range between 18 and 40 years of age. “They are very interested in skin care,” she said. “This is the target audience that advertisers want.”

Dr. Lee’s rapid rise to fame caused some soul-searching about her intentions. “What is really important to me is to not embarrass my patients and not embarrass myself or my specialty,” she said. “I wanted to show that we as dermatologists are so much more than pimple poppers, that we have an amazing specialty. Could I do this and still grow followers? Could I entertain them and keep their interest and educate them at the same time? Show them why we are experts?”

She added: “How could I reach people who have never seen a dermatologist and maybe teach them how to take care of their skin? And help them to know when the best time is to see a dermatologist. How can we distinguish ourselves from the rest of them: the estheticians, the nurse practitioners, the physician assistants, and the physicians who are board-certified in other specialties but who present themselves on social media as dermatologists? Our specialty is getting taken over by nondermatologists on social media from all angles, so it’s become important to me to remind people, in a positive way, that there’s a difference between a board-certified dermatologist and others.”

She offered the following six pearls of advice for building and maintaining your social media presence:

• Entertain, and secretly educate, without teaching them. “People want to learn about the world, and they want to know more about skin care,” said Dr. Lee, who also stars in her own TV reality show on TLC. “They want to know more about dermatology.”
• Know your audience. “Notice what posts get the most attention and try to figure out why that content resonates,” she advised. “Read your comments.”
• Show that you’re human. “They want to follow you because they like you as a person, not just because you’re a dermatologist,” she said. “Distinguish yourself amongst us dermatologists.”
• Don’t bad mouth other specialties or other so-called skin specialists. “Don’t invite the conflict,” she said. “In my opinion, the best way to fight this is to stay on the positive side and to showcase dermatology and how amazing it is to be a board-certified dermatologist.”
• Don’t hire someone to post for you, at least not initially. Handle your social media accounts yourself, “because otherwise you really can’t understand what is driving it,” said Dr. Lee, who launched her own skin care line, SLMD Skincare. “I don’t think it can grow to a large degree without you being directly involved.”
• Use the feedback and responses to make yourself a better dermatologist. “I think that social media has made my bedside manner better, my techniques better,” she said. “It has made me a better dermatologist and, I think, a better person, too.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Radiotherapy planning scans may be a rich untapped source of information for estimating the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in breast cancer patients, a large study suggests.

Photo courtesy of Ivar Pel

Researchers found that breast cancer patients with a coronary artery calcifications (CAC) score exceeding 400 had nearly four times the adjusted risk of fatal and nonfatal CVD events when compared with patients who had a CAC score of 0.

Patients with scores exceeding 400 also had more than eight times the risk of coronary heart disease events. The associations were especially strong in the subset of patients who received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy.

Helena Verkooijen, MD, PhD, of University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands) presented these findings at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

Dr. Verkooijen noted that, over the past 50 years, breast cancer has dramatically declined as a cause of death among breast cancer survivors, while CVD has continued to account for about 20% of the total deaths in this population.

CACs are sometimes incidentally seen in radiotherapy planning CT scans. “Right now, this information is not often used for patient stratification or informing patients about their cardiovascular risk, and this is a pity, because we know that it is an independent risk factor, and, often, the presence of calcifications can occur in the absence of other cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Verkooijen said.
 

Study details

Dr. Verkooijen and and colleagues from the Bragataston Study Group retrospectively studied 15,919 breast cancer patients who had radiotherapy planning CT scans during 2004-2016 at three Dutch institutions.

The researchers used an automated deep-learning algorithm (described in Radiology) to detect and quantify coronary calcium in planning CT scans and calculate CAC scores, classifying them into five categories.

The median follow-up was 51.6 months. Most women (70%) did not have any calcium detected in their coronary arteries (CAC score of 0), while 3% fell into the highest category (CAC score of >400).

The incidence of nonfatal and fatal CVD events increased with CAC score:

• 5.1% with a score of 0.
• 8.5% with a score of 1-10.
• 13.5% with a score of 11-100.
• 17.6% with a score of 101-400.
• 28.0% with a score greater than 400.

In analyses adjusted for age, laterality of radiation, and receipt of cardiotoxic agents – anthracyclines and trastuzumab – women with a score exceeding 400 had sharply elevated adjusted risks of CVD events (hazard ratio, 3.7), of coronary heart disease events specifically (HR, 8.2), and of death from any cause (HR, 2.8), when compared with peers who had a CAC score of 0.

On further scrutiny of CVD events, the pattern was similar regardless of whether radiation was left- or right-sided. However, the association was stronger among women who received anthracyclines as compared with counterparts who did not, with a nearly six-fold higher risk for those with highest versus lowest CAC scores.

When the women were surveyed, nearly 90% said they wanted to be informed about their CAC score and associated CVD risk, even in the absence of evidence-based risk reduction strategies.
 

Applying the results

“We believe that this is the first time that anyone has conducted a study on this topic on a scale like this, and we show that it is possible to relatively easily identify women at a very high risk of CVD,” Dr. Verkooijen said. “But what do we do with this information, because these scans are not made to answer this question. … This is information that we get that we haven’t really requested. I think we should only use this information when we have really shown that we can help patients reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease.”

To that end, Dr. Verkooijen and colleagues are planning additional research that will look at the potential benefit of referring high-risk patients for cardioprevention strategies and at the role of using the CAC score to personalize treatment strategies.

“This is an interesting and novel approach to predicting cardiac events for patients undergoing breast cancer treatment,” Meena S. Moran, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., commented in an interview.

The approach would likely be feasible in typical practice with widespread availability of the automated algorithm and might even alter treatment planning in real time, she said. “From the standpoint of radiation oncology, it would mean running the software to generate a CAC score, which would allow for modifications in decision-making during treatment planning, such as whether or not to include the internal mammary nodal chain in a patient who may be in the ‘gray zone’ for regional nodal radiation. For example, if a patient has a high CAC score, plus if they have received (or are receiving) cardiotoxic drugs, radiation oncologists can use that information as an additional factor to consider in the decision-making of whether or not to include the internal mammary chain, which inevitably can increase the dose delivered to the heart,” Dr. Moran elaborated.

Dr. Verkooijen’s study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Commission, the Dutch Digestive Foundation, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, and Elekta. Dr. Verkooijen and Dr. Moran disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gal R et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Congress, Abstract 7.

Radiotherapy planning scans may be a rich untapped source of information for estimating the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in breast cancer patients, a large study suggests.

Photo courtesy of Ivar Pel

Researchers found that breast cancer patients with a coronary artery calcifications (CAC) score exceeding 400 had nearly four times the adjusted risk of fatal and nonfatal CVD events when compared with patients who had a CAC score of 0.

Patients with scores exceeding 400 also had more than eight times the risk of coronary heart disease events. The associations were especially strong in the subset of patients who received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy.

Helena Verkooijen, MD, PhD, of University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands) presented these findings at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

Dr. Verkooijen noted that, over the past 50 years, breast cancer has dramatically declined as a cause of death among breast cancer survivors, while CVD has continued to account for about 20% of the total deaths in this population.

CACs are sometimes incidentally seen in radiotherapy planning CT scans. “Right now, this information is not often used for patient stratification or informing patients about their cardiovascular risk, and this is a pity, because we know that it is an independent risk factor, and, often, the presence of calcifications can occur in the absence of other cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Verkooijen said.
 

Study details

Dr. Verkooijen and and colleagues from the Bragataston Study Group retrospectively studied 15,919 breast cancer patients who had radiotherapy planning CT scans during 2004-2016 at three Dutch institutions.

The researchers used an automated deep-learning algorithm (described in Radiology) to detect and quantify coronary calcium in planning CT scans and calculate CAC scores, classifying them into five categories.

The median follow-up was 51.6 months. Most women (70%) did not have any calcium detected in their coronary arteries (CAC score of 0), while 3% fell into the highest category (CAC score of >400).

The incidence of nonfatal and fatal CVD events increased with CAC score:

• 5.1% with a score of 0.
• 8.5% with a score of 1-10.
• 13.5% with a score of 11-100.
• 17.6% with a score of 101-400.
• 28.0% with a score greater than 400.

In analyses adjusted for age, laterality of radiation, and receipt of cardiotoxic agents – anthracyclines and trastuzumab – women with a score exceeding 400 had sharply elevated adjusted risks of CVD events (hazard ratio, 3.7), of coronary heart disease events specifically (HR, 8.2), and of death from any cause (HR, 2.8), when compared with peers who had a CAC score of 0.

On further scrutiny of CVD events, the pattern was similar regardless of whether radiation was left- or right-sided. However, the association was stronger among women who received anthracyclines as compared with counterparts who did not, with a nearly six-fold higher risk for those with highest versus lowest CAC scores.

When the women were surveyed, nearly 90% said they wanted to be informed about their CAC score and associated CVD risk, even in the absence of evidence-based risk reduction strategies.
 

Applying the results

“We believe that this is the first time that anyone has conducted a study on this topic on a scale like this, and we show that it is possible to relatively easily identify women at a very high risk of CVD,” Dr. Verkooijen said. “But what do we do with this information, because these scans are not made to answer this question. … This is information that we get that we haven’t really requested. I think we should only use this information when we have really shown that we can help patients reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease.”

To that end, Dr. Verkooijen and colleagues are planning additional research that will look at the potential benefit of referring high-risk patients for cardioprevention strategies and at the role of using the CAC score to personalize treatment strategies.

“This is an interesting and novel approach to predicting cardiac events for patients undergoing breast cancer treatment,” Meena S. Moran, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., commented in an interview.

The approach would likely be feasible in typical practice with widespread availability of the automated algorithm and might even alter treatment planning in real time, she said. “From the standpoint of radiation oncology, it would mean running the software to generate a CAC score, which would allow for modifications in decision-making during treatment planning, such as whether or not to include the internal mammary nodal chain in a patient who may be in the ‘gray zone’ for regional nodal radiation. For example, if a patient has a high CAC score, plus if they have received (or are receiving) cardiotoxic drugs, radiation oncologists can use that information as an additional factor to consider in the decision-making of whether or not to include the internal mammary chain, which inevitably can increase the dose delivered to the heart,” Dr. Moran elaborated.

Dr. Verkooijen’s study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Commission, the Dutch Digestive Foundation, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, and Elekta. Dr. Verkooijen and Dr. Moran disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gal R et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Congress, Abstract 7.

Radiotherapy planning scans may be a rich untapped source of information for estimating the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in breast cancer patients, a large study suggests.

Photo courtesy of Ivar Pel

Researchers found that breast cancer patients with a coronary artery calcifications (CAC) score exceeding 400 had nearly four times the adjusted risk of fatal and nonfatal CVD events when compared with patients who had a CAC score of 0.

Patients with scores exceeding 400 also had more than eight times the risk of coronary heart disease events. The associations were especially strong in the subset of patients who received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy.

Helena Verkooijen, MD, PhD, of University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands) presented these findings at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

Dr. Verkooijen noted that, over the past 50 years, breast cancer has dramatically declined as a cause of death among breast cancer survivors, while CVD has continued to account for about 20% of the total deaths in this population.

CACs are sometimes incidentally seen in radiotherapy planning CT scans. “Right now, this information is not often used for patient stratification or informing patients about their cardiovascular risk, and this is a pity, because we know that it is an independent risk factor, and, often, the presence of calcifications can occur in the absence of other cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Verkooijen said.
 

Study details

Dr. Verkooijen and and colleagues from the Bragataston Study Group retrospectively studied 15,919 breast cancer patients who had radiotherapy planning CT scans during 2004-2016 at three Dutch institutions.

The researchers used an automated deep-learning algorithm (described in Radiology) to detect and quantify coronary calcium in planning CT scans and calculate CAC scores, classifying them into five categories.

The median follow-up was 51.6 months. Most women (70%) did not have any calcium detected in their coronary arteries (CAC score of 0), while 3% fell into the highest category (CAC score of >400).

The incidence of nonfatal and fatal CVD events increased with CAC score:

• 5.1% with a score of 0.
• 8.5% with a score of 1-10.
• 13.5% with a score of 11-100.
• 17.6% with a score of 101-400.
• 28.0% with a score greater than 400.

In analyses adjusted for age, laterality of radiation, and receipt of cardiotoxic agents – anthracyclines and trastuzumab – women with a score exceeding 400 had sharply elevated adjusted risks of CVD events (hazard ratio, 3.7), of coronary heart disease events specifically (HR, 8.2), and of death from any cause (HR, 2.8), when compared with peers who had a CAC score of 0.

On further scrutiny of CVD events, the pattern was similar regardless of whether radiation was left- or right-sided. However, the association was stronger among women who received anthracyclines as compared with counterparts who did not, with a nearly six-fold higher risk for those with highest versus lowest CAC scores.

When the women were surveyed, nearly 90% said they wanted to be informed about their CAC score and associated CVD risk, even in the absence of evidence-based risk reduction strategies.
 

Applying the results

“We believe that this is the first time that anyone has conducted a study on this topic on a scale like this, and we show that it is possible to relatively easily identify women at a very high risk of CVD,” Dr. Verkooijen said. “But what do we do with this information, because these scans are not made to answer this question. … This is information that we get that we haven’t really requested. I think we should only use this information when we have really shown that we can help patients reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease.”

To that end, Dr. Verkooijen and colleagues are planning additional research that will look at the potential benefit of referring high-risk patients for cardioprevention strategies and at the role of using the CAC score to personalize treatment strategies.

“This is an interesting and novel approach to predicting cardiac events for patients undergoing breast cancer treatment,” Meena S. Moran, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., commented in an interview.

The approach would likely be feasible in typical practice with widespread availability of the automated algorithm and might even alter treatment planning in real time, she said. “From the standpoint of radiation oncology, it would mean running the software to generate a CAC score, which would allow for modifications in decision-making during treatment planning, such as whether or not to include the internal mammary nodal chain in a patient who may be in the ‘gray zone’ for regional nodal radiation. For example, if a patient has a high CAC score, plus if they have received (or are receiving) cardiotoxic drugs, radiation oncologists can use that information as an additional factor to consider in the decision-making of whether or not to include the internal mammary chain, which inevitably can increase the dose delivered to the heart,” Dr. Moran elaborated.

Dr. Verkooijen’s study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society, the European Commission, the Dutch Digestive Foundation, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, and Elekta. Dr. Verkooijen and Dr. Moran disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gal R et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Congress, Abstract 7.

The latest drug shown to benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, works just as well when added on top of a second major agent used to treat these patients, the renin-angiotensin system–inhibiting combination of sacubitril/valsartan, based on a post-hoc analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.

“When there are two very effective treatments, it’s common for people to ask: Which should I use?’ The goal of my presentation was to emphasize that the answer is both. We shouldn’t choose between neprilysin inhibition [sacubitril inhibits the enzyme neprilysin] and SGLT2 [sodium-glucose transporter 2] inhibition; we should use both,” said Milton Packer, MD at the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

EMPEROR-Reduced had the primary goal of testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The results showed that adding this drug on top of standard treatments led to a 25% relative cut in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo, and had this effect regardless of whether or not patients also had type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022190).

Among the 3,730 patients enrolled in the trial, 727 (19%) were on sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) at entry, which gave Dr. Packer the data to perform the analysis he reported. He presented the study’s three major endpoints as well as a quality of life analysis that compared the performance of empagliflozin in patients who were on sacubitril/valsartan at baseline with the other study patients, who were either on a different type of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (roughly 70% of study patients) or on no RAS inhibition (about 10% of patients).

The results showed no statistically significant indication of an interaction, suggesting that patients with sacubitril/valsartan on board had just as good response to empagliflozin as patients who were not on this combination. The landmark PARADIGM-HF trial proved several years ago that treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan led to significantly better outcomes than did treatment with another form of RAS inhibition (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).

For example, EMPEROR-Reduced’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, fell by 36% relative to placebo in patients who received empagliflozin on top of sacubitril/valsartan, and by 23% relative to placebo among the remaining patients who received empagliflozin on top of a different type of RAS inhibitor drug or no RAS inhibition.

“Background treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not diminish, and may have enhanced the efficacy of empagliflozin,” concluded Dr. Packer. Further analyses also showed that concurrent sacubitril/valsartan had no statistically significant impact on empagliflozin’s ability to reduce the rate of total heart failure hospitalizations, or to slow progressive loss of renal function, compared with placebo. The fourth efficacy analysis Dr. Packer presented showed that empagliflozin was also as effective for improving a quality-of-life measure in patients compared with placebo regardless of the type of RAS inhibition used. For all four outcomes, the point-estimate of empagliflozin’s benefit was higher when used along with sacubitril/valsartan.

Brian L. Claggett, PhD, a biostatistician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, designated discussant for the report, disagreed with Dr. Packer’s suggestion that the efficacy of empagliflozin may have been greater when administered against a background of sacubitril/valsartan. From a statistical perspective, there is no basis to suggest that patients did better when they were on both drugs, he cautioned. But Dr. Claggett acknowledged that the new analyses suggested that empagliflozin’s benefit wasn’t compromised by concurrent sacubitril/valsartan use. He also highlighted the value of more fully documenting the safety and efficacy of a new drug when used as part of “comprehensive therapy” with the established drugs that a patient may concurrently receive.

Dr. Packer also presented several measures of treatment safety that all showed similar rates of adverse effects between the empagliflozin and placebo recipients regardless of background RAS inhibition. A notable finding was that the incidence of hypokalemia was 5.9% in patients on empagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan and 7.5% among patients on empagliflozin and a different type of RAS inhibition.

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin. Dr. Packer has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and from several other companies. Dr. Claggett has been a consultant to Amgen, AO Biome, Biogen, Corvia, Myokardia, and Novartis.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The latest drug shown to benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, works just as well when added on top of a second major agent used to treat these patients, the renin-angiotensin system–inhibiting combination of sacubitril/valsartan, based on a post-hoc analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.

“When there are two very effective treatments, it’s common for people to ask: Which should I use?’ The goal of my presentation was to emphasize that the answer is both. We shouldn’t choose between neprilysin inhibition [sacubitril inhibits the enzyme neprilysin] and SGLT2 [sodium-glucose transporter 2] inhibition; we should use both,” said Milton Packer, MD at the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

EMPEROR-Reduced had the primary goal of testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The results showed that adding this drug on top of standard treatments led to a 25% relative cut in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo, and had this effect regardless of whether or not patients also had type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022190).

Among the 3,730 patients enrolled in the trial, 727 (19%) were on sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) at entry, which gave Dr. Packer the data to perform the analysis he reported. He presented the study’s three major endpoints as well as a quality of life analysis that compared the performance of empagliflozin in patients who were on sacubitril/valsartan at baseline with the other study patients, who were either on a different type of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (roughly 70% of study patients) or on no RAS inhibition (about 10% of patients).

The results showed no statistically significant indication of an interaction, suggesting that patients with sacubitril/valsartan on board had just as good response to empagliflozin as patients who were not on this combination. The landmark PARADIGM-HF trial proved several years ago that treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan led to significantly better outcomes than did treatment with another form of RAS inhibition (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).

For example, EMPEROR-Reduced’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, fell by 36% relative to placebo in patients who received empagliflozin on top of sacubitril/valsartan, and by 23% relative to placebo among the remaining patients who received empagliflozin on top of a different type of RAS inhibitor drug or no RAS inhibition.

“Background treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not diminish, and may have enhanced the efficacy of empagliflozin,” concluded Dr. Packer. Further analyses also showed that concurrent sacubitril/valsartan had no statistically significant impact on empagliflozin’s ability to reduce the rate of total heart failure hospitalizations, or to slow progressive loss of renal function, compared with placebo. The fourth efficacy analysis Dr. Packer presented showed that empagliflozin was also as effective for improving a quality-of-life measure in patients compared with placebo regardless of the type of RAS inhibition used. For all four outcomes, the point-estimate of empagliflozin’s benefit was higher when used along with sacubitril/valsartan.

Brian L. Claggett, PhD, a biostatistician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, designated discussant for the report, disagreed with Dr. Packer’s suggestion that the efficacy of empagliflozin may have been greater when administered against a background of sacubitril/valsartan. From a statistical perspective, there is no basis to suggest that patients did better when they were on both drugs, he cautioned. But Dr. Claggett acknowledged that the new analyses suggested that empagliflozin’s benefit wasn’t compromised by concurrent sacubitril/valsartan use. He also highlighted the value of more fully documenting the safety and efficacy of a new drug when used as part of “comprehensive therapy” with the established drugs that a patient may concurrently receive.

Dr. Packer also presented several measures of treatment safety that all showed similar rates of adverse effects between the empagliflozin and placebo recipients regardless of background RAS inhibition. A notable finding was that the incidence of hypokalemia was 5.9% in patients on empagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan and 7.5% among patients on empagliflozin and a different type of RAS inhibition.

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin. Dr. Packer has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and from several other companies. Dr. Claggett has been a consultant to Amgen, AO Biome, Biogen, Corvia, Myokardia, and Novartis.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The latest drug shown to benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, works just as well when added on top of a second major agent used to treat these patients, the renin-angiotensin system–inhibiting combination of sacubitril/valsartan, based on a post-hoc analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.

“When there are two very effective treatments, it’s common for people to ask: Which should I use?’ The goal of my presentation was to emphasize that the answer is both. We shouldn’t choose between neprilysin inhibition [sacubitril inhibits the enzyme neprilysin] and SGLT2 [sodium-glucose transporter 2] inhibition; we should use both,” said Milton Packer, MD at the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

EMPEROR-Reduced had the primary goal of testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The results showed that adding this drug on top of standard treatments led to a 25% relative cut in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo, and had this effect regardless of whether or not patients also had type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022190).

Among the 3,730 patients enrolled in the trial, 727 (19%) were on sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) at entry, which gave Dr. Packer the data to perform the analysis he reported. He presented the study’s three major endpoints as well as a quality of life analysis that compared the performance of empagliflozin in patients who were on sacubitril/valsartan at baseline with the other study patients, who were either on a different type of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (roughly 70% of study patients) or on no RAS inhibition (about 10% of patients).

The results showed no statistically significant indication of an interaction, suggesting that patients with sacubitril/valsartan on board had just as good response to empagliflozin as patients who were not on this combination. The landmark PARADIGM-HF trial proved several years ago that treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan led to significantly better outcomes than did treatment with another form of RAS inhibition (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).

For example, EMPEROR-Reduced’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, fell by 36% relative to placebo in patients who received empagliflozin on top of sacubitril/valsartan, and by 23% relative to placebo among the remaining patients who received empagliflozin on top of a different type of RAS inhibitor drug or no RAS inhibition.

“Background treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not diminish, and may have enhanced the efficacy of empagliflozin,” concluded Dr. Packer. Further analyses also showed that concurrent sacubitril/valsartan had no statistically significant impact on empagliflozin’s ability to reduce the rate of total heart failure hospitalizations, or to slow progressive loss of renal function, compared with placebo. The fourth efficacy analysis Dr. Packer presented showed that empagliflozin was also as effective for improving a quality-of-life measure in patients compared with placebo regardless of the type of RAS inhibition used. For all four outcomes, the point-estimate of empagliflozin’s benefit was higher when used along with sacubitril/valsartan.

Brian L. Claggett, PhD, a biostatistician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, designated discussant for the report, disagreed with Dr. Packer’s suggestion that the efficacy of empagliflozin may have been greater when administered against a background of sacubitril/valsartan. From a statistical perspective, there is no basis to suggest that patients did better when they were on both drugs, he cautioned. But Dr. Claggett acknowledged that the new analyses suggested that empagliflozin’s benefit wasn’t compromised by concurrent sacubitril/valsartan use. He also highlighted the value of more fully documenting the safety and efficacy of a new drug when used as part of “comprehensive therapy” with the established drugs that a patient may concurrently receive.

Dr. Packer also presented several measures of treatment safety that all showed similar rates of adverse effects between the empagliflozin and placebo recipients regardless of background RAS inhibition. A notable finding was that the incidence of hypokalemia was 5.9% in patients on empagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan and 7.5% among patients on empagliflozin and a different type of RAS inhibition.

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin. Dr. Packer has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and from several other companies. Dr. Claggett has been a consultant to Amgen, AO Biome, Biogen, Corvia, Myokardia, and Novartis.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Latino patients participating in clinical trials of psoriasis treatments were found to have different patterns of disease and a lower level of quality of life, compared with White participants in the same studies, according to new data presented at the virtual Skin of Color Update 2020.

“Our findings demonstrate that, though White psoriasis patients may have higher severity in certain body regions such as the trunk, axilla, and groin areas, Latino psoriasis patients have a greater distribution of involvement, particularly in their upper limbs,” reported Alyssa G. Ashbaugh, a third-year medical student at the University of California, Irvine.

The study also found that psoriasis had a greater adverse impact on well-being, as measured with the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). At entry into the trials from which these patients were drawn, the higher DLQI score, significantly lower quality of life, was nearly two times higher (13.78 vs. 7.31; P = .01) among the Latino patients, compared with White patients.

This is not the first study to show a greater negative impact from psoriasis on Latinos than Whites, according to Ms. Ashbaugh. For example, Latinos had the worse quality of life at baseline by DLQI score than White, Asians, or Black participants in a trial of etanercept that enrolled more than 2000 patients.

In this retrospective chart review, patient characteristics were evaluated in all 21 Latino patients enrolled in psoriasis clinical trials at the University of California, Irvine, in a recent period. They were matched by age and gender to an equal number of White patients participating in the same trials.

The mean age at diagnosis of psoriasis was older in the Latino group than in the White population (42.4 vs. 35.6 years; P = .20), but the difference did not reach statistical significance. The proportion of patients with severe disease on investigator global assessment was also greater but not significantly different in the Latino group, compared with the White group, respectively (42.9% vs. 28.6%; P = .10).

However, differences in the patterns of disease did reach significance. This included a lower mean Psoriasis Assessment Severity Index score of the trunk, axilla, and groin in Latinos (4.74 vs. 9.73; P = .02). But compared with White participants, Latinos had a higher mean percentage of body surface area involvement in the upper limbs (4.78 vs. 1.85; P = .004) and a higher percentage of total body surface area involvement (20.50 vs. 10.03; P = .02).

“While White patients were found to have lived many more years with psoriasis, it is important for future studies to examine whether this is due to earlier onset or delayed diagnosis, given the fact that minorities are less likely to have access to a dermatologist,” reported Ms. Ashbaugh, who performed this work under the guidance of the senior author, Natasha Mesinkovska, MD, PhD, with the department of dermatology, University of California, Irvine.

Overall, the study suggested that body surface coverage and severity is not similarly distributed in Latinos relative to Whites. Although Ms. Ashbaugh conceded that the small sample size and retrospective design of this study are important limitations, she believes that her study, along with previously published studies that suggest psoriasis characteristics may differ meaningfully by race or ethnicity, raises issues that should be explored in future studies designed to confirm differences and whether those differences should affect management.

Other studies have suggested “there are notable differences in the presentation of psoriasis between racial and ethnic groups with the Latino population often presenting to physicians with more severe psoriasis and increased body surface area involvement,” Ms. Ashbaugh noted. Although this appears to be one of the first studies to examine psoriasis characteristics in Latinos relative to Whites, she believes this is an area ripe for further analysis.

Psoriasis “is not a rare occurrence” in non-White populations even if U.S. data suggest that the prevalence in “people of color is lower than that of psoriasis in the U.S. white population,” Amy McMichael, MD, chair of the department of dermatology, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, N.C., commented in an interview after the meeting. She agreed that it cannot be assumed that psoriasis in skin of color has the same manifestations or responds to treatment in the same way as in White patients.

“Studies have suggested that lesion thickness and, often, extent of disease can be worse in patients of color. Few studies to date have examined the efficacy of treatments and impact of disease in these populations,” she said.

One exception was a study Dr. McMichael and colleagues published last year on the efficacy and safety of the interleukin-17 receptor A antagonist brodalumab for psoriasis in patients of color. The study showed that Black, Latino, and Asian patients participating in the AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3 trials achieved similar outcomes as White participants.

“We published this study because this is one of the first, if not the first, to have enough patients of color to actually draw conclusions about the efficacy of the biologic as well as the patient-reported outcomes,” she explained.

Like the author of the evaluation of Latino patients undertaken at the University of California, Irvine, Dr. McMichael said studies of psoriasis specific to patients of color are needed.

“We cannot assume all patients of color will have the same outcomes as their Caucasian counterparts. It is imperative to include those of color in future psoriasis treatment trials in order to determine the efficacy of new medications,” she added, specifically calling for collection of data on patient-reported outcomes.

Ms. Ashbaugh has no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. McMichael’s disclosures included serving as an investigator and/or consultant for companies that included Allergan, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, and Aclaris.

Latino patients participating in clinical trials of psoriasis treatments were found to have different patterns of disease and a lower level of quality of life, compared with White participants in the same studies, according to new data presented at the virtual Skin of Color Update 2020.

“Our findings demonstrate that, though White psoriasis patients may have higher severity in certain body regions such as the trunk, axilla, and groin areas, Latino psoriasis patients have a greater distribution of involvement, particularly in their upper limbs,” reported Alyssa G. Ashbaugh, a third-year medical student at the University of California, Irvine.

The study also found that psoriasis had a greater adverse impact on well-being, as measured with the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). At entry into the trials from which these patients were drawn, the higher DLQI score, significantly lower quality of life, was nearly two times higher (13.78 vs. 7.31; P = .01) among the Latino patients, compared with White patients.

This is not the first study to show a greater negative impact from psoriasis on Latinos than Whites, according to Ms. Ashbaugh. For example, Latinos had the worse quality of life at baseline by DLQI score than White, Asians, or Black participants in a trial of etanercept that enrolled more than 2000 patients.

In this retrospective chart review, patient characteristics were evaluated in all 21 Latino patients enrolled in psoriasis clinical trials at the University of California, Irvine, in a recent period. They were matched by age and gender to an equal number of White patients participating in the same trials.

The mean age at diagnosis of psoriasis was older in the Latino group than in the White population (42.4 vs. 35.6 years; P = .20), but the difference did not reach statistical significance. The proportion of patients with severe disease on investigator global assessment was also greater but not significantly different in the Latino group, compared with the White group, respectively (42.9% vs. 28.6%; P = .10).

However, differences in the patterns of disease did reach significance. This included a lower mean Psoriasis Assessment Severity Index score of the trunk, axilla, and groin in Latinos (4.74 vs. 9.73; P = .02). But compared with White participants, Latinos had a higher mean percentage of body surface area involvement in the upper limbs (4.78 vs. 1.85; P = .004) and a higher percentage of total body surface area involvement (20.50 vs. 10.03; P = .02).

“While White patients were found to have lived many more years with psoriasis, it is important for future studies to examine whether this is due to earlier onset or delayed diagnosis, given the fact that minorities are less likely to have access to a dermatologist,” reported Ms. Ashbaugh, who performed this work under the guidance of the senior author, Natasha Mesinkovska, MD, PhD, with the department of dermatology, University of California, Irvine.

Overall, the study suggested that body surface coverage and severity is not similarly distributed in Latinos relative to Whites. Although Ms. Ashbaugh conceded that the small sample size and retrospective design of this study are important limitations, she believes that her study, along with previously published studies that suggest psoriasis characteristics may differ meaningfully by race or ethnicity, raises issues that should be explored in future studies designed to confirm differences and whether those differences should affect management.

Other studies have suggested “there are notable differences in the presentation of psoriasis between racial and ethnic groups with the Latino population often presenting to physicians with more severe psoriasis and increased body surface area involvement,” Ms. Ashbaugh noted. Although this appears to be one of the first studies to examine psoriasis characteristics in Latinos relative to Whites, she believes this is an area ripe for further analysis.

Psoriasis “is not a rare occurrence” in non-White populations even if U.S. data suggest that the prevalence in “people of color is lower than that of psoriasis in the U.S. white population,” Amy McMichael, MD, chair of the department of dermatology, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, N.C., commented in an interview after the meeting. She agreed that it cannot be assumed that psoriasis in skin of color has the same manifestations or responds to treatment in the same way as in White patients.

“Studies have suggested that lesion thickness and, often, extent of disease can be worse in patients of color. Few studies to date have examined the efficacy of treatments and impact of disease in these populations,” she said.

One exception was a study Dr. McMichael and colleagues published last year on the efficacy and safety of the interleukin-17 receptor A antagonist brodalumab for psoriasis in patients of color. The study showed that Black, Latino, and Asian patients participating in the AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3 trials achieved similar outcomes as White participants.

“We published this study because this is one of the first, if not the first, to have enough patients of color to actually draw conclusions about the efficacy of the biologic as well as the patient-reported outcomes,” she explained.

Like the author of the evaluation of Latino patients undertaken at the University of California, Irvine, Dr. McMichael said studies of psoriasis specific to patients of color are needed.

“We cannot assume all patients of color will have the same outcomes as their Caucasian counterparts. It is imperative to include those of color in future psoriasis treatment trials in order to determine the efficacy of new medications,” she added, specifically calling for collection of data on patient-reported outcomes.

Ms. Ashbaugh has no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. McMichael’s disclosures included serving as an investigator and/or consultant for companies that included Allergan, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, and Aclaris.

Latino patients participating in clinical trials of psoriasis treatments were found to have different patterns of disease and a lower level of quality of life, compared with White participants in the same studies, according to new data presented at the virtual Skin of Color Update 2020.

“Our findings demonstrate that, though White psoriasis patients may have higher severity in certain body regions such as the trunk, axilla, and groin areas, Latino psoriasis patients have a greater distribution of involvement, particularly in their upper limbs,” reported Alyssa G. Ashbaugh, a third-year medical student at the University of California, Irvine.

The study also found that psoriasis had a greater adverse impact on well-being, as measured with the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). At entry into the trials from which these patients were drawn, the higher DLQI score, significantly lower quality of life, was nearly two times higher (13.78 vs. 7.31; P = .01) among the Latino patients, compared with White patients.

This is not the first study to show a greater negative impact from psoriasis on Latinos than Whites, according to Ms. Ashbaugh. For example, Latinos had the worse quality of life at baseline by DLQI score than White, Asians, or Black participants in a trial of etanercept that enrolled more than 2000 patients.

In this retrospective chart review, patient characteristics were evaluated in all 21 Latino patients enrolled in psoriasis clinical trials at the University of California, Irvine, in a recent period. They were matched by age and gender to an equal number of White patients participating in the same trials.

The mean age at diagnosis of psoriasis was older in the Latino group than in the White population (42.4 vs. 35.6 years; P = .20), but the difference did not reach statistical significance. The proportion of patients with severe disease on investigator global assessment was also greater but not significantly different in the Latino group, compared with the White group, respectively (42.9% vs. 28.6%; P = .10).

However, differences in the patterns of disease did reach significance. This included a lower mean Psoriasis Assessment Severity Index score of the trunk, axilla, and groin in Latinos (4.74 vs. 9.73; P = .02). But compared with White participants, Latinos had a higher mean percentage of body surface area involvement in the upper limbs (4.78 vs. 1.85; P = .004) and a higher percentage of total body surface area involvement (20.50 vs. 10.03; P = .02).

“While White patients were found to have lived many more years with psoriasis, it is important for future studies to examine whether this is due to earlier onset or delayed diagnosis, given the fact that minorities are less likely to have access to a dermatologist,” reported Ms. Ashbaugh, who performed this work under the guidance of the senior author, Natasha Mesinkovska, MD, PhD, with the department of dermatology, University of California, Irvine.

Overall, the study suggested that body surface coverage and severity is not similarly distributed in Latinos relative to Whites. Although Ms. Ashbaugh conceded that the small sample size and retrospective design of this study are important limitations, she believes that her study, along with previously published studies that suggest psoriasis characteristics may differ meaningfully by race or ethnicity, raises issues that should be explored in future studies designed to confirm differences and whether those differences should affect management.

Other studies have suggested “there are notable differences in the presentation of psoriasis between racial and ethnic groups with the Latino population often presenting to physicians with more severe psoriasis and increased body surface area involvement,” Ms. Ashbaugh noted. Although this appears to be one of the first studies to examine psoriasis characteristics in Latinos relative to Whites, she believes this is an area ripe for further analysis.

Psoriasis “is not a rare occurrence” in non-White populations even if U.S. data suggest that the prevalence in “people of color is lower than that of psoriasis in the U.S. white population,” Amy McMichael, MD, chair of the department of dermatology, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, N.C., commented in an interview after the meeting. She agreed that it cannot be assumed that psoriasis in skin of color has the same manifestations or responds to treatment in the same way as in White patients.

“Studies have suggested that lesion thickness and, often, extent of disease can be worse in patients of color. Few studies to date have examined the efficacy of treatments and impact of disease in these populations,” she said.

One exception was a study Dr. McMichael and colleagues published last year on the efficacy and safety of the interleukin-17 receptor A antagonist brodalumab for psoriasis in patients of color. The study showed that Black, Latino, and Asian patients participating in the AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3 trials achieved similar outcomes as White participants.

“We published this study because this is one of the first, if not the first, to have enough patients of color to actually draw conclusions about the efficacy of the biologic as well as the patient-reported outcomes,” she explained.

Like the author of the evaluation of Latino patients undertaken at the University of California, Irvine, Dr. McMichael said studies of psoriasis specific to patients of color are needed.

“We cannot assume all patients of color will have the same outcomes as their Caucasian counterparts. It is imperative to include those of color in future psoriasis treatment trials in order to determine the efficacy of new medications,” she added, specifically calling for collection of data on patient-reported outcomes.

Ms. Ashbaugh has no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. McMichael’s disclosures included serving as an investigator and/or consultant for companies that included Allergan, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, and Aclaris.

The risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 infection in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) seems to align with that seen in the general population, new U.S. data suggest. A separate study from the United Kingdom also found similar trends of rates of COVID-19 infection in patients with MS and the general population.

Both studies were presented Sept. 26 at a special session on multiple sclerosis and COVID-19 at a final “Encore” event as part of the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

The U.S. data appear consistent with studies from several other countries, in that worse COVID-19 outcomes increase with age and higher disability levels, both of which would be expected from findings in the general population.

The U.S. data also show a clear effect of race in MS, with higher rates of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in Black patients, again in line with what is seen in the general population.

“I would say the results from our study and in general do not suggest that MS itself is associated with higher risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes, compared with the general population,” said Amber Salter, PhD.

Dr. Salter, who is assistant professor of biostatistics at Washington University, St. Louis, presented data from the COViMS North American registry, set up for health care providers to report persons with MS who are infected with COVID-19.

The COViMS registry so far has information on 858 patients with MS who have COVID-19 (80% verified by a positive test), as reported from 150 different health care providers in the United States and Canada. The average age was 48 years, with average disease duration of 13.6 years. MS clinical course was reported as relapsing remitting in 78%, secondary progressive in 15%, and primary progressive in 5%. Most patients (72%) were fully ambulatory, 16% could walk with assistance, and 12% were nonambulatory.

Severe COVID-19 outcomes were classified as mortality (which occurred in 5.7% of the cohort), mortality/ICU admission (13.6%) and mortality/ICU admission/hospitalization (30.2%).

Results were adjusted for many different covariates, including sex, age, smoking, MS clinical course (relapsing, progressive), disease duration, ambulation, individual comorbidities (cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, hypertension, morbid obesity), and disease-modifying therapy use.

In multivariable logistic regression analyses, older age, having chronic renal disease, and being nonambulatory were consistently associated with increased odds of poorer outcomes. Chronic kidney disease had the strongest association with mortality (odds ratio, 28.6; P < .001). Other factors associated with mortality included cardiovascular disease (OR, 4.35; P = .009); age (OR per 10 years, 1.91; P = .012), and male sex (OR, 2.60; P = .041).

Patients who were nonambulatory had a higher risk of mortality/ICU admission/hospitalization (OR, 3.32; P = .003). This endpoint was also increased in patients on anti-CD20 drugs, compared with other disease-modifying treatment (OR, 2.31; P = .002), consistent with results from at least two other studies.

Disease-modifying therapy in general was not associated with an increased risk of worse outcomes. “There was some concern at the outset about the effect of disease-modifying therapies on COVID-19 outcomes, but most studies have not found an increased risk of worse outcomes in patients on such drug treatments, with the possible exception of anti-CD20 drugs,” Dr. Salter said.

“Some disease-modifying therapies may actually be protective (particularly interferon) and studies are investigating whether they may have a role in the treatment of COVID-19,” she added.

“The factors in MS patients that we and others have found to be associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes may not be specific to MS. Older age is known to be a primary risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes in the general population, and increasing disability presumably tracks with worse general heath,” Dr. Salter commented.

“I would say the overall data are fairly reassuring for MS patents,” she concluded.
 

Black patients have higher risk

One worrying finding in the North American data, however, was the effect of race. “We found an independent effect of race for worse COVID-19 outcomes in MS patients,” Dr. Slater said.

Of the 858 patients in the COViMS registry, 65.7% were White and 26.1% were Black. Black individuals were more likely to be younger, never smokers, have shorter MS duration, a relapsing MS course, and have comorbidities, compared with White patients. A higher proportion of Black patients had hypertension (40.2% vs 19.5%) and morbid obesity (17% vs. 9.5%).

Results showed that mortality rates were not statistically different between White and Black patients, but Black race was associated with increased risk of mortality and/or ICU admission, compared with White patients (16.9% vs. 12.8%), and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed Black race was independently associated with mortality/ICU admission after adjustments for covariates (OR, 3.7; P = .002).

Black race was also associated with increased risk of mortality/ICU admission/hospital admission (35.8% vs. 30.2%), and after adjustment for covariates this was found to be an independent predictor (OR, 1.7; P = .04).

“This higher COVID-19 risk in Black individuals is also seen in the general population, so these results are not that surprising and it doesn’t appear to be an effect specific to MS patients,” Dr. Salter commented.
 

U.K. data on risk of contracting COVID-19 

A U.K. study also suggested race to be an independent predictor in the risk of contracting COVID-19 in patients with MS.

The study of more than 5,000 patients with MS showed that those from a Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic group were twice as likely to report having COVID-19 than those who were White.

The study, which was conducted during the U.K. lockdown, also found that the trend of COVID-19 infection in patients with MS is comparable with that of the U.K. general population.

Presenting the data, Afagh Garjani, MD, concluded: “During a period with strict physical distancing measures, patients with MS are not at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19.”

Dr. Garjani, a neurology clinical research fellow at the University of Nottingham, (England), explained that the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced uncertainties into the MS community, and the focus so far has been the severity of infection among people with MS who have COVID-19.

“This approach has left questions about the risk of contracting disease in people with MS unanswered, which has implications as society gradually returns to normal,” she said.

Dr. Garjani presented data from the United Kingdom MS Register (UKMSR), which has been collecting demographic and MS-related data since 2011 from patients with MS throughout the United Kingdom.

On March 17 – just before the lockdown in United Kingdom – existing participants of the UKMSR were asked to join the COVID-19 study. The study was also advertised through social media. In this ongoing study, people with MS answered a COVID-19–related survey at participation and a different follow-up survey every 2 weeks depending on whether they contracted COVID-19.

The COVID-19 study included 5,309 patients with MS. The mean age of the study population was 52.4 years, 76.1% were female, and 95.7% were White. Of the 5,309 patients, 535 (10%) reported a self-diagnosis of COVID-19. Because of limited availability of tests in the United Kingdom at the time, only 75 patents had a positive polymerase chain reaction result.

“To our knowledge, this is the largest community-based study of COVID-19 in patients with MS worldwide,” Dr. Garjani said. She presented results from the period March 23 to June 24, when the United Kingdom was in a period of lockdown with vulnerable groups encouraged to self-isolate completely.

In this MS cohort, 47% reported self-isolating at some point. Those at older age and higher Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score were more likely to have self-isolated.

The researchers did not find that patients with progressive MS or those on disease-modifying therapies in general isolated more, but patients on monoclonal antibody drugs and fingolimod were more likely to self-isolate versus those on other therapies. “This may be because there are concerns about infection with these drugs and patients on these therapies may be more concerned about contracting COVID-19,” Dr. Garjani suggested.

In terms of contracting COVID, the researchers found a reduced risk of COVID-19 (self-diagnosed) in patients with older age and higher EDSS. “This is not really surprising that these patients were more likely to self-isolate,” Dr. Garjani commented.

No association was seen between type of MS, disease duration, disease-modifying therapy in general, and risk of COVID-19. No individual drug treatment increased risk versus no therapy or versus self-injectables. But there was an increased risk of contracting the virus in patients whose race was Black, Asian, or Minority Ethnic (OR, 2.2), which is in line with findings from the general population.

“This study is unique – the denominator is all people with MS. We are looking primarily at the risk of contracting COVID-19. Other studies are focusing more on people with MS who have COVID and assessing risk of a severe COVID outcome. Our results are not contradicting the findings from those studies,” Dr. Garjani said.

The results were similar only when patients with a confirmed COVID-19 test were considered.

In terms of outcomes in those who reported COVID-19 infection, preliminary results have not shown any MS factors – such as EDSS, age, type of MS, drug therapy in general – to be associated with outcome.

“Since the COVID-19 outbreak started there has been concern among MS patients, especially among those on disease-modifying therapies, about whether they are at increased risk of infection and severe disease,” Dr. Garjani said.

“We found similar trends of rates of infection in MS patients and the general population, and no signal of increased risks in those with higher EDSS or progressive MS. The caveat is that this study was conducted in a period of lockdown, but we adjusted for self-isolating behavior in the multivariable regression analysis,” she noted.

Dr. Salter is a statistical editor for the American Heart Association journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. Dr. Garjani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 infection in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) seems to align with that seen in the general population, new U.S. data suggest. A separate study from the United Kingdom also found similar trends of rates of COVID-19 infection in patients with MS and the general population.

Both studies were presented Sept. 26 at a special session on multiple sclerosis and COVID-19 at a final “Encore” event as part of the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

The U.S. data appear consistent with studies from several other countries, in that worse COVID-19 outcomes increase with age and higher disability levels, both of which would be expected from findings in the general population.

The U.S. data also show a clear effect of race in MS, with higher rates of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in Black patients, again in line with what is seen in the general population.

“I would say the results from our study and in general do not suggest that MS itself is associated with higher risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes, compared with the general population,” said Amber Salter, PhD.

Dr. Salter, who is assistant professor of biostatistics at Washington University, St. Louis, presented data from the COViMS North American registry, set up for health care providers to report persons with MS who are infected with COVID-19.

The COViMS registry so far has information on 858 patients with MS who have COVID-19 (80% verified by a positive test), as reported from 150 different health care providers in the United States and Canada. The average age was 48 years, with average disease duration of 13.6 years. MS clinical course was reported as relapsing remitting in 78%, secondary progressive in 15%, and primary progressive in 5%. Most patients (72%) were fully ambulatory, 16% could walk with assistance, and 12% were nonambulatory.

Severe COVID-19 outcomes were classified as mortality (which occurred in 5.7% of the cohort), mortality/ICU admission (13.6%) and mortality/ICU admission/hospitalization (30.2%).

Results were adjusted for many different covariates, including sex, age, smoking, MS clinical course (relapsing, progressive), disease duration, ambulation, individual comorbidities (cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, hypertension, morbid obesity), and disease-modifying therapy use.

In multivariable logistic regression analyses, older age, having chronic renal disease, and being nonambulatory were consistently associated with increased odds of poorer outcomes. Chronic kidney disease had the strongest association with mortality (odds ratio, 28.6; P < .001). Other factors associated with mortality included cardiovascular disease (OR, 4.35; P = .009); age (OR per 10 years, 1.91; P = .012), and male sex (OR, 2.60; P = .041).

Patients who were nonambulatory had a higher risk of mortality/ICU admission/hospitalization (OR, 3.32; P = .003). This endpoint was also increased in patients on anti-CD20 drugs, compared with other disease-modifying treatment (OR, 2.31; P = .002), consistent with results from at least two other studies.

Disease-modifying therapy in general was not associated with an increased risk of worse outcomes. “There was some concern at the outset about the effect of disease-modifying therapies on COVID-19 outcomes, but most studies have not found an increased risk of worse outcomes in patients on such drug treatments, with the possible exception of anti-CD20 drugs,” Dr. Salter said.

“Some disease-modifying therapies may actually be protective (particularly interferon) and studies are investigating whether they may have a role in the treatment of COVID-19,” she added.

“The factors in MS patients that we and others have found to be associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes may not be specific to MS. Older age is known to be a primary risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes in the general population, and increasing disability presumably tracks with worse general heath,” Dr. Salter commented.

“I would say the overall data are fairly reassuring for MS patents,” she concluded.
 

Black patients have higher risk

One worrying finding in the North American data, however, was the effect of race. “We found an independent effect of race for worse COVID-19 outcomes in MS patients,” Dr. Slater said.

Of the 858 patients in the COViMS registry, 65.7% were White and 26.1% were Black. Black individuals were more likely to be younger, never smokers, have shorter MS duration, a relapsing MS course, and have comorbidities, compared with White patients. A higher proportion of Black patients had hypertension (40.2% vs 19.5%) and morbid obesity (17% vs. 9.5%).

Results showed that mortality rates were not statistically different between White and Black patients, but Black race was associated with increased risk of mortality and/or ICU admission, compared with White patients (16.9% vs. 12.8%), and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed Black race was independently associated with mortality/ICU admission after adjustments for covariates (OR, 3.7; P = .002).

Black race was also associated with increased risk of mortality/ICU admission/hospital admission (35.8% vs. 30.2%), and after adjustment for covariates this was found to be an independent predictor (OR, 1.7; P = .04).

“This higher COVID-19 risk in Black individuals is also seen in the general population, so these results are not that surprising and it doesn’t appear to be an effect specific to MS patients,” Dr. Salter commented.
 

U.K. data on risk of contracting COVID-19 

A U.K. study also suggested race to be an independent predictor in the risk of contracting COVID-19 in patients with MS.

The study of more than 5,000 patients with MS showed that those from a Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic group were twice as likely to report having COVID-19 than those who were White.

The study, which was conducted during the U.K. lockdown, also found that the trend of COVID-19 infection in patients with MS is comparable with that of the U.K. general population.

Presenting the data, Afagh Garjani, MD, concluded: “During a period with strict physical distancing measures, patients with MS are not at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19.”

Dr. Garjani, a neurology clinical research fellow at the University of Nottingham, (England), explained that the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced uncertainties into the MS community, and the focus so far has been the severity of infection among people with MS who have COVID-19.

“This approach has left questions about the risk of contracting disease in people with MS unanswered, which has implications as society gradually returns to normal,” she said.

Dr. Garjani presented data from the United Kingdom MS Register (UKMSR), which has been collecting demographic and MS-related data since 2011 from patients with MS throughout the United Kingdom.

On March 17 – just before the lockdown in United Kingdom – existing participants of the UKMSR were asked to join the COVID-19 study. The study was also advertised through social media. In this ongoing study, people with MS answered a COVID-19–related survey at participation and a different follow-up survey every 2 weeks depending on whether they contracted COVID-19.

The COVID-19 study included 5,309 patients with MS. The mean age of the study population was 52.4 years, 76.1% were female, and 95.7% were White. Of the 5,309 patients, 535 (10%) reported a self-diagnosis of COVID-19. Because of limited availability of tests in the United Kingdom at the time, only 75 patents had a positive polymerase chain reaction result.

“To our knowledge, this is the largest community-based study of COVID-19 in patients with MS worldwide,” Dr. Garjani said. She presented results from the period March 23 to June 24, when the United Kingdom was in a period of lockdown with vulnerable groups encouraged to self-isolate completely.

In this MS cohort, 47% reported self-isolating at some point. Those at older age and higher Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score were more likely to have self-isolated.

The researchers did not find that patients with progressive MS or those on disease-modifying therapies in general isolated more, but patients on monoclonal antibody drugs and fingolimod were more likely to self-isolate versus those on other therapies. “This may be because there are concerns about infection with these drugs and patients on these therapies may be more concerned about contracting COVID-19,” Dr. Garjani suggested.

In terms of contracting COVID, the researchers found a reduced risk of COVID-19 (self-diagnosed) in patients with older age and higher EDSS. “This is not really surprising that these patients were more likely to self-isolate,” Dr. Garjani commented.

No association was seen between type of MS, disease duration, disease-modifying therapy in general, and risk of COVID-19. No individual drug treatment increased risk versus no therapy or versus self-injectables. But there was an increased risk of contracting the virus in patients whose race was Black, Asian, or Minority Ethnic (OR, 2.2), which is in line with findings from the general population.

“This study is unique – the denominator is all people with MS. We are looking primarily at the risk of contracting COVID-19. Other studies are focusing more on people with MS who have COVID and assessing risk of a severe COVID outcome. Our results are not contradicting the findings from those studies,” Dr. Garjani said.

The results were similar only when patients with a confirmed COVID-19 test were considered.

In terms of outcomes in those who reported COVID-19 infection, preliminary results have not shown any MS factors – such as EDSS, age, type of MS, drug therapy in general – to be associated with outcome.

“Since the COVID-19 outbreak started there has been concern among MS patients, especially among those on disease-modifying therapies, about whether they are at increased risk of infection and severe disease,” Dr. Garjani said.

“We found similar trends of rates of infection in MS patients and the general population, and no signal of increased risks in those with higher EDSS or progressive MS. The caveat is that this study was conducted in a period of lockdown, but we adjusted for self-isolating behavior in the multivariable regression analysis,” she noted.

Dr. Salter is a statistical editor for the American Heart Association journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. Dr. Garjani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 infection in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) seems to align with that seen in the general population, new U.S. data suggest. A separate study from the United Kingdom also found similar trends of rates of COVID-19 infection in patients with MS and the general population.

Both studies were presented Sept. 26 at a special session on multiple sclerosis and COVID-19 at a final “Encore” event as part of the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

The U.S. data appear consistent with studies from several other countries, in that worse COVID-19 outcomes increase with age and higher disability levels, both of which would be expected from findings in the general population.

The U.S. data also show a clear effect of race in MS, with higher rates of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in Black patients, again in line with what is seen in the general population.

“I would say the results from our study and in general do not suggest that MS itself is associated with higher risks of severe COVID-19 outcomes, compared with the general population,” said Amber Salter, PhD.

Dr. Salter, who is assistant professor of biostatistics at Washington University, St. Louis, presented data from the COViMS North American registry, set up for health care providers to report persons with MS who are infected with COVID-19.

The COViMS registry so far has information on 858 patients with MS who have COVID-19 (80% verified by a positive test), as reported from 150 different health care providers in the United States and Canada. The average age was 48 years, with average disease duration of 13.6 years. MS clinical course was reported as relapsing remitting in 78%, secondary progressive in 15%, and primary progressive in 5%. Most patients (72%) were fully ambulatory, 16% could walk with assistance, and 12% were nonambulatory.

Severe COVID-19 outcomes were classified as mortality (which occurred in 5.7% of the cohort), mortality/ICU admission (13.6%) and mortality/ICU admission/hospitalization (30.2%).

Results were adjusted for many different covariates, including sex, age, smoking, MS clinical course (relapsing, progressive), disease duration, ambulation, individual comorbidities (cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, hypertension, morbid obesity), and disease-modifying therapy use.

In multivariable logistic regression analyses, older age, having chronic renal disease, and being nonambulatory were consistently associated with increased odds of poorer outcomes. Chronic kidney disease had the strongest association with mortality (odds ratio, 28.6; P < .001). Other factors associated with mortality included cardiovascular disease (OR, 4.35; P = .009); age (OR per 10 years, 1.91; P = .012), and male sex (OR, 2.60; P = .041).

Patients who were nonambulatory had a higher risk of mortality/ICU admission/hospitalization (OR, 3.32; P = .003). This endpoint was also increased in patients on anti-CD20 drugs, compared with other disease-modifying treatment (OR, 2.31; P = .002), consistent with results from at least two other studies.

Disease-modifying therapy in general was not associated with an increased risk of worse outcomes. “There was some concern at the outset about the effect of disease-modifying therapies on COVID-19 outcomes, but most studies have not found an increased risk of worse outcomes in patients on such drug treatments, with the possible exception of anti-CD20 drugs,” Dr. Salter said.

“Some disease-modifying therapies may actually be protective (particularly interferon) and studies are investigating whether they may have a role in the treatment of COVID-19,” she added.

“The factors in MS patients that we and others have found to be associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes may not be specific to MS. Older age is known to be a primary risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes in the general population, and increasing disability presumably tracks with worse general heath,” Dr. Salter commented.

“I would say the overall data are fairly reassuring for MS patents,” she concluded.
 

Black patients have higher risk

One worrying finding in the North American data, however, was the effect of race. “We found an independent effect of race for worse COVID-19 outcomes in MS patients,” Dr. Slater said.

Of the 858 patients in the COViMS registry, 65.7% were White and 26.1% were Black. Black individuals were more likely to be younger, never smokers, have shorter MS duration, a relapsing MS course, and have comorbidities, compared with White patients. A higher proportion of Black patients had hypertension (40.2% vs 19.5%) and morbid obesity (17% vs. 9.5%).

Results showed that mortality rates were not statistically different between White and Black patients, but Black race was associated with increased risk of mortality and/or ICU admission, compared with White patients (16.9% vs. 12.8%), and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed Black race was independently associated with mortality/ICU admission after adjustments for covariates (OR, 3.7; P = .002).

Black race was also associated with increased risk of mortality/ICU admission/hospital admission (35.8% vs. 30.2%), and after adjustment for covariates this was found to be an independent predictor (OR, 1.7; P = .04).

“This higher COVID-19 risk in Black individuals is also seen in the general population, so these results are not that surprising and it doesn’t appear to be an effect specific to MS patients,” Dr. Salter commented.
 

U.K. data on risk of contracting COVID-19 

A U.K. study also suggested race to be an independent predictor in the risk of contracting COVID-19 in patients with MS.

The study of more than 5,000 patients with MS showed that those from a Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic group were twice as likely to report having COVID-19 than those who were White.

The study, which was conducted during the U.K. lockdown, also found that the trend of COVID-19 infection in patients with MS is comparable with that of the U.K. general population.

Presenting the data, Afagh Garjani, MD, concluded: “During a period with strict physical distancing measures, patients with MS are not at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19.”

Dr. Garjani, a neurology clinical research fellow at the University of Nottingham, (England), explained that the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced uncertainties into the MS community, and the focus so far has been the severity of infection among people with MS who have COVID-19.

“This approach has left questions about the risk of contracting disease in people with MS unanswered, which has implications as society gradually returns to normal,” she said.

Dr. Garjani presented data from the United Kingdom MS Register (UKMSR), which has been collecting demographic and MS-related data since 2011 from patients with MS throughout the United Kingdom.

On March 17 – just before the lockdown in United Kingdom – existing participants of the UKMSR were asked to join the COVID-19 study. The study was also advertised through social media. In this ongoing study, people with MS answered a COVID-19–related survey at participation and a different follow-up survey every 2 weeks depending on whether they contracted COVID-19.

The COVID-19 study included 5,309 patients with MS. The mean age of the study population was 52.4 years, 76.1% were female, and 95.7% were White. Of the 5,309 patients, 535 (10%) reported a self-diagnosis of COVID-19. Because of limited availability of tests in the United Kingdom at the time, only 75 patents had a positive polymerase chain reaction result.

“To our knowledge, this is the largest community-based study of COVID-19 in patients with MS worldwide,” Dr. Garjani said. She presented results from the period March 23 to June 24, when the United Kingdom was in a period of lockdown with vulnerable groups encouraged to self-isolate completely.

In this MS cohort, 47% reported self-isolating at some point. Those at older age and higher Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score were more likely to have self-isolated.

The researchers did not find that patients with progressive MS or those on disease-modifying therapies in general isolated more, but patients on monoclonal antibody drugs and fingolimod were more likely to self-isolate versus those on other therapies. “This may be because there are concerns about infection with these drugs and patients on these therapies may be more concerned about contracting COVID-19,” Dr. Garjani suggested.

In terms of contracting COVID, the researchers found a reduced risk of COVID-19 (self-diagnosed) in patients with older age and higher EDSS. “This is not really surprising that these patients were more likely to self-isolate,” Dr. Garjani commented.

No association was seen between type of MS, disease duration, disease-modifying therapy in general, and risk of COVID-19. No individual drug treatment increased risk versus no therapy or versus self-injectables. But there was an increased risk of contracting the virus in patients whose race was Black, Asian, or Minority Ethnic (OR, 2.2), which is in line with findings from the general population.

“This study is unique – the denominator is all people with MS. We are looking primarily at the risk of contracting COVID-19. Other studies are focusing more on people with MS who have COVID and assessing risk of a severe COVID outcome. Our results are not contradicting the findings from those studies,” Dr. Garjani said.

The results were similar only when patients with a confirmed COVID-19 test were considered.

In terms of outcomes in those who reported COVID-19 infection, preliminary results have not shown any MS factors – such as EDSS, age, type of MS, drug therapy in general – to be associated with outcome.

“Since the COVID-19 outbreak started there has been concern among MS patients, especially among those on disease-modifying therapies, about whether they are at increased risk of infection and severe disease,” Dr. Garjani said.

“We found similar trends of rates of infection in MS patients and the general population, and no signal of increased risks in those with higher EDSS or progressive MS. The caveat is that this study was conducted in a period of lockdown, but we adjusted for self-isolating behavior in the multivariable regression analysis,” she noted.

Dr. Salter is a statistical editor for the American Heart Association journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. Dr. Garjani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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