Urticaria

Patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) experienced early and sustained improvements in symptom scores on treatment with barzolvolimab, during the 52-week follow-up of an ongoing phase 2 study.

Moreover, in the study, barzolvolimab, an anti-KIT monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activation of and depletes mast cells, induced comparable responses in a subset of patients who had taken omalizumab, an anti–immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating CSU.

The findings were presented at the annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress. Barzolvolimab is being developed by Celldex Therapeutics.

“Barzolvolimab treatment resulted in rapid, profound, and durable improvement in UAS7 [weekly Urticaria Activity Score 7],” said presenter Martin Metz, MD, professor of dermatology, Institute of Allergology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, “with a deepening of response over 52 weeks in patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU.”

“Similar robust improvement was seen in patients previously treated with omalizumab, including refractory patients,” he added.

Because barzolvolimab was well tolerated over the course of the follow-up period, Metz said, it “has the potential to be an important new treatment option,” noting that patients are now being enrolled in global phase 3 studies of barzolvolimab.
 

Sustained Symptom Relief

Ana M. Giménez-Arnau, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Autonomous University and Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, told Medscape Medical News that the results are important, as they showed people who switched from placebo to the active drug also saw a long-term benefit.

What is “remarkable” about barzolvolimab, continued Giménez-Arnau, who was not involved in the study, is that it is the first drug to target the KIT receptor on mast cells and interfere with stimulating growth factors, thus making the cells that drive the development of CSU “disappear.”

The study included three different barzolvolimab regimens, with the 150-mg dose every 4 weeks and the 300-mg dose every 8 weeks achieving similar results, noted Giménez-Arnau.

For her, there are important questions to answer around the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the two regimens that remain, but she underlined that for the patient, the choice of regimen could have an impact on their quality of life.

“If we give 300 mg every 8 weeks,” she said, it appears “you can achieve disease control” while halving the frequency of subcutaneous injections.

She said that it would be “interesting to know” if 300 mg every 8 weeks is given as two 150-mg injections every 2 months or one 300-mg injection. If it is the former, Giménez Arnau said, “This is potentially an important benefit for the patient.”
 

Sustained Benefits at 1 Year

The study enrolled 208 patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU at sites in 10 countries, randomizing them to one of four arms: Subcutaneous injections of barzolvolimab 75 mg or 150 mg every 4 weeks, 300 mg every 8 weeks, or placebo every 4 weeks.

The mean age in each arm was between 42 and 47 years, and around 75% were women. Across the arms, 64%-76% had severe disease, as measured on the UAS7, at a mean score of 30.0-31.3. Around 20% had previously been treated with omalizumab.

Patients were treated for 16 weeks, during which time they completed daily and weekly diaries and attended six clinic visits at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. Results from the trial published earlier this year demonstrated that both the regimens (150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks) achieved clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in UAS7, the primary endpoint, vs placebo at 12 weeks.

Participants in the barzolvolimab 75 mg and placebo arms were then randomized to receive barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, and those who had been in the 150-mg and 300-mg treatment arms continued with that treatment for a further 36 weeks. (The remaining patients have been continued on a further 24-week follow-up, but the data are not yet available.)

By the 52-week follow-up, 25% of patients who started in each of the barzolvolimab arms had discontinued treatment, as well as 16% first randomized to the placebo arm.

Metz reported that the improvements in UAS7 scores, observed as early as week 1, were sustained through week 52 in patients in both the ongoing 150-mg and 300-mg arms. Patients who initially started in the placebo and the barzolvolimab 75-mg groups caught up with those who had started on the higher doses, so that by week 52, there were no significant differences in urticaria activity, hives, or itch scores between the arms.

By week 52, the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled disease, defined as a UAS7 score ≤ 6, was 73.7% in the barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4-week arm and 68.2% in the 300 mg barzolvolimab every 8-week arm.

Notably, just 12.8% of patients in the placebo arm had achieved well-controlled CSU by week 16, but after switching to barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, 63% reached that target at week 52.

“Maybe even more striking and very interesting to look at,” said Metz, was the complete control of symptoms, meaning “not one single wheal and no itch.” By week 52, 52% of those on 300 mg every 8 weeks and 71.1% of those on 150 mg every 4 weeks had a complete response, with no itch/hives (UAS7 of 0).

Importantly, complete responses with barzolvolimab were observed early and were sustained or improved to week 52, Metz said, with, again, placebo and former barzolvolimab 75 mg patients catching up with those who started on 150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks once they switched at week 16.

“This is the best data for chronic spontaneous urticaria that we have so far seen,” he said, adding that the responses were seen regardless of prior experience with omalizumab.
 

Changes in Hair Color, Skin Pigmentation

As for safety, during the first 16 weeks, 66% of those on active treatment and 39% on placebo experienced at least one adverse event. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events, compared with two among those who received treatment for the full 52 weeks.

The most common adverse events with active treatment were hair color changes (14% in the first 16 weeks and 26% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), neutropenia/reduced neutrophil count (9% in the first 16 weeks and 17% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), and skin hypopigmentation (1% in the first 16 weeks, 13% among those treated for the full 52 weeks, and 19% among those who switched from placebo to active treatment at 36 weeks). Urticaria was reported by 10% among patients on active treatment and 10% among those on placebo in the first 16 weeks, and by 15% of those treated for the full 52 weeks.

In the post-presentation discussion, Metz explained that the hypopigmentation appears to start around the hair follicle and is diffuse, so tends to look like vitiligo.

He suggested that the melanocytes around the hair follicle “seem to be the ones that are more stressed, maybe because of the hair follicle cycling,” adding that the effect is reversible and does not appear to be dose dependent.

The study was funded by Celldex Therapeutics. Metz declared relationships with AbbVie, ALK-Abelló, Almirall, Amgen, argenx, AstraZeneca, Astria, Attovia Therapeutics, Celldex, Celltrion, Escient Pharmaceuticals, Galen, Galderma, GSK, Incyte, Jasper, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharvaris, Regeneron, Sanofi, Teva, Third Harmonic Bio, and Vifor.

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

Patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) experienced early and sustained improvements in symptom scores on treatment with barzolvolimab, during the 52-week follow-up of an ongoing phase 2 study.

Moreover, in the study, barzolvolimab, an anti-KIT monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activation of and depletes mast cells, induced comparable responses in a subset of patients who had taken omalizumab, an anti–immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating CSU.

The findings were presented at the annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress. Barzolvolimab is being developed by Celldex Therapeutics.

“Barzolvolimab treatment resulted in rapid, profound, and durable improvement in UAS7 [weekly Urticaria Activity Score 7],” said presenter Martin Metz, MD, professor of dermatology, Institute of Allergology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, “with a deepening of response over 52 weeks in patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU.”

“Similar robust improvement was seen in patients previously treated with omalizumab, including refractory patients,” he added.

Because barzolvolimab was well tolerated over the course of the follow-up period, Metz said, it “has the potential to be an important new treatment option,” noting that patients are now being enrolled in global phase 3 studies of barzolvolimab.
 

Sustained Symptom Relief

Ana M. Giménez-Arnau, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Autonomous University and Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, told Medscape Medical News that the results are important, as they showed people who switched from placebo to the active drug also saw a long-term benefit.

What is “remarkable” about barzolvolimab, continued Giménez-Arnau, who was not involved in the study, is that it is the first drug to target the KIT receptor on mast cells and interfere with stimulating growth factors, thus making the cells that drive the development of CSU “disappear.”

The study included three different barzolvolimab regimens, with the 150-mg dose every 4 weeks and the 300-mg dose every 8 weeks achieving similar results, noted Giménez-Arnau.

For her, there are important questions to answer around the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the two regimens that remain, but she underlined that for the patient, the choice of regimen could have an impact on their quality of life.

“If we give 300 mg every 8 weeks,” she said, it appears “you can achieve disease control” while halving the frequency of subcutaneous injections.

She said that it would be “interesting to know” if 300 mg every 8 weeks is given as two 150-mg injections every 2 months or one 300-mg injection. If it is the former, Giménez Arnau said, “This is potentially an important benefit for the patient.”
 

Sustained Benefits at 1 Year

The study enrolled 208 patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU at sites in 10 countries, randomizing them to one of four arms: Subcutaneous injections of barzolvolimab 75 mg or 150 mg every 4 weeks, 300 mg every 8 weeks, or placebo every 4 weeks.

The mean age in each arm was between 42 and 47 years, and around 75% were women. Across the arms, 64%-76% had severe disease, as measured on the UAS7, at a mean score of 30.0-31.3. Around 20% had previously been treated with omalizumab.

Patients were treated for 16 weeks, during which time they completed daily and weekly diaries and attended six clinic visits at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. Results from the trial published earlier this year demonstrated that both the regimens (150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks) achieved clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in UAS7, the primary endpoint, vs placebo at 12 weeks.

Participants in the barzolvolimab 75 mg and placebo arms were then randomized to receive barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, and those who had been in the 150-mg and 300-mg treatment arms continued with that treatment for a further 36 weeks. (The remaining patients have been continued on a further 24-week follow-up, but the data are not yet available.)

By the 52-week follow-up, 25% of patients who started in each of the barzolvolimab arms had discontinued treatment, as well as 16% first randomized to the placebo arm.

Metz reported that the improvements in UAS7 scores, observed as early as week 1, were sustained through week 52 in patients in both the ongoing 150-mg and 300-mg arms. Patients who initially started in the placebo and the barzolvolimab 75-mg groups caught up with those who had started on the higher doses, so that by week 52, there were no significant differences in urticaria activity, hives, or itch scores between the arms.

By week 52, the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled disease, defined as a UAS7 score ≤ 6, was 73.7% in the barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4-week arm and 68.2% in the 300 mg barzolvolimab every 8-week arm.

Notably, just 12.8% of patients in the placebo arm had achieved well-controlled CSU by week 16, but after switching to barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, 63% reached that target at week 52.

“Maybe even more striking and very interesting to look at,” said Metz, was the complete control of symptoms, meaning “not one single wheal and no itch.” By week 52, 52% of those on 300 mg every 8 weeks and 71.1% of those on 150 mg every 4 weeks had a complete response, with no itch/hives (UAS7 of 0).

Importantly, complete responses with barzolvolimab were observed early and were sustained or improved to week 52, Metz said, with, again, placebo and former barzolvolimab 75 mg patients catching up with those who started on 150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks once they switched at week 16.

“This is the best data for chronic spontaneous urticaria that we have so far seen,” he said, adding that the responses were seen regardless of prior experience with omalizumab.
 

Changes in Hair Color, Skin Pigmentation

As for safety, during the first 16 weeks, 66% of those on active treatment and 39% on placebo experienced at least one adverse event. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events, compared with two among those who received treatment for the full 52 weeks.

The most common adverse events with active treatment were hair color changes (14% in the first 16 weeks and 26% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), neutropenia/reduced neutrophil count (9% in the first 16 weeks and 17% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), and skin hypopigmentation (1% in the first 16 weeks, 13% among those treated for the full 52 weeks, and 19% among those who switched from placebo to active treatment at 36 weeks). Urticaria was reported by 10% among patients on active treatment and 10% among those on placebo in the first 16 weeks, and by 15% of those treated for the full 52 weeks.

In the post-presentation discussion, Metz explained that the hypopigmentation appears to start around the hair follicle and is diffuse, so tends to look like vitiligo.

He suggested that the melanocytes around the hair follicle “seem to be the ones that are more stressed, maybe because of the hair follicle cycling,” adding that the effect is reversible and does not appear to be dose dependent.

The study was funded by Celldex Therapeutics. Metz declared relationships with AbbVie, ALK-Abelló, Almirall, Amgen, argenx, AstraZeneca, Astria, Attovia Therapeutics, Celldex, Celltrion, Escient Pharmaceuticals, Galen, Galderma, GSK, Incyte, Jasper, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharvaris, Regeneron, Sanofi, Teva, Third Harmonic Bio, and Vifor.

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

Patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) experienced early and sustained improvements in symptom scores on treatment with barzolvolimab, during the 52-week follow-up of an ongoing phase 2 study.

Moreover, in the study, barzolvolimab, an anti-KIT monoclonal antibody that inhibits the activation of and depletes mast cells, induced comparable responses in a subset of patients who had taken omalizumab, an anti–immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating CSU.

The findings were presented at the annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress. Barzolvolimab is being developed by Celldex Therapeutics.

“Barzolvolimab treatment resulted in rapid, profound, and durable improvement in UAS7 [weekly Urticaria Activity Score 7],” said presenter Martin Metz, MD, professor of dermatology, Institute of Allergology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, “with a deepening of response over 52 weeks in patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU.”

“Similar robust improvement was seen in patients previously treated with omalizumab, including refractory patients,” he added.

Because barzolvolimab was well tolerated over the course of the follow-up period, Metz said, it “has the potential to be an important new treatment option,” noting that patients are now being enrolled in global phase 3 studies of barzolvolimab.
 

Sustained Symptom Relief

Ana M. Giménez-Arnau, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Autonomous University and Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, told Medscape Medical News that the results are important, as they showed people who switched from placebo to the active drug also saw a long-term benefit.

What is “remarkable” about barzolvolimab, continued Giménez-Arnau, who was not involved in the study, is that it is the first drug to target the KIT receptor on mast cells and interfere with stimulating growth factors, thus making the cells that drive the development of CSU “disappear.”

The study included three different barzolvolimab regimens, with the 150-mg dose every 4 weeks and the 300-mg dose every 8 weeks achieving similar results, noted Giménez-Arnau.

For her, there are important questions to answer around the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the two regimens that remain, but she underlined that for the patient, the choice of regimen could have an impact on their quality of life.

“If we give 300 mg every 8 weeks,” she said, it appears “you can achieve disease control” while halving the frequency of subcutaneous injections.

She said that it would be “interesting to know” if 300 mg every 8 weeks is given as two 150-mg injections every 2 months or one 300-mg injection. If it is the former, Giménez Arnau said, “This is potentially an important benefit for the patient.”
 

Sustained Benefits at 1 Year

The study enrolled 208 patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU at sites in 10 countries, randomizing them to one of four arms: Subcutaneous injections of barzolvolimab 75 mg or 150 mg every 4 weeks, 300 mg every 8 weeks, or placebo every 4 weeks.

The mean age in each arm was between 42 and 47 years, and around 75% were women. Across the arms, 64%-76% had severe disease, as measured on the UAS7, at a mean score of 30.0-31.3. Around 20% had previously been treated with omalizumab.

Patients were treated for 16 weeks, during which time they completed daily and weekly diaries and attended six clinic visits at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. Results from the trial published earlier this year demonstrated that both the regimens (150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks) achieved clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in UAS7, the primary endpoint, vs placebo at 12 weeks.

Participants in the barzolvolimab 75 mg and placebo arms were then randomized to receive barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, and those who had been in the 150-mg and 300-mg treatment arms continued with that treatment for a further 36 weeks. (The remaining patients have been continued on a further 24-week follow-up, but the data are not yet available.)

By the 52-week follow-up, 25% of patients who started in each of the barzolvolimab arms had discontinued treatment, as well as 16% first randomized to the placebo arm.

Metz reported that the improvements in UAS7 scores, observed as early as week 1, were sustained through week 52 in patients in both the ongoing 150-mg and 300-mg arms. Patients who initially started in the placebo and the barzolvolimab 75-mg groups caught up with those who had started on the higher doses, so that by week 52, there were no significant differences in urticaria activity, hives, or itch scores between the arms.

By week 52, the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled disease, defined as a UAS7 score ≤ 6, was 73.7% in the barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4-week arm and 68.2% in the 300 mg barzolvolimab every 8-week arm.

Notably, just 12.8% of patients in the placebo arm had achieved well-controlled CSU by week 16, but after switching to barzolvolimab 150 mg every 4 weeks or 300 mg every 8 weeks, 63% reached that target at week 52.

“Maybe even more striking and very interesting to look at,” said Metz, was the complete control of symptoms, meaning “not one single wheal and no itch.” By week 52, 52% of those on 300 mg every 8 weeks and 71.1% of those on 150 mg every 4 weeks had a complete response, with no itch/hives (UAS7 of 0).

Importantly, complete responses with barzolvolimab were observed early and were sustained or improved to week 52, Metz said, with, again, placebo and former barzolvolimab 75 mg patients catching up with those who started on 150 mg every 4 weeks and 300 mg every 8 weeks once they switched at week 16.

“This is the best data for chronic spontaneous urticaria that we have so far seen,” he said, adding that the responses were seen regardless of prior experience with omalizumab.
 

Changes in Hair Color, Skin Pigmentation

As for safety, during the first 16 weeks, 66% of those on active treatment and 39% on placebo experienced at least one adverse event. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events, compared with two among those who received treatment for the full 52 weeks.

The most common adverse events with active treatment were hair color changes (14% in the first 16 weeks and 26% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), neutropenia/reduced neutrophil count (9% in the first 16 weeks and 17% among those treated for the full 52 weeks), and skin hypopigmentation (1% in the first 16 weeks, 13% among those treated for the full 52 weeks, and 19% among those who switched from placebo to active treatment at 36 weeks). Urticaria was reported by 10% among patients on active treatment and 10% among those on placebo in the first 16 weeks, and by 15% of those treated for the full 52 weeks.

In the post-presentation discussion, Metz explained that the hypopigmentation appears to start around the hair follicle and is diffuse, so tends to look like vitiligo.

He suggested that the melanocytes around the hair follicle “seem to be the ones that are more stressed, maybe because of the hair follicle cycling,” adding that the effect is reversible and does not appear to be dose dependent.

The study was funded by Celldex Therapeutics. Metz declared relationships with AbbVie, ALK-Abelló, Almirall, Amgen, argenx, AstraZeneca, Astria, Attovia Therapeutics, Celldex, Celltrion, Escient Pharmaceuticals, Galen, Galderma, GSK, Incyte, Jasper, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharvaris, Regeneron, Sanofi, Teva, Third Harmonic Bio, and Vifor.

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

Vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV), a group of more than 200 viruses infecting at least 50% of sexually active people over their lifetimes, has proved more than 90% effective for preventing several diseases caused by high-risk HPV types. 

Gardasil 4: 2006 

It started in 2006 with the approval of Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent, types 6, 11, 16, and 18 (Gardasil 4). Merck’s vaccine began to lower rates of cervical cancer, a major global killer of women.

“It’s fair to say the vaccine has been an American and a global public health success story in reducing rates of cervical cancer,” Paula M. Cuccaro, PhD, assistant professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences at University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, said in an interview.

How does a common virus trigger such a lethal gynecologic malignancy? “It knocks out two important cancer suppressor genes in cells,” explained Christina Annunziata,MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and senior vice president of extramural discovery science for the American Cancer Society. HPV oncoproteins are encoded by the E6 and E7 genes. As in other DNA tumor viruses, the E6 and E7 proteins functionally inactivate the tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRB, respectively.
 

US Prevalence

Despite screening and vaccination, cervical cancer is still very much around. This year, 13,820 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and approximately 4360 women will die of it, according to the American Cancer Society. Even before the advent of Gardasil 4, incidence rates had already decreased by more than half from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, thanks largely to Pap smear screening programs for treatable premalignant lesions. “The US rate had dropped to about 20 per 100,000 women even before Gardasil 4,” said Annunziata. “After the introduction of the first vaccine, it decreased to 7 per 100,000, a decrease of about 30%, but it remains plateaued now at about the same level.”

Although the past decade has seen rates generally stabilize, there have been some changes in different age groups. In women ages 30-44, rates increased 1.7% each year from 2012 to 2019, while rates declined 11% each year for women ages 20-24— probably reflecting the impact of the first wave of prevention from Gardasil 4.

In one 2021 population-based study of US cancer registry data from 1999 to 2017, rates of both cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma dropped. The largest declines occurred in females 15-20 years old, the age group most likely to be vaccinated against HPV but not typically screened, suggesting a vaccine-related effect.
 

Gardasil 9: 2014

With the 2014 approval of the vaccine’s second iteration, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil 4 and targeted 9 HPV strains, immunization has taken broader aim. The strains covered by Gardasil 9 protect against oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers — as well as penile, anal, vulvar, and vaginal malignancies and premalignancies, and genital warts in both sexes ages 9-45. 

It may be years, however, before the impact of the newer polyvalent formulation is felt. “While the first vaccine has been successful against the prevalent strains of HPV linked to cervical cancer, it’s a little early to call it for the newer vaccine since oropharyngeal cancers tend to develop later in older men,” Cuccaro said. “But the types of HPV linked to mouth and throat cancers and covered by the newer vaccines are much less prevalent in those who are vaccinated. The strains not covered in the vaccine you see are equally present in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.”

Angela L. Myers, MD, MPH, division director of infectious diseases and medical director of the Center for Wellbeing at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, added, “Unlike for cervical cancer, there are no screening programs for oropharyngeal lesions, so you have to wait to see rates until actual cancer develops.”

A 2023 review reported that HPV vaccination reduced levels of oropharyngeal HPV positivity in men, strengthening the case for pangender immunization. 

And in a recent phase 3 doubled-blind trial, GARDASIL 9 reduced the incidence of anogenital persistent infection caused by nine types of HPV compared with a placebo. 
 

Increasing Uptake

The current public health aim is to have 80% of young people in the targeted age group vaccinated with two doses. Today, uptake among those 9-26 years old stands at about 78% of girls and 75% of boys for the first dose, said Annunziata. “But it’s only about 61% for the two doses in the current series, and we want to improve that.” 

Some parents may still harbor fears that immunizing teens and tweens — both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society recommend immunization at age 9 — will open the door to precocious sexual activity. 

“But overall, uptake in tweens and young teens has increased because the messaging has changed,” said Myers, with the rationale now focusing on cancer prevention not sexual-infection prophylaxis. “This is similar to the hepatitis B vaccine, which used to be given to young adults and is now given to newborns to prevent cancer.” 

Cuccaro added that a proactive presentation by healthcare professionals has a significant effect on vaccine uptake and increases the odds of vaccination ninefold. “Providers should take a presumptive approach and avoid just offering the vaccine as an option. It should be included with regular childhood vaccinations,” she said. “And the advantage of starting early at age 9 is that you can spread the doses out across other regular childhood vaccinations, whereas if you start at age 11, you need to add the HPV vaccine to three other vaccines that are given at that time.” 

After age 15, three doses are necessary. “Providers should stress to parents that it’s most effective when given before young people become sexually active and exposed to HPV,” Cuccaro said. And Myers stressed that despite the vaccine’s effectiveness, routine screening for cervical premalignancies is still important. 

Despite increasing coverage, vaccination rates have some distance to go before the public health target of at least 80% uptake of the series in the targeted age group, Cuccaro cautioned.

On the global stage, barriers to immunization remain, but the World Health Organization has endorsed a campaign to eradicate cervical cancer through HPV vaccination. It has predicted that the 21st century may be the last to experience HPV-associated cancers, currently responsible for more than 300,000 annual deaths worldwide.
 

A Brief History of HPV Vaccines

• 1951. Cervical cancer patient Henrietta Lacks’ rapidly dividing cervical cells are collected by George Otto Gey at Johns Hopkins Hospital. They create the first immortal cell line (HeLa) used to study cancers and vaccines worldwide.
• 1976. Harald zur Hausen suggests that genital wart-associated HPV, not herpes simplex, is the probable cause of cervical cancer.
• 1983. HPV is confirmed as a cause of cancer.
• 1991. The first HPV vaccine is developed.
• 2002. Proof of principle and protective efficacy for the monovalent HPV 16 are shown.
• 2006. Merck’s Gardasil 4 (HPV 4) is FDA approved in girls ages 9-26 for protection against strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 — the cause of more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.
• 2009. Approval of Gardasil 4 is expanded to boys ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts.
• 2009. The FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix (HPV 16 and 18) for girls and young women. The vaccine was withdrawn from the US market in 2016 following the success of Gardasil 9 but is used abroad for HPV cancer prevention.
• 2014. The 9-valent recombinant vaccine Gardasil 9 is FDA approved for protection against several low-risk, wart-causing HPV strains as well as the high-risk cancer strains targeted by HPV 4.
• 2018. The FDA expands approval to include females and males 27-45 years old.
• 2020. The FDA extends approval of Gardasil 9 to include prevention not only of cervical cancer but also, vaginal, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and other head and neck cancers.

Annunziata, Cuccaro, and Myers had no competing interests to declare.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV), a group of more than 200 viruses infecting at least 50% of sexually active people over their lifetimes, has proved more than 90% effective for preventing several diseases caused by high-risk HPV types. 

Gardasil 4: 2006 

It started in 2006 with the approval of Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent, types 6, 11, 16, and 18 (Gardasil 4). Merck’s vaccine began to lower rates of cervical cancer, a major global killer of women.

“It’s fair to say the vaccine has been an American and a global public health success story in reducing rates of cervical cancer,” Paula M. Cuccaro, PhD, assistant professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences at University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, said in an interview.

How does a common virus trigger such a lethal gynecologic malignancy? “It knocks out two important cancer suppressor genes in cells,” explained Christina Annunziata,MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and senior vice president of extramural discovery science for the American Cancer Society. HPV oncoproteins are encoded by the E6 and E7 genes. As in other DNA tumor viruses, the E6 and E7 proteins functionally inactivate the tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRB, respectively.
 

US Prevalence

Despite screening and vaccination, cervical cancer is still very much around. This year, 13,820 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and approximately 4360 women will die of it, according to the American Cancer Society. Even before the advent of Gardasil 4, incidence rates had already decreased by more than half from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, thanks largely to Pap smear screening programs for treatable premalignant lesions. “The US rate had dropped to about 20 per 100,000 women even before Gardasil 4,” said Annunziata. “After the introduction of the first vaccine, it decreased to 7 per 100,000, a decrease of about 30%, but it remains plateaued now at about the same level.”

Although the past decade has seen rates generally stabilize, there have been some changes in different age groups. In women ages 30-44, rates increased 1.7% each year from 2012 to 2019, while rates declined 11% each year for women ages 20-24— probably reflecting the impact of the first wave of prevention from Gardasil 4.

In one 2021 population-based study of US cancer registry data from 1999 to 2017, rates of both cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma dropped. The largest declines occurred in females 15-20 years old, the age group most likely to be vaccinated against HPV but not typically screened, suggesting a vaccine-related effect.
 

Gardasil 9: 2014

With the 2014 approval of the vaccine’s second iteration, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil 4 and targeted 9 HPV strains, immunization has taken broader aim. The strains covered by Gardasil 9 protect against oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers — as well as penile, anal, vulvar, and vaginal malignancies and premalignancies, and genital warts in both sexes ages 9-45. 

It may be years, however, before the impact of the newer polyvalent formulation is felt. “While the first vaccine has been successful against the prevalent strains of HPV linked to cervical cancer, it’s a little early to call it for the newer vaccine since oropharyngeal cancers tend to develop later in older men,” Cuccaro said. “But the types of HPV linked to mouth and throat cancers and covered by the newer vaccines are much less prevalent in those who are vaccinated. The strains not covered in the vaccine you see are equally present in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.”

Angela L. Myers, MD, MPH, division director of infectious diseases and medical director of the Center for Wellbeing at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, added, “Unlike for cervical cancer, there are no screening programs for oropharyngeal lesions, so you have to wait to see rates until actual cancer develops.”

A 2023 review reported that HPV vaccination reduced levels of oropharyngeal HPV positivity in men, strengthening the case for pangender immunization. 

And in a recent phase 3 doubled-blind trial, GARDASIL 9 reduced the incidence of anogenital persistent infection caused by nine types of HPV compared with a placebo. 
 

Increasing Uptake

The current public health aim is to have 80% of young people in the targeted age group vaccinated with two doses. Today, uptake among those 9-26 years old stands at about 78% of girls and 75% of boys for the first dose, said Annunziata. “But it’s only about 61% for the two doses in the current series, and we want to improve that.” 

Some parents may still harbor fears that immunizing teens and tweens — both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society recommend immunization at age 9 — will open the door to precocious sexual activity. 

“But overall, uptake in tweens and young teens has increased because the messaging has changed,” said Myers, with the rationale now focusing on cancer prevention not sexual-infection prophylaxis. “This is similar to the hepatitis B vaccine, which used to be given to young adults and is now given to newborns to prevent cancer.” 

Cuccaro added that a proactive presentation by healthcare professionals has a significant effect on vaccine uptake and increases the odds of vaccination ninefold. “Providers should take a presumptive approach and avoid just offering the vaccine as an option. It should be included with regular childhood vaccinations,” she said. “And the advantage of starting early at age 9 is that you can spread the doses out across other regular childhood vaccinations, whereas if you start at age 11, you need to add the HPV vaccine to three other vaccines that are given at that time.” 

After age 15, three doses are necessary. “Providers should stress to parents that it’s most effective when given before young people become sexually active and exposed to HPV,” Cuccaro said. And Myers stressed that despite the vaccine’s effectiveness, routine screening for cervical premalignancies is still important. 

Despite increasing coverage, vaccination rates have some distance to go before the public health target of at least 80% uptake of the series in the targeted age group, Cuccaro cautioned.

On the global stage, barriers to immunization remain, but the World Health Organization has endorsed a campaign to eradicate cervical cancer through HPV vaccination. It has predicted that the 21st century may be the last to experience HPV-associated cancers, currently responsible for more than 300,000 annual deaths worldwide.
 

A Brief History of HPV Vaccines

• 1951. Cervical cancer patient Henrietta Lacks’ rapidly dividing cervical cells are collected by George Otto Gey at Johns Hopkins Hospital. They create the first immortal cell line (HeLa) used to study cancers and vaccines worldwide.
• 1976. Harald zur Hausen suggests that genital wart-associated HPV, not herpes simplex, is the probable cause of cervical cancer.
• 1983. HPV is confirmed as a cause of cancer.
• 1991. The first HPV vaccine is developed.
• 2002. Proof of principle and protective efficacy for the monovalent HPV 16 are shown.
• 2006. Merck’s Gardasil 4 (HPV 4) is FDA approved in girls ages 9-26 for protection against strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 — the cause of more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.
• 2009. Approval of Gardasil 4 is expanded to boys ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts.
• 2009. The FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix (HPV 16 and 18) for girls and young women. The vaccine was withdrawn from the US market in 2016 following the success of Gardasil 9 but is used abroad for HPV cancer prevention.
• 2014. The 9-valent recombinant vaccine Gardasil 9 is FDA approved for protection against several low-risk, wart-causing HPV strains as well as the high-risk cancer strains targeted by HPV 4.
• 2018. The FDA expands approval to include females and males 27-45 years old.
• 2020. The FDA extends approval of Gardasil 9 to include prevention not only of cervical cancer but also, vaginal, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and other head and neck cancers.

Annunziata, Cuccaro, and Myers had no competing interests to declare.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV), a group of more than 200 viruses infecting at least 50% of sexually active people over their lifetimes, has proved more than 90% effective for preventing several diseases caused by high-risk HPV types. 

Gardasil 4: 2006 

It started in 2006 with the approval of Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent, types 6, 11, 16, and 18 (Gardasil 4). Merck’s vaccine began to lower rates of cervical cancer, a major global killer of women.

“It’s fair to say the vaccine has been an American and a global public health success story in reducing rates of cervical cancer,” Paula M. Cuccaro, PhD, assistant professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences at University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, said in an interview.

How does a common virus trigger such a lethal gynecologic malignancy? “It knocks out two important cancer suppressor genes in cells,” explained Christina Annunziata,MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and senior vice president of extramural discovery science for the American Cancer Society. HPV oncoproteins are encoded by the E6 and E7 genes. As in other DNA tumor viruses, the E6 and E7 proteins functionally inactivate the tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRB, respectively.
 

US Prevalence

Despite screening and vaccination, cervical cancer is still very much around. This year, 13,820 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and approximately 4360 women will die of it, according to the American Cancer Society. Even before the advent of Gardasil 4, incidence rates had already decreased by more than half from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, thanks largely to Pap smear screening programs for treatable premalignant lesions. “The US rate had dropped to about 20 per 100,000 women even before Gardasil 4,” said Annunziata. “After the introduction of the first vaccine, it decreased to 7 per 100,000, a decrease of about 30%, but it remains plateaued now at about the same level.”

Although the past decade has seen rates generally stabilize, there have been some changes in different age groups. In women ages 30-44, rates increased 1.7% each year from 2012 to 2019, while rates declined 11% each year for women ages 20-24— probably reflecting the impact of the first wave of prevention from Gardasil 4.

In one 2021 population-based study of US cancer registry data from 1999 to 2017, rates of both cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma dropped. The largest declines occurred in females 15-20 years old, the age group most likely to be vaccinated against HPV but not typically screened, suggesting a vaccine-related effect.
 

Gardasil 9: 2014

With the 2014 approval of the vaccine’s second iteration, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil 4 and targeted 9 HPV strains, immunization has taken broader aim. The strains covered by Gardasil 9 protect against oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers — as well as penile, anal, vulvar, and vaginal malignancies and premalignancies, and genital warts in both sexes ages 9-45. 

It may be years, however, before the impact of the newer polyvalent formulation is felt. “While the first vaccine has been successful against the prevalent strains of HPV linked to cervical cancer, it’s a little early to call it for the newer vaccine since oropharyngeal cancers tend to develop later in older men,” Cuccaro said. “But the types of HPV linked to mouth and throat cancers and covered by the newer vaccines are much less prevalent in those who are vaccinated. The strains not covered in the vaccine you see are equally present in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.”

Angela L. Myers, MD, MPH, division director of infectious diseases and medical director of the Center for Wellbeing at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, added, “Unlike for cervical cancer, there are no screening programs for oropharyngeal lesions, so you have to wait to see rates until actual cancer develops.”

A 2023 review reported that HPV vaccination reduced levels of oropharyngeal HPV positivity in men, strengthening the case for pangender immunization. 

And in a recent phase 3 doubled-blind trial, GARDASIL 9 reduced the incidence of anogenital persistent infection caused by nine types of HPV compared with a placebo. 
 

Increasing Uptake

The current public health aim is to have 80% of young people in the targeted age group vaccinated with two doses. Today, uptake among those 9-26 years old stands at about 78% of girls and 75% of boys for the first dose, said Annunziata. “But it’s only about 61% for the two doses in the current series, and we want to improve that.” 

Some parents may still harbor fears that immunizing teens and tweens — both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society recommend immunization at age 9 — will open the door to precocious sexual activity. 

“But overall, uptake in tweens and young teens has increased because the messaging has changed,” said Myers, with the rationale now focusing on cancer prevention not sexual-infection prophylaxis. “This is similar to the hepatitis B vaccine, which used to be given to young adults and is now given to newborns to prevent cancer.” 

Cuccaro added that a proactive presentation by healthcare professionals has a significant effect on vaccine uptake and increases the odds of vaccination ninefold. “Providers should take a presumptive approach and avoid just offering the vaccine as an option. It should be included with regular childhood vaccinations,” she said. “And the advantage of starting early at age 9 is that you can spread the doses out across other regular childhood vaccinations, whereas if you start at age 11, you need to add the HPV vaccine to three other vaccines that are given at that time.” 

After age 15, three doses are necessary. “Providers should stress to parents that it’s most effective when given before young people become sexually active and exposed to HPV,” Cuccaro said. And Myers stressed that despite the vaccine’s effectiveness, routine screening for cervical premalignancies is still important. 

Despite increasing coverage, vaccination rates have some distance to go before the public health target of at least 80% uptake of the series in the targeted age group, Cuccaro cautioned.

On the global stage, barriers to immunization remain, but the World Health Organization has endorsed a campaign to eradicate cervical cancer through HPV vaccination. It has predicted that the 21st century may be the last to experience HPV-associated cancers, currently responsible for more than 300,000 annual deaths worldwide.
 

A Brief History of HPV Vaccines

• 1951. Cervical cancer patient Henrietta Lacks’ rapidly dividing cervical cells are collected by George Otto Gey at Johns Hopkins Hospital. They create the first immortal cell line (HeLa) used to study cancers and vaccines worldwide.
• 1976. Harald zur Hausen suggests that genital wart-associated HPV, not herpes simplex, is the probable cause of cervical cancer.
• 1983. HPV is confirmed as a cause of cancer.
• 1991. The first HPV vaccine is developed.
• 2002. Proof of principle and protective efficacy for the monovalent HPV 16 are shown.
• 2006. Merck’s Gardasil 4 (HPV 4) is FDA approved in girls ages 9-26 for protection against strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 — the cause of more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.
• 2009. Approval of Gardasil 4 is expanded to boys ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts.
• 2009. The FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix (HPV 16 and 18) for girls and young women. The vaccine was withdrawn from the US market in 2016 following the success of Gardasil 9 but is used abroad for HPV cancer prevention.
• 2014. The 9-valent recombinant vaccine Gardasil 9 is FDA approved for protection against several low-risk, wart-causing HPV strains as well as the high-risk cancer strains targeted by HPV 4.
• 2018. The FDA expands approval to include females and males 27-45 years old.
• 2020. The FDA extends approval of Gardasil 9 to include prevention not only of cervical cancer but also, vaginal, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and other head and neck cancers.

Annunziata, Cuccaro, and Myers had no competing interests to declare.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Depending on one’s perspective, “mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS)” is either a relatively rare, narrowly defined severe allergic condition or a vastly underrecognized underlying cause of multiple chronic inflammatory conditions that affect roughly 17% of the entire population. 

Inappropriate activation of mast cells — now termed mast cell activation disease (MCAD) — has long been known to underlie allergic symptoms and inflammation, and far less commonly, neoplasias such as mastocytosis. The concept of chronic, persistent MCAS associated with aberrant growth and dystrophism is more recent, emerging only in the last couple of decades as a separate entity under the MCAD heading. 

Observational studies and clinical experience have linked signs and symptoms of MCAS with other inflammatory chronic conditions such as hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and recently, long COVID. However, those conditions themselves are diagnostically challenging, and as yet there is no proof of causation.

The idea that MCAS is the entity — or at least, a key one — at the center of “a confoundingly, extraordinarily heterogeneous chronic multisystem polymorbidity” was the theme of a recent 4-day meeting of a professional group informally dubbed “Masterminds.” Since their first meeting in 2018, the group has grown from about 35 to nearly 650 multidisciplinary professionals. 

Stephanie L. Grach, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, gave an introductory talk about the importance of changing “the medical paradigm around complex chronic illness.” Much of the rest of the meeting was devoted to sharing approaches for managing MCAS comorbidities, including dysautonomia, hypermobility, and associated craniocervical dysfunction, and various other multi-system conditions characterized by chronic pain and/or fatigue. Several talks covered the use of agents that block mast cell activity as potential treatment. 

In an interview, Grach said “the meeting was an exciting example of how not only research, but also medicine, is moving forward, and it’s really cool to see that people are independently coming to very similar conclusions about shared pathologies, and because of that, the importance of overlap amongst complex medical conditions that historically have really been poorly addressed.”

She added, “mast cell activation, or mast cell hyperactivity, is one part of the greater picture. What’s important about the mast cell component is that of the multiple different targetable pathologies, it’s one that currently has potential available therapies that can be explored, some of them relatively easily.”

But Christopher Chang, MD, PhD, chief of the Pediatric Allergy and Immunology program, Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital, Hollywood, Florida, sees it differently. In an interview, he noted that the reason for disagreement over what constitutes MCAS is that “it doesn’t have a lot of objective findings that we can identify. ... We know that mast cells are important immune cells, just like all immune cells are important. It seems like whenever someone has unexplained symptoms, people try to blame it on mast cells. But it’s very hard to prove that.” 
 

Two Definitions Characterize the Illness Differently

One proposed “consensus” MCAS definition was first published in 2011 by a group led by hematologist Peter Valent, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. It has been revised since, and similar versions adopted by medical societies, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). The most recent versions propose three core MCAS criteria: 

• Typical clinical signs of severe, recurrent (episodic) systemic (at least two organ systems) MCA are present (often in the form of anaphylaxis).
• The involvement of mast cells (MCs) is documented by biochemical studies, preferably an increase in serum tryptase levels from the individual’s baseline to plus 20% + 2 ng/mL.
• Response of symptoms to therapy with MC-stabilizing agents, drugs directed against MC mediator production, or drugs blocking mediator release or effects of MC-derived mediators.

The following year, a separate publication authored by Gerhard J. Molderings, MD, University of Bonn in Germany, and colleagues proposed a much broader MCAS definition. Also revised since, the latest “consensus-2” was published in 2020. This definition consists of one major criterion: “A constellation of clinical complaints attributable to pathologically increased MC activity, ie, MC mediator release syndrome.” This “constellation” involves conditions of nearly every organ system that, taken together, are estimated to affect up to 17% of the entire population. These are just a few examples: 

• Constitutional: Chronic fatigue, flushing, or sweats
• Dermatologic: Rashes or lesions
• Ophthalmologic: dry eyes
• Oral: Burning or itching in mouth
• Pulmonary: Airway inflammation at any/all levels
• Cardiovascular: Blood pressure lability or codiagnosis of POTS is common
• Gastrointestinal: Reflux, dysphagia, or malabsorption
• Genitourinary: Endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, or dyspareunia
• Musculoskeletal/connective tissue: Fibromyalgia or diagnosis of hypermobile EDS is common
• Neurologic: Headaches or sensory neuropathies
• Psychiatric: Depression or anxiety
• Endocrinologic: Thyroid disease or dyslipidemia
• Hematologic: Polycythemia or anemia (after ruling out other causes)

The diagnosis is made by fulfilling that major criterion, plus at least one objective assessment of pathologically increased release of MC mediators, including infiltrates, abnormal MC morphology, or MC genetic changes shown to increase MC activity. Other alternatives include evidence of above-normal levels of MC mediators, including tryptase, histamine or its metabolites, heparin, or chromatin A, in whole blood, serum, plasma, or urine. Symptomatic response to MC activation inhibitors can also be used but isn’t required as it is in the other definition. 
 

Underdiagnosis vs Overdiagnosis

Lawrence B. Afrin, MD, senior consultant in hematology/oncology at the AIM Center for Personalized Medicine, Westchester, New York, and lead author of the 2020 update of the broader “consensus-2” criteria, said in an interview, “we now know MCAS exists, and it’s prevalent, even though, for understandable and forgivable reasons, we’ve been missing it all along. ... If you see a patient who has this chronic, multisystem unwellness with general themes of inflammation plus or minus allergic issues and you can’t find some other rational explanation that better accounts for what’s going on ... then it’s reasonable to think to include MCAS in the differential diagnosis. If the patient happens not to fit the diagnostic criteria being advanced by one group, that doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that this is still going on.”

Afrin, along with his coauthors, faulted the narrower “consensus-1” definition for lacking data to support the “20% + 2” criteria for requiring the difficult determination of a patient’s “baseline” and for requiring evidence of response to treatment prior to making the diagnosis. Not all patients will respond to a given histamine blocker, he noted. 

But Lawrence B. Schwartz, MD, PhD, an author on both the Valent and AAAAI criteria, disagreed, noting that the narrower criteria “appear to have a high degree of specificity and sensitivity when the reaction is systemic and involves hypotension. Less severe clinical events, particularly involving the gastrointestinal or central nervous systems, do not have precise clinical or biomarker criteria for identifying mast cell involvement.” 

Added Schwartz, who is professor of medicine and chair of the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology and program director of Allergy and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, “when mast cell activation events occur only in the skin, we refer to it as chronic urticaria and in the airways or conjunctiva of allergic individuals as allergic asthma, rhinitis, and/or conjunctivitis. The absence of specific criteria for mast cell activation in the GI [gastrointestinal] tract or CNS [central nervous system] neither rules in mast cell involvement nor does it rule out mast cell involvement. Thus, more research is needed to find better diagnostic criteria.”

Schwartz also pointed to a recent paper reporting the use of artificial intelligence models to “quantify diagnostic precision and specificity” of “alternative” MCAS definitions. The conclusion was a “lack of specificity is pronounced in relation to multiple control criteria, raising the concern that alternative criteria could disproportionately contribute to MCAS overdiagnosis, to the exclusion of more appropriate diagnoses.”

During the meeting, Afrin acknowledged that the broader view risks overdiagnosis of MCAS. However, he also referenced Occam’s razor, the principle that the simplest explanation is probably the best one. “Which scenario is more likely? Multiple diagnoses and problems that are all independent of each other vs one diagnosis that’s biologically capable of causing most or all of the findings, ie, the simplest solution even if it’s not the most immediately obvious solution?”

He said in an interview: “Do we have any proof that MCAS is what’s underlying hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos or POTS or chronic fatigue? No, we don’t have any proof, not because anybody has done studies that have shown there to be no connection but simply because we’re so early in our awareness that the disease even exists that the necessary studies haven’t even been done yet.”

At the meeting, Afrin introduced proposals to turn the “Masterminds” group into a formal professional society and to launch a journal. He also gave an update on progress in developing a symptom assessment tool both for clinical use and to enable clinical trials of new drugs to target mast cells or their mediators. The plan is to field test the tool in 2025 and publish those results in 2026. 

Grach, Afrin, and Chang had no disclosures. Schwartz discovered tryptase and invented the Thermo Fisher tryptase assay, for which his institution (VCU) receives royalties that are shared with him. He also invented monoclonal antibodies used for detecting mast cells or basophils, for which VCU receives royalties from several companies, including Millipore, Santa Cruz, BioLegend, and Hycult Biotech, that are also shared with him. He is a paid consultant for Blueprint Medicines, Celldex Therapeutics, Invea, Third Harmonic Bio, HYCOR Biomedical, Jasper, TerSera Therapeutics, and GLG. He also serves on an AstraZeneca data safety monitoring board for a clinical trial involving benralizumab treatment of hypereosinophilic syndrome and receives royalties from UpToDate (biomarkers for anaphylaxis) and Goldman-Cecil Medicine (anaphylaxis).

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

Depending on one’s perspective, “mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS)” is either a relatively rare, narrowly defined severe allergic condition or a vastly underrecognized underlying cause of multiple chronic inflammatory conditions that affect roughly 17% of the entire population. 

Inappropriate activation of mast cells — now termed mast cell activation disease (MCAD) — has long been known to underlie allergic symptoms and inflammation, and far less commonly, neoplasias such as mastocytosis. The concept of chronic, persistent MCAS associated with aberrant growth and dystrophism is more recent, emerging only in the last couple of decades as a separate entity under the MCAD heading. 

Observational studies and clinical experience have linked signs and symptoms of MCAS with other inflammatory chronic conditions such as hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and recently, long COVID. However, those conditions themselves are diagnostically challenging, and as yet there is no proof of causation.

The idea that MCAS is the entity — or at least, a key one — at the center of “a confoundingly, extraordinarily heterogeneous chronic multisystem polymorbidity” was the theme of a recent 4-day meeting of a professional group informally dubbed “Masterminds.” Since their first meeting in 2018, the group has grown from about 35 to nearly 650 multidisciplinary professionals. 

Stephanie L. Grach, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, gave an introductory talk about the importance of changing “the medical paradigm around complex chronic illness.” Much of the rest of the meeting was devoted to sharing approaches for managing MCAS comorbidities, including dysautonomia, hypermobility, and associated craniocervical dysfunction, and various other multi-system conditions characterized by chronic pain and/or fatigue. Several talks covered the use of agents that block mast cell activity as potential treatment. 

In an interview, Grach said “the meeting was an exciting example of how not only research, but also medicine, is moving forward, and it’s really cool to see that people are independently coming to very similar conclusions about shared pathologies, and because of that, the importance of overlap amongst complex medical conditions that historically have really been poorly addressed.”

She added, “mast cell activation, or mast cell hyperactivity, is one part of the greater picture. What’s important about the mast cell component is that of the multiple different targetable pathologies, it’s one that currently has potential available therapies that can be explored, some of them relatively easily.”

But Christopher Chang, MD, PhD, chief of the Pediatric Allergy and Immunology program, Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital, Hollywood, Florida, sees it differently. In an interview, he noted that the reason for disagreement over what constitutes MCAS is that “it doesn’t have a lot of objective findings that we can identify. ... We know that mast cells are important immune cells, just like all immune cells are important. It seems like whenever someone has unexplained symptoms, people try to blame it on mast cells. But it’s very hard to prove that.” 
 

Two Definitions Characterize the Illness Differently

One proposed “consensus” MCAS definition was first published in 2011 by a group led by hematologist Peter Valent, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. It has been revised since, and similar versions adopted by medical societies, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). The most recent versions propose three core MCAS criteria: 

• Typical clinical signs of severe, recurrent (episodic) systemic (at least two organ systems) MCA are present (often in the form of anaphylaxis).
• The involvement of mast cells (MCs) is documented by biochemical studies, preferably an increase in serum tryptase levels from the individual’s baseline to plus 20% + 2 ng/mL.
• Response of symptoms to therapy with MC-stabilizing agents, drugs directed against MC mediator production, or drugs blocking mediator release or effects of MC-derived mediators.

The following year, a separate publication authored by Gerhard J. Molderings, MD, University of Bonn in Germany, and colleagues proposed a much broader MCAS definition. Also revised since, the latest “consensus-2” was published in 2020. This definition consists of one major criterion: “A constellation of clinical complaints attributable to pathologically increased MC activity, ie, MC mediator release syndrome.” This “constellation” involves conditions of nearly every organ system that, taken together, are estimated to affect up to 17% of the entire population. These are just a few examples: 

• Constitutional: Chronic fatigue, flushing, or sweats
• Dermatologic: Rashes or lesions
• Ophthalmologic: dry eyes
• Oral: Burning or itching in mouth
• Pulmonary: Airway inflammation at any/all levels
• Cardiovascular: Blood pressure lability or codiagnosis of POTS is common
• Gastrointestinal: Reflux, dysphagia, or malabsorption
• Genitourinary: Endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, or dyspareunia
• Musculoskeletal/connective tissue: Fibromyalgia or diagnosis of hypermobile EDS is common
• Neurologic: Headaches or sensory neuropathies
• Psychiatric: Depression or anxiety
• Endocrinologic: Thyroid disease or dyslipidemia
• Hematologic: Polycythemia or anemia (after ruling out other causes)

The diagnosis is made by fulfilling that major criterion, plus at least one objective assessment of pathologically increased release of MC mediators, including infiltrates, abnormal MC morphology, or MC genetic changes shown to increase MC activity. Other alternatives include evidence of above-normal levels of MC mediators, including tryptase, histamine or its metabolites, heparin, or chromatin A, in whole blood, serum, plasma, or urine. Symptomatic response to MC activation inhibitors can also be used but isn’t required as it is in the other definition. 
 

Underdiagnosis vs Overdiagnosis

Lawrence B. Afrin, MD, senior consultant in hematology/oncology at the AIM Center for Personalized Medicine, Westchester, New York, and lead author of the 2020 update of the broader “consensus-2” criteria, said in an interview, “we now know MCAS exists, and it’s prevalent, even though, for understandable and forgivable reasons, we’ve been missing it all along. ... If you see a patient who has this chronic, multisystem unwellness with general themes of inflammation plus or minus allergic issues and you can’t find some other rational explanation that better accounts for what’s going on ... then it’s reasonable to think to include MCAS in the differential diagnosis. If the patient happens not to fit the diagnostic criteria being advanced by one group, that doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that this is still going on.”

Afrin, along with his coauthors, faulted the narrower “consensus-1” definition for lacking data to support the “20% + 2” criteria for requiring the difficult determination of a patient’s “baseline” and for requiring evidence of response to treatment prior to making the diagnosis. Not all patients will respond to a given histamine blocker, he noted. 

But Lawrence B. Schwartz, MD, PhD, an author on both the Valent and AAAAI criteria, disagreed, noting that the narrower criteria “appear to have a high degree of specificity and sensitivity when the reaction is systemic and involves hypotension. Less severe clinical events, particularly involving the gastrointestinal or central nervous systems, do not have precise clinical or biomarker criteria for identifying mast cell involvement.” 

Added Schwartz, who is professor of medicine and chair of the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology and program director of Allergy and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, “when mast cell activation events occur only in the skin, we refer to it as chronic urticaria and in the airways or conjunctiva of allergic individuals as allergic asthma, rhinitis, and/or conjunctivitis. The absence of specific criteria for mast cell activation in the GI [gastrointestinal] tract or CNS [central nervous system] neither rules in mast cell involvement nor does it rule out mast cell involvement. Thus, more research is needed to find better diagnostic criteria.”

Schwartz also pointed to a recent paper reporting the use of artificial intelligence models to “quantify diagnostic precision and specificity” of “alternative” MCAS definitions. The conclusion was a “lack of specificity is pronounced in relation to multiple control criteria, raising the concern that alternative criteria could disproportionately contribute to MCAS overdiagnosis, to the exclusion of more appropriate diagnoses.”

During the meeting, Afrin acknowledged that the broader view risks overdiagnosis of MCAS. However, he also referenced Occam’s razor, the principle that the simplest explanation is probably the best one. “Which scenario is more likely? Multiple diagnoses and problems that are all independent of each other vs one diagnosis that’s biologically capable of causing most or all of the findings, ie, the simplest solution even if it’s not the most immediately obvious solution?”

He said in an interview: “Do we have any proof that MCAS is what’s underlying hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos or POTS or chronic fatigue? No, we don’t have any proof, not because anybody has done studies that have shown there to be no connection but simply because we’re so early in our awareness that the disease even exists that the necessary studies haven’t even been done yet.”

At the meeting, Afrin introduced proposals to turn the “Masterminds” group into a formal professional society and to launch a journal. He also gave an update on progress in developing a symptom assessment tool both for clinical use and to enable clinical trials of new drugs to target mast cells or their mediators. The plan is to field test the tool in 2025 and publish those results in 2026. 

Grach, Afrin, and Chang had no disclosures. Schwartz discovered tryptase and invented the Thermo Fisher tryptase assay, for which his institution (VCU) receives royalties that are shared with him. He also invented monoclonal antibodies used for detecting mast cells or basophils, for which VCU receives royalties from several companies, including Millipore, Santa Cruz, BioLegend, and Hycult Biotech, that are also shared with him. He is a paid consultant for Blueprint Medicines, Celldex Therapeutics, Invea, Third Harmonic Bio, HYCOR Biomedical, Jasper, TerSera Therapeutics, and GLG. He also serves on an AstraZeneca data safety monitoring board for a clinical trial involving benralizumab treatment of hypereosinophilic syndrome and receives royalties from UpToDate (biomarkers for anaphylaxis) and Goldman-Cecil Medicine (anaphylaxis).

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

Depending on one’s perspective, “mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS)” is either a relatively rare, narrowly defined severe allergic condition or a vastly underrecognized underlying cause of multiple chronic inflammatory conditions that affect roughly 17% of the entire population. 

Inappropriate activation of mast cells — now termed mast cell activation disease (MCAD) — has long been known to underlie allergic symptoms and inflammation, and far less commonly, neoplasias such as mastocytosis. The concept of chronic, persistent MCAS associated with aberrant growth and dystrophism is more recent, emerging only in the last couple of decades as a separate entity under the MCAD heading. 

Observational studies and clinical experience have linked signs and symptoms of MCAS with other inflammatory chronic conditions such as hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and recently, long COVID. However, those conditions themselves are diagnostically challenging, and as yet there is no proof of causation.

The idea that MCAS is the entity — or at least, a key one — at the center of “a confoundingly, extraordinarily heterogeneous chronic multisystem polymorbidity” was the theme of a recent 4-day meeting of a professional group informally dubbed “Masterminds.” Since their first meeting in 2018, the group has grown from about 35 to nearly 650 multidisciplinary professionals. 

Stephanie L. Grach, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, gave an introductory talk about the importance of changing “the medical paradigm around complex chronic illness.” Much of the rest of the meeting was devoted to sharing approaches for managing MCAS comorbidities, including dysautonomia, hypermobility, and associated craniocervical dysfunction, and various other multi-system conditions characterized by chronic pain and/or fatigue. Several talks covered the use of agents that block mast cell activity as potential treatment. 

In an interview, Grach said “the meeting was an exciting example of how not only research, but also medicine, is moving forward, and it’s really cool to see that people are independently coming to very similar conclusions about shared pathologies, and because of that, the importance of overlap amongst complex medical conditions that historically have really been poorly addressed.”

She added, “mast cell activation, or mast cell hyperactivity, is one part of the greater picture. What’s important about the mast cell component is that of the multiple different targetable pathologies, it’s one that currently has potential available therapies that can be explored, some of them relatively easily.”

But Christopher Chang, MD, PhD, chief of the Pediatric Allergy and Immunology program, Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital, Hollywood, Florida, sees it differently. In an interview, he noted that the reason for disagreement over what constitutes MCAS is that “it doesn’t have a lot of objective findings that we can identify. ... We know that mast cells are important immune cells, just like all immune cells are important. It seems like whenever someone has unexplained symptoms, people try to blame it on mast cells. But it’s very hard to prove that.” 
 

Two Definitions Characterize the Illness Differently

One proposed “consensus” MCAS definition was first published in 2011 by a group led by hematologist Peter Valent, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. It has been revised since, and similar versions adopted by medical societies, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). The most recent versions propose three core MCAS criteria: 

• Typical clinical signs of severe, recurrent (episodic) systemic (at least two organ systems) MCA are present (often in the form of anaphylaxis).
• The involvement of mast cells (MCs) is documented by biochemical studies, preferably an increase in serum tryptase levels from the individual’s baseline to plus 20% + 2 ng/mL.
• Response of symptoms to therapy with MC-stabilizing agents, drugs directed against MC mediator production, or drugs blocking mediator release or effects of MC-derived mediators.

The following year, a separate publication authored by Gerhard J. Molderings, MD, University of Bonn in Germany, and colleagues proposed a much broader MCAS definition. Also revised since, the latest “consensus-2” was published in 2020. This definition consists of one major criterion: “A constellation of clinical complaints attributable to pathologically increased MC activity, ie, MC mediator release syndrome.” This “constellation” involves conditions of nearly every organ system that, taken together, are estimated to affect up to 17% of the entire population. These are just a few examples: 

• Constitutional: Chronic fatigue, flushing, or sweats
• Dermatologic: Rashes or lesions
• Ophthalmologic: dry eyes
• Oral: Burning or itching in mouth
• Pulmonary: Airway inflammation at any/all levels
• Cardiovascular: Blood pressure lability or codiagnosis of POTS is common
• Gastrointestinal: Reflux, dysphagia, or malabsorption
• Genitourinary: Endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, or dyspareunia
• Musculoskeletal/connective tissue: Fibromyalgia or diagnosis of hypermobile EDS is common
• Neurologic: Headaches or sensory neuropathies
• Psychiatric: Depression or anxiety
• Endocrinologic: Thyroid disease or dyslipidemia
• Hematologic: Polycythemia or anemia (after ruling out other causes)

The diagnosis is made by fulfilling that major criterion, plus at least one objective assessment of pathologically increased release of MC mediators, including infiltrates, abnormal MC morphology, or MC genetic changes shown to increase MC activity. Other alternatives include evidence of above-normal levels of MC mediators, including tryptase, histamine or its metabolites, heparin, or chromatin A, in whole blood, serum, plasma, or urine. Symptomatic response to MC activation inhibitors can also be used but isn’t required as it is in the other definition. 
 

Underdiagnosis vs Overdiagnosis

Lawrence B. Afrin, MD, senior consultant in hematology/oncology at the AIM Center for Personalized Medicine, Westchester, New York, and lead author of the 2020 update of the broader “consensus-2” criteria, said in an interview, “we now know MCAS exists, and it’s prevalent, even though, for understandable and forgivable reasons, we’ve been missing it all along. ... If you see a patient who has this chronic, multisystem unwellness with general themes of inflammation plus or minus allergic issues and you can’t find some other rational explanation that better accounts for what’s going on ... then it’s reasonable to think to include MCAS in the differential diagnosis. If the patient happens not to fit the diagnostic criteria being advanced by one group, that doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that this is still going on.”

Afrin, along with his coauthors, faulted the narrower “consensus-1” definition for lacking data to support the “20% + 2” criteria for requiring the difficult determination of a patient’s “baseline” and for requiring evidence of response to treatment prior to making the diagnosis. Not all patients will respond to a given histamine blocker, he noted. 

But Lawrence B. Schwartz, MD, PhD, an author on both the Valent and AAAAI criteria, disagreed, noting that the narrower criteria “appear to have a high degree of specificity and sensitivity when the reaction is systemic and involves hypotension. Less severe clinical events, particularly involving the gastrointestinal or central nervous systems, do not have precise clinical or biomarker criteria for identifying mast cell involvement.” 

Added Schwartz, who is professor of medicine and chair of the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology and program director of Allergy and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, “when mast cell activation events occur only in the skin, we refer to it as chronic urticaria and in the airways or conjunctiva of allergic individuals as allergic asthma, rhinitis, and/or conjunctivitis. The absence of specific criteria for mast cell activation in the GI [gastrointestinal] tract or CNS [central nervous system] neither rules in mast cell involvement nor does it rule out mast cell involvement. Thus, more research is needed to find better diagnostic criteria.”

Schwartz also pointed to a recent paper reporting the use of artificial intelligence models to “quantify diagnostic precision and specificity” of “alternative” MCAS definitions. The conclusion was a “lack of specificity is pronounced in relation to multiple control criteria, raising the concern that alternative criteria could disproportionately contribute to MCAS overdiagnosis, to the exclusion of more appropriate diagnoses.”

During the meeting, Afrin acknowledged that the broader view risks overdiagnosis of MCAS. However, he also referenced Occam’s razor, the principle that the simplest explanation is probably the best one. “Which scenario is more likely? Multiple diagnoses and problems that are all independent of each other vs one diagnosis that’s biologically capable of causing most or all of the findings, ie, the simplest solution even if it’s not the most immediately obvious solution?”

He said in an interview: “Do we have any proof that MCAS is what’s underlying hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos or POTS or chronic fatigue? No, we don’t have any proof, not because anybody has done studies that have shown there to be no connection but simply because we’re so early in our awareness that the disease even exists that the necessary studies haven’t even been done yet.”

At the meeting, Afrin introduced proposals to turn the “Masterminds” group into a formal professional society and to launch a journal. He also gave an update on progress in developing a symptom assessment tool both for clinical use and to enable clinical trials of new drugs to target mast cells or their mediators. The plan is to field test the tool in 2025 and publish those results in 2026. 

Grach, Afrin, and Chang had no disclosures. Schwartz discovered tryptase and invented the Thermo Fisher tryptase assay, for which his institution (VCU) receives royalties that are shared with him. He also invented monoclonal antibodies used for detecting mast cells or basophils, for which VCU receives royalties from several companies, including Millipore, Santa Cruz, BioLegend, and Hycult Biotech, that are also shared with him. He is a paid consultant for Blueprint Medicines, Celldex Therapeutics, Invea, Third Harmonic Bio, HYCOR Biomedical, Jasper, TerSera Therapeutics, and GLG. He also serves on an AstraZeneca data safety monitoring board for a clinical trial involving benralizumab treatment of hypereosinophilic syndrome and receives royalties from UpToDate (biomarkers for anaphylaxis) and Goldman-Cecil Medicine (anaphylaxis).

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

Sandra Hong, MD, chair of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, sees firsthand how situations that feel ordinary to most people strike fear in the hearts of her patients with food allergies. 

Not only do some experience reactions to milk when they eat a cheese pizza — they can’t be in the same room with someone enjoying a slice nearby. “That would be terrifying,” Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab (Xolair), recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as monotherapy for the treatment of food allergies, may now bring peace of mind to these patients and their families by reducing their risk of dangerous allergic reactions to accidental exposure.

While the drug does not cure food allergies, a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial found that after 16 weeks of treatment, two thirds of participants were able to tolerate at least 600 mg of peanut protein — equal to about 2.5 peanuts — without experiencing moderate to severe reactions. 

An open-label extension trial also found the monoclonal antibody reduced the likelihood of serious reactions to eggs by 67%, milk by 66%, and cashews by 42%. The results of the study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The treatment is approved for children as young as the age of 1 year and is the only treatment approved for multiple food allergies. It does not treat anaphylaxis or other emergency situations.

Patient Selection Key

While 8% of children and 10% of adults in the United States have a true food allergy, Brian Vickery, MD, chief of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, noted that a significantly higher proportion of the population restricts their diet based on perceived food intolerances.

“Most important for family doctors prior to prescribing the medication will be to be sure that the diagnosis is correct,” Kim said. “We know that allergy blood and skin testing is good but not perfect, and false positive results can occur,” said Edwin Kim, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology and director of the University of North Carolina Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, who was a coauthor on the study in the New England Journal of Medicine. “ An allergist can conduct food challenges to confirm the diagnosis if results are unclear.”

Even for patients with confirmed IgE-mediated allergies, Dr. Hong said selecting patients who are good candidates for the therapy has “nuances.” 

Patients must be willing and able to commit to injections every 2-4 weeks. Dosing depends on body weight and the total IgE levels of each patient. Patients with IgE levels > 1850 UI/mL likely will be disqualified from treatment since the clinical trial did not enroll patients with total IgE above this level and the appropriate dose in those patients is unknown.

“My recommendation for family physicians who are counseling food-allergic patients interested in omalizumab treatment is to partner with an allergist-immunologist, if at all possible,” Dr. Vickery said. He added that patients should have a comprehensive workup before beginning treatment because starting omalizumab would reduce reactivity and alter the outcome a diagnostic oral food challenge.

Two populations Dr. Hong thinks might particularly benefit from the therapy are college students and preschoolers, who may be unable to completely avoid allergens because of poor impulse control and food sharing in group settings.

“The concerns we have about this age group are whether or not there might be other factors involved that may impede their ability to make good decisions.”

Less control of the environment in dorms or other group living situations also could increase the risk of accidental exposure to a food allergen.

For the right patients, the treatment regimen has significant advantages over oral immunotherapy treatment (OIT), including the fact that it’s not a daily medication and it has the potential to treat allergic asthma at the same time.

“The biggest pro for omalizumab is that it can treat all of your food allergies, whether you have one or many, and do it all in one medication,” Dr. Kim said. 

Managing Potential Harms

Omalizumab carries risks both primary care providers and patients must consider. First among them is that the drug carries a “black box” warning for an increased risk of anaphylaxis, Dr. Hong said. 

Although patients with multiple food allergies typically already have prescriptions for epinephrine, primary care physicians (PCPs) considering offering omalizumab must be comfortable treating severe systemic reactions and their offices capable of post-dose monitoring, Dr. Hong said. 

Anaphylaxis “can occur after the first dose or it can be delayed,” she said. “Typically, allergists will give these in our offices and we’ll actually have people wait for delayed amounts of time, for hours.”

The drug has been available since 2003 as a treatment for allergic asthma and urticaria. In addition to the warning for anaphylaxis, common reactions include joint pain and injection-site reactions. It also increases the risk for parasitic infection, and some studies show an increase in the risk for cancer.

Still, Dr. Kim said omalizumab’s safety profile is reassuring and noted it has advantages over OIT. “Since the patient is not exposing themselves to the food they are allergic to like in OIT, the safety is expected to be far better,” he said.

Lifelong Treatment 

Dr. Vickery, Dr. Hong, and Dr. Kim all cautioned that patients should understand that, while omalizumab offers protection against accidental exposure and can meaningfully improve quality of life, it won’t allow them to loosen their allergen-avoidant diets.

Further, maintaining protection requires receiving injections every 2-4 weeks for life. For those without insurance, or whose insurance does not cover the treatment, costs could reach thousands of dollars each month, Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab “has been well covered by insurance for asthma and chronic hives, but we will have to see what it looks like for food allergy. The range of plans and out-of-pocket deductibles available to patients will also play a big role,” Dr. Kim said. 

Other novel approaches to food allergies are currently in clinical trials, and both Dr. Hong and Dr. Vickery are optimistic about potential options in the pipeline.

“We’re just on the brink of really exciting therapies coming forward in the future,” Dr. Hong said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, both part of the National Institutes of Health; the Claudia and Steve Stange Family Fund; Genentech; and Novartis. Dr. Hong, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Vickery reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sandra Hong, MD, chair of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, sees firsthand how situations that feel ordinary to most people strike fear in the hearts of her patients with food allergies. 

Not only do some experience reactions to milk when they eat a cheese pizza — they can’t be in the same room with someone enjoying a slice nearby. “That would be terrifying,” Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab (Xolair), recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as monotherapy for the treatment of food allergies, may now bring peace of mind to these patients and their families by reducing their risk of dangerous allergic reactions to accidental exposure.

While the drug does not cure food allergies, a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial found that after 16 weeks of treatment, two thirds of participants were able to tolerate at least 600 mg of peanut protein — equal to about 2.5 peanuts — without experiencing moderate to severe reactions. 

An open-label extension trial also found the monoclonal antibody reduced the likelihood of serious reactions to eggs by 67%, milk by 66%, and cashews by 42%. The results of the study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The treatment is approved for children as young as the age of 1 year and is the only treatment approved for multiple food allergies. It does not treat anaphylaxis or other emergency situations.

Patient Selection Key

While 8% of children and 10% of adults in the United States have a true food allergy, Brian Vickery, MD, chief of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, noted that a significantly higher proportion of the population restricts their diet based on perceived food intolerances.

“Most important for family doctors prior to prescribing the medication will be to be sure that the diagnosis is correct,” Kim said. “We know that allergy blood and skin testing is good but not perfect, and false positive results can occur,” said Edwin Kim, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology and director of the University of North Carolina Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, who was a coauthor on the study in the New England Journal of Medicine. “ An allergist can conduct food challenges to confirm the diagnosis if results are unclear.”

Even for patients with confirmed IgE-mediated allergies, Dr. Hong said selecting patients who are good candidates for the therapy has “nuances.” 

Patients must be willing and able to commit to injections every 2-4 weeks. Dosing depends on body weight and the total IgE levels of each patient. Patients with IgE levels > 1850 UI/mL likely will be disqualified from treatment since the clinical trial did not enroll patients with total IgE above this level and the appropriate dose in those patients is unknown.

“My recommendation for family physicians who are counseling food-allergic patients interested in omalizumab treatment is to partner with an allergist-immunologist, if at all possible,” Dr. Vickery said. He added that patients should have a comprehensive workup before beginning treatment because starting omalizumab would reduce reactivity and alter the outcome a diagnostic oral food challenge.

Two populations Dr. Hong thinks might particularly benefit from the therapy are college students and preschoolers, who may be unable to completely avoid allergens because of poor impulse control and food sharing in group settings.

“The concerns we have about this age group are whether or not there might be other factors involved that may impede their ability to make good decisions.”

Less control of the environment in dorms or other group living situations also could increase the risk of accidental exposure to a food allergen.

For the right patients, the treatment regimen has significant advantages over oral immunotherapy treatment (OIT), including the fact that it’s not a daily medication and it has the potential to treat allergic asthma at the same time.

“The biggest pro for omalizumab is that it can treat all of your food allergies, whether you have one or many, and do it all in one medication,” Dr. Kim said. 

Managing Potential Harms

Omalizumab carries risks both primary care providers and patients must consider. First among them is that the drug carries a “black box” warning for an increased risk of anaphylaxis, Dr. Hong said. 

Although patients with multiple food allergies typically already have prescriptions for epinephrine, primary care physicians (PCPs) considering offering omalizumab must be comfortable treating severe systemic reactions and their offices capable of post-dose monitoring, Dr. Hong said. 

Anaphylaxis “can occur after the first dose or it can be delayed,” she said. “Typically, allergists will give these in our offices and we’ll actually have people wait for delayed amounts of time, for hours.”

The drug has been available since 2003 as a treatment for allergic asthma and urticaria. In addition to the warning for anaphylaxis, common reactions include joint pain and injection-site reactions. It also increases the risk for parasitic infection, and some studies show an increase in the risk for cancer.

Still, Dr. Kim said omalizumab’s safety profile is reassuring and noted it has advantages over OIT. “Since the patient is not exposing themselves to the food they are allergic to like in OIT, the safety is expected to be far better,” he said.

Lifelong Treatment 

Dr. Vickery, Dr. Hong, and Dr. Kim all cautioned that patients should understand that, while omalizumab offers protection against accidental exposure and can meaningfully improve quality of life, it won’t allow them to loosen their allergen-avoidant diets.

Further, maintaining protection requires receiving injections every 2-4 weeks for life. For those without insurance, or whose insurance does not cover the treatment, costs could reach thousands of dollars each month, Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab “has been well covered by insurance for asthma and chronic hives, but we will have to see what it looks like for food allergy. The range of plans and out-of-pocket deductibles available to patients will also play a big role,” Dr. Kim said. 

Other novel approaches to food allergies are currently in clinical trials, and both Dr. Hong and Dr. Vickery are optimistic about potential options in the pipeline.

“We’re just on the brink of really exciting therapies coming forward in the future,” Dr. Hong said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, both part of the National Institutes of Health; the Claudia and Steve Stange Family Fund; Genentech; and Novartis. Dr. Hong, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Vickery reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sandra Hong, MD, chair of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, sees firsthand how situations that feel ordinary to most people strike fear in the hearts of her patients with food allergies. 

Not only do some experience reactions to milk when they eat a cheese pizza — they can’t be in the same room with someone enjoying a slice nearby. “That would be terrifying,” Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab (Xolair), recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as monotherapy for the treatment of food allergies, may now bring peace of mind to these patients and their families by reducing their risk of dangerous allergic reactions to accidental exposure.

While the drug does not cure food allergies, a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial found that after 16 weeks of treatment, two thirds of participants were able to tolerate at least 600 mg of peanut protein — equal to about 2.5 peanuts — without experiencing moderate to severe reactions. 

An open-label extension trial also found the monoclonal antibody reduced the likelihood of serious reactions to eggs by 67%, milk by 66%, and cashews by 42%. The results of the study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The treatment is approved for children as young as the age of 1 year and is the only treatment approved for multiple food allergies. It does not treat anaphylaxis or other emergency situations.

Patient Selection Key

While 8% of children and 10% of adults in the United States have a true food allergy, Brian Vickery, MD, chief of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, noted that a significantly higher proportion of the population restricts their diet based on perceived food intolerances.

“Most important for family doctors prior to prescribing the medication will be to be sure that the diagnosis is correct,” Kim said. “We know that allergy blood and skin testing is good but not perfect, and false positive results can occur,” said Edwin Kim, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology and director of the University of North Carolina Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, who was a coauthor on the study in the New England Journal of Medicine. “ An allergist can conduct food challenges to confirm the diagnosis if results are unclear.”

Even for patients with confirmed IgE-mediated allergies, Dr. Hong said selecting patients who are good candidates for the therapy has “nuances.” 

Patients must be willing and able to commit to injections every 2-4 weeks. Dosing depends on body weight and the total IgE levels of each patient. Patients with IgE levels > 1850 UI/mL likely will be disqualified from treatment since the clinical trial did not enroll patients with total IgE above this level and the appropriate dose in those patients is unknown.

“My recommendation for family physicians who are counseling food-allergic patients interested in omalizumab treatment is to partner with an allergist-immunologist, if at all possible,” Dr. Vickery said. He added that patients should have a comprehensive workup before beginning treatment because starting omalizumab would reduce reactivity and alter the outcome a diagnostic oral food challenge.

Two populations Dr. Hong thinks might particularly benefit from the therapy are college students and preschoolers, who may be unable to completely avoid allergens because of poor impulse control and food sharing in group settings.

“The concerns we have about this age group are whether or not there might be other factors involved that may impede their ability to make good decisions.”

Less control of the environment in dorms or other group living situations also could increase the risk of accidental exposure to a food allergen.

For the right patients, the treatment regimen has significant advantages over oral immunotherapy treatment (OIT), including the fact that it’s not a daily medication and it has the potential to treat allergic asthma at the same time.

“The biggest pro for omalizumab is that it can treat all of your food allergies, whether you have one or many, and do it all in one medication,” Dr. Kim said. 

Managing Potential Harms

Omalizumab carries risks both primary care providers and patients must consider. First among them is that the drug carries a “black box” warning for an increased risk of anaphylaxis, Dr. Hong said. 

Although patients with multiple food allergies typically already have prescriptions for epinephrine, primary care physicians (PCPs) considering offering omalizumab must be comfortable treating severe systemic reactions and their offices capable of post-dose monitoring, Dr. Hong said. 

Anaphylaxis “can occur after the first dose or it can be delayed,” she said. “Typically, allergists will give these in our offices and we’ll actually have people wait for delayed amounts of time, for hours.”

The drug has been available since 2003 as a treatment for allergic asthma and urticaria. In addition to the warning for anaphylaxis, common reactions include joint pain and injection-site reactions. It also increases the risk for parasitic infection, and some studies show an increase in the risk for cancer.

Still, Dr. Kim said omalizumab’s safety profile is reassuring and noted it has advantages over OIT. “Since the patient is not exposing themselves to the food they are allergic to like in OIT, the safety is expected to be far better,” he said.

Lifelong Treatment 

Dr. Vickery, Dr. Hong, and Dr. Kim all cautioned that patients should understand that, while omalizumab offers protection against accidental exposure and can meaningfully improve quality of life, it won’t allow them to loosen their allergen-avoidant diets.

Further, maintaining protection requires receiving injections every 2-4 weeks for life. For those without insurance, or whose insurance does not cover the treatment, costs could reach thousands of dollars each month, Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab “has been well covered by insurance for asthma and chronic hives, but we will have to see what it looks like for food allergy. The range of plans and out-of-pocket deductibles available to patients will also play a big role,” Dr. Kim said. 

Other novel approaches to food allergies are currently in clinical trials, and both Dr. Hong and Dr. Vickery are optimistic about potential options in the pipeline.

“We’re just on the brink of really exciting therapies coming forward in the future,” Dr. Hong said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, both part of the National Institutes of Health; the Claudia and Steve Stange Family Fund; Genentech; and Novartis. Dr. Hong, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Vickery reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians are using dupilumab off label to treat a wider range of allergic conditions in adults and children.

The drug, marketed as Dupixent, is currently approved in the United States to treat atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis in adults. Dupilumab is also approved to treat eosinophilic esophagitis in patients aged 12 years and older and atopic dermatitis and asthma in some patients as young as age 6 months.

As the roster of approved and off-label indications grows, skin specialists said, pediatricians and other primary care providers should become familiar with the drug – given the increasing likelihood that their patients may be taking the medication.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved dupilumab in 2017 for eczema and has continued to add new treatment indications, the most recent being for prurigo nodularis, in 2022. Sanofi, which markets the drug with Regeneron, announced in April 2022 that some 430,000 patients worldwide were taking the drug – a figure it hoped to raise by 1.5 million by 2025.
 

A well-tolerated – if expensive – drug

Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 (IL-4) receptor alpha-antagonist biologic, blocks both IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, Marlys Fassett, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

Dr. Fassett said she prescribes the drug off label for chronic idiopathic urticaria, including in older patients, and finds that the side effects in older patients are similar to those in younger people. The medication costs $36,000 per year, although some patients can get it more cheaply.

“Dupixent is a super-safe drug because it doesn’t immunosuppress any other part of the immune system, so you still have good antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal immunity,” she added. “That makes perfect sense as a biological mechanism, and it’s been found safe in clinical trials.”

Case reports of potential adverse reactions to dupilumab have included ocular surface disease, lichen planus, and rash on the face and neck.

“We’re still learning about complications and are watching patients carefully,” said Marissa J. Perman, MD, section chief of dermatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Many people with atopic dermatitis also have other allergic conditions, such as contact dermatitis, asthma, prurigo nodularis, allergic rhinitis, and seasonal allergies. Each of these conditions has a pathway that depends on IL-4 receptors, Dr. Fassett said.

“It’s amazing how many conditions Dupixent improves. Sometimes we prescribe on-label Dupixent for atopic dermatitis, and inadvertently, the drug also improves that patient’s other, off-label conditions,” Dr. Fassett said. “I think that’s the best evidence that Dupixent works in these off-label cases.”

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said she uses off-label dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and intense pruritus of unknown etiology.

“And several times I have treated drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, a rare adverse drug reaction that causes a rash and eosinophilia,” Dr. Strowd added.

Tissa Hata, MD, professor of medicine and clinical service chief at the University of California, San Diego, mainly treats elderly patients. She uses dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and chronic pruritus. “There have been reports of using Dupixent to treat adult alopecia areata, chronic urticaria, localized scleroderma, and even keloids,” she told this news organization.

As a pediatric dermatologist, Dr. Perman treats children with atopic dermatitis as young as 3 months of age. She also uses dupilumab for alopecia areata, graft vs. host disease, and pruritus not otherwise specified.

Conjunctivitis and facial redness are two side effects Dr. Fassett sometimes sees with dupilumab. They occur similarly with all conditions and in all age groups. “We don’t know why they occur, and we don’t always know how to alleviate them,” she said. “So a small number of patients stop using Dupixent because they can’t tolerate those two side effects.

“We’re not worried about infection risk,” Dr. Fassett said. “Your patients may have heard of dupilumab as an immunosuppressant, but its immunosuppression is very focused. You can reassure them that they’re not at increased risk for viral or bacterial infections when they’re on this drug.”

“I don’t think there are any different safety signals to watch for with on-label vs. off-label Dupixent use,” Dr. Strowd added. “In general, the medicine is very safe.”

Dr. Hata said she is impressed with dupilumab’s safety in her elderly patients. All her patients older than 85 years who have taken the drug for bullous pemphigoid have tolerated it well, she said.

“Dupixent seems to be a safe alternative for elderly patients with pruritus because they often cannot tolerate sedating antihistamines due to the risk of falling,” Dr. Hata said. “And UV therapy may be difficult for elderly patients due to problems with transport.”

Although some of Dr. Hata’s elderly patients with atopic dermatitis have discontinued use of the drug after developing conjunctivitis, none taking the drug off label have discontinued it because of side effects, she noted.

“Dupixent manages the condition, but it is not a cure,” Dr. Fassett noted. “Based on the current data, we think it’s safe and effective to take long term, potentially for life.”

Making injections less bothersome

Dupilumab is injected subcutaneously from a single-dose prefilled syringe or a prefilled pen (syringe hidden in an opaque sheath), typically in the thigh, arm, abdomen, or buttocks. According to Sanofi and Regeneron, patients receive dupilumab injections every 2 to 4 weeks in doses based on their age and weight.

“The medication is somewhat viscous, so taking the syringe or pen out of the refrigerator ahead of time to warm it up can make the experience less painful,” Dr. Strowd advised. “For pediatric patients, I sometimes prescribe topical lidocaine applied 30 minutes before injection.”

Dr. Hata suggested icing the skin prior to injecting or distracting the patient by tapping a different area of the skin.

For her pediatric patients, Dr. Perman said she uses “lots of distraction, EMLA cream, and having one person hold the child while a second person injects.”

Clinic and pharmacy staff may show patients how to inject properly, Dr. Fassett added; and the product website provides injection tutorials.
 

Off-label dupixent can be expensive, difficult to obtain

The list price per injection, regardless of dose, is around $1,800. But according to the company’s website, most patients have health insurance or qualify for other assistance, so “very few patients pay the list price.”

Even so, “due to cost and insurance coverage hurdles, obtaining Dupixent for off-label use can be difficult,” Dr. Strowd said.

“In academic medicine, we can obtain drugs for our patients that community doctors may not get approval for,” Dr. Fassett added. “Community doctors can use information in the medical literature and in news articles to press insurance companies to spend money to provide their patients with Dupixent.”

The experts who commented have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians are using dupilumab off label to treat a wider range of allergic conditions in adults and children.

The drug, marketed as Dupixent, is currently approved in the United States to treat atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis in adults. Dupilumab is also approved to treat eosinophilic esophagitis in patients aged 12 years and older and atopic dermatitis and asthma in some patients as young as age 6 months.

As the roster of approved and off-label indications grows, skin specialists said, pediatricians and other primary care providers should become familiar with the drug – given the increasing likelihood that their patients may be taking the medication.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved dupilumab in 2017 for eczema and has continued to add new treatment indications, the most recent being for prurigo nodularis, in 2022. Sanofi, which markets the drug with Regeneron, announced in April 2022 that some 430,000 patients worldwide were taking the drug – a figure it hoped to raise by 1.5 million by 2025.
 

A well-tolerated – if expensive – drug

Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 (IL-4) receptor alpha-antagonist biologic, blocks both IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, Marlys Fassett, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

Dr. Fassett said she prescribes the drug off label for chronic idiopathic urticaria, including in older patients, and finds that the side effects in older patients are similar to those in younger people. The medication costs $36,000 per year, although some patients can get it more cheaply.

“Dupixent is a super-safe drug because it doesn’t immunosuppress any other part of the immune system, so you still have good antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal immunity,” she added. “That makes perfect sense as a biological mechanism, and it’s been found safe in clinical trials.”

Case reports of potential adverse reactions to dupilumab have included ocular surface disease, lichen planus, and rash on the face and neck.

“We’re still learning about complications and are watching patients carefully,” said Marissa J. Perman, MD, section chief of dermatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Many people with atopic dermatitis also have other allergic conditions, such as contact dermatitis, asthma, prurigo nodularis, allergic rhinitis, and seasonal allergies. Each of these conditions has a pathway that depends on IL-4 receptors, Dr. Fassett said.

“It’s amazing how many conditions Dupixent improves. Sometimes we prescribe on-label Dupixent for atopic dermatitis, and inadvertently, the drug also improves that patient’s other, off-label conditions,” Dr. Fassett said. “I think that’s the best evidence that Dupixent works in these off-label cases.”

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said she uses off-label dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and intense pruritus of unknown etiology.

“And several times I have treated drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, a rare adverse drug reaction that causes a rash and eosinophilia,” Dr. Strowd added.

Tissa Hata, MD, professor of medicine and clinical service chief at the University of California, San Diego, mainly treats elderly patients. She uses dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and chronic pruritus. “There have been reports of using Dupixent to treat adult alopecia areata, chronic urticaria, localized scleroderma, and even keloids,” she told this news organization.

As a pediatric dermatologist, Dr. Perman treats children with atopic dermatitis as young as 3 months of age. She also uses dupilumab for alopecia areata, graft vs. host disease, and pruritus not otherwise specified.

Conjunctivitis and facial redness are two side effects Dr. Fassett sometimes sees with dupilumab. They occur similarly with all conditions and in all age groups. “We don’t know why they occur, and we don’t always know how to alleviate them,” she said. “So a small number of patients stop using Dupixent because they can’t tolerate those two side effects.

“We’re not worried about infection risk,” Dr. Fassett said. “Your patients may have heard of dupilumab as an immunosuppressant, but its immunosuppression is very focused. You can reassure them that they’re not at increased risk for viral or bacterial infections when they’re on this drug.”

“I don’t think there are any different safety signals to watch for with on-label vs. off-label Dupixent use,” Dr. Strowd added. “In general, the medicine is very safe.”

Dr. Hata said she is impressed with dupilumab’s safety in her elderly patients. All her patients older than 85 years who have taken the drug for bullous pemphigoid have tolerated it well, she said.

“Dupixent seems to be a safe alternative for elderly patients with pruritus because they often cannot tolerate sedating antihistamines due to the risk of falling,” Dr. Hata said. “And UV therapy may be difficult for elderly patients due to problems with transport.”

Although some of Dr. Hata’s elderly patients with atopic dermatitis have discontinued use of the drug after developing conjunctivitis, none taking the drug off label have discontinued it because of side effects, she noted.

“Dupixent manages the condition, but it is not a cure,” Dr. Fassett noted. “Based on the current data, we think it’s safe and effective to take long term, potentially for life.”

Making injections less bothersome

Dupilumab is injected subcutaneously from a single-dose prefilled syringe or a prefilled pen (syringe hidden in an opaque sheath), typically in the thigh, arm, abdomen, or buttocks. According to Sanofi and Regeneron, patients receive dupilumab injections every 2 to 4 weeks in doses based on their age and weight.

“The medication is somewhat viscous, so taking the syringe or pen out of the refrigerator ahead of time to warm it up can make the experience less painful,” Dr. Strowd advised. “For pediatric patients, I sometimes prescribe topical lidocaine applied 30 minutes before injection.”

Dr. Hata suggested icing the skin prior to injecting or distracting the patient by tapping a different area of the skin.

For her pediatric patients, Dr. Perman said she uses “lots of distraction, EMLA cream, and having one person hold the child while a second person injects.”

Clinic and pharmacy staff may show patients how to inject properly, Dr. Fassett added; and the product website provides injection tutorials.
 

Off-label dupixent can be expensive, difficult to obtain

The list price per injection, regardless of dose, is around $1,800. But according to the company’s website, most patients have health insurance or qualify for other assistance, so “very few patients pay the list price.”

Even so, “due to cost and insurance coverage hurdles, obtaining Dupixent for off-label use can be difficult,” Dr. Strowd said.

“In academic medicine, we can obtain drugs for our patients that community doctors may not get approval for,” Dr. Fassett added. “Community doctors can use information in the medical literature and in news articles to press insurance companies to spend money to provide their patients with Dupixent.”

The experts who commented have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians are using dupilumab off label to treat a wider range of allergic conditions in adults and children.

The drug, marketed as Dupixent, is currently approved in the United States to treat atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis in adults. Dupilumab is also approved to treat eosinophilic esophagitis in patients aged 12 years and older and atopic dermatitis and asthma in some patients as young as age 6 months.

As the roster of approved and off-label indications grows, skin specialists said, pediatricians and other primary care providers should become familiar with the drug – given the increasing likelihood that their patients may be taking the medication.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved dupilumab in 2017 for eczema and has continued to add new treatment indications, the most recent being for prurigo nodularis, in 2022. Sanofi, which markets the drug with Regeneron, announced in April 2022 that some 430,000 patients worldwide were taking the drug – a figure it hoped to raise by 1.5 million by 2025.
 

A well-tolerated – if expensive – drug

Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 (IL-4) receptor alpha-antagonist biologic, blocks both IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, Marlys Fassett, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

Dr. Fassett said she prescribes the drug off label for chronic idiopathic urticaria, including in older patients, and finds that the side effects in older patients are similar to those in younger people. The medication costs $36,000 per year, although some patients can get it more cheaply.

“Dupixent is a super-safe drug because it doesn’t immunosuppress any other part of the immune system, so you still have good antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal immunity,” she added. “That makes perfect sense as a biological mechanism, and it’s been found safe in clinical trials.”

Case reports of potential adverse reactions to dupilumab have included ocular surface disease, lichen planus, and rash on the face and neck.

“We’re still learning about complications and are watching patients carefully,” said Marissa J. Perman, MD, section chief of dermatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Many people with atopic dermatitis also have other allergic conditions, such as contact dermatitis, asthma, prurigo nodularis, allergic rhinitis, and seasonal allergies. Each of these conditions has a pathway that depends on IL-4 receptors, Dr. Fassett said.

“It’s amazing how many conditions Dupixent improves. Sometimes we prescribe on-label Dupixent for atopic dermatitis, and inadvertently, the drug also improves that patient’s other, off-label conditions,” Dr. Fassett said. “I think that’s the best evidence that Dupixent works in these off-label cases.”

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said she uses off-label dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and intense pruritus of unknown etiology.

“And several times I have treated drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, a rare adverse drug reaction that causes a rash and eosinophilia,” Dr. Strowd added.

Tissa Hata, MD, professor of medicine and clinical service chief at the University of California, San Diego, mainly treats elderly patients. She uses dupilumab to treat bullous pemphigoid and chronic pruritus. “There have been reports of using Dupixent to treat adult alopecia areata, chronic urticaria, localized scleroderma, and even keloids,” she told this news organization.

As a pediatric dermatologist, Dr. Perman treats children with atopic dermatitis as young as 3 months of age. She also uses dupilumab for alopecia areata, graft vs. host disease, and pruritus not otherwise specified.

Conjunctivitis and facial redness are two side effects Dr. Fassett sometimes sees with dupilumab. They occur similarly with all conditions and in all age groups. “We don’t know why they occur, and we don’t always know how to alleviate them,” she said. “So a small number of patients stop using Dupixent because they can’t tolerate those two side effects.

“We’re not worried about infection risk,” Dr. Fassett said. “Your patients may have heard of dupilumab as an immunosuppressant, but its immunosuppression is very focused. You can reassure them that they’re not at increased risk for viral or bacterial infections when they’re on this drug.”

“I don’t think there are any different safety signals to watch for with on-label vs. off-label Dupixent use,” Dr. Strowd added. “In general, the medicine is very safe.”

Dr. Hata said she is impressed with dupilumab’s safety in her elderly patients. All her patients older than 85 years who have taken the drug for bullous pemphigoid have tolerated it well, she said.

“Dupixent seems to be a safe alternative for elderly patients with pruritus because they often cannot tolerate sedating antihistamines due to the risk of falling,” Dr. Hata said. “And UV therapy may be difficult for elderly patients due to problems with transport.”

Although some of Dr. Hata’s elderly patients with atopic dermatitis have discontinued use of the drug after developing conjunctivitis, none taking the drug off label have discontinued it because of side effects, she noted.

“Dupixent manages the condition, but it is not a cure,” Dr. Fassett noted. “Based on the current data, we think it’s safe and effective to take long term, potentially for life.”

Making injections less bothersome

Dupilumab is injected subcutaneously from a single-dose prefilled syringe or a prefilled pen (syringe hidden in an opaque sheath), typically in the thigh, arm, abdomen, or buttocks. According to Sanofi and Regeneron, patients receive dupilumab injections every 2 to 4 weeks in doses based on their age and weight.

“The medication is somewhat viscous, so taking the syringe or pen out of the refrigerator ahead of time to warm it up can make the experience less painful,” Dr. Strowd advised. “For pediatric patients, I sometimes prescribe topical lidocaine applied 30 minutes before injection.”

Dr. Hata suggested icing the skin prior to injecting or distracting the patient by tapping a different area of the skin.

For her pediatric patients, Dr. Perman said she uses “lots of distraction, EMLA cream, and having one person hold the child while a second person injects.”

Clinic and pharmacy staff may show patients how to inject properly, Dr. Fassett added; and the product website provides injection tutorials.
 

Off-label dupixent can be expensive, difficult to obtain

The list price per injection, regardless of dose, is around $1,800. But according to the company’s website, most patients have health insurance or qualify for other assistance, so “very few patients pay the list price.”

Even so, “due to cost and insurance coverage hurdles, obtaining Dupixent for off-label use can be difficult,” Dr. Strowd said.

“In academic medicine, we can obtain drugs for our patients that community doctors may not get approval for,” Dr. Fassett added. “Community doctors can use information in the medical literature and in news articles to press insurance companies to spend money to provide their patients with Dupixent.”

The experts who commented have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW ORLEANS – Assessing underlying mechanisms for the effects of age, mean platelet volume (MPV), and tryptase may help identify pediatric patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) who will respond to different treatment options, results from a single-center prospective study showed.

“Given that the majority of CSU cases in adults are due to autoimmunity and there being very [few] studies on biomarkers for CSU in children, our study furthers our current understanding of the role of different biomarkers in treatment response,” lead study author Alex Nguyen, MsC, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.

NEW ORLEANS – Assessing underlying mechanisms for the effects of age, mean platelet volume (MPV), and tryptase may help identify pediatric patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) who will respond to different treatment options, results from a single-center prospective study showed.

“Given that the majority of CSU cases in adults are due to autoimmunity and there being very [few] studies on biomarkers for CSU in children, our study furthers our current understanding of the role of different biomarkers in treatment response,” lead study author Alex Nguyen, MsC, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.

NEW ORLEANS – Assessing underlying mechanisms for the effects of age, mean platelet volume (MPV), and tryptase may help identify pediatric patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) who will respond to different treatment options, results from a single-center prospective study showed.

“Given that the majority of CSU cases in adults are due to autoimmunity and there being very [few] studies on biomarkers for CSU in children, our study furthers our current understanding of the role of different biomarkers in treatment response,” lead study author Alex Nguyen, MsC, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.

Despite the profound shift in guidelines for preventing peanut allergies in infants after the landmark LEAP study, national surveys in 2021 showed that 70% of parents and caregivers said that they hadn’t heard the new recommendations, and fewer than one-third of pediatricians were following them.

Now, in a 5-year National Institutes of Health–funded study called iREACH, researchers are testing whether a two-part intervention, which includes training videos and a clinical decision support tool, helps pediatricians follow the guidelines and ultimately reduces peanut allergy.

Early results from iREACH, presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio, showed mixed results with a sharp rise in clinician knowledge of the guidelines but only a modest increase in their real-world implementation with high-risk infants.

Raising a food-allergic child while working as a pediatrician herself, Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Food Allergy and Asthma Research at Northwestern University, Chicago, understands the importance and challenge of translating published findings into practice.

During a typical 4- to 6-month well-child visit, pediatricians must check the baby’s growth, perform a physical exam, discuss milestones, field questions about sleep and poop and colic and – if they’re up on the latest guidelines – explain why it’s important to feed peanuts early and often.

“Pediatricians get stuff from every single specialty, and guidelines are always changing,” she told this news organization.

The current feeding guidelines, published in 2017 after the landmark LEAP study, switched from “ ‘don’t introduce peanuts until age 3’ to ‘introduce peanuts now,’ ” said Dr. Gupta.

But the recommendations aren’t entirely straightforward. They require pediatricians to make an assessment when the baby is around 4 months old. If the child is high-risk (has severe eczema or an egg allergy), they need a peanut-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) test. If the test is negative, the pediatrician should encourage peanut introduction. If positive, they should refer the child to an allergist.

“It’s a little complicated,” Dr. Gupta said.

To boost understanding and adherence, Dr. Gupta’s team created the intervention tested in the iREACH study. It includes a set of training videos, a clinical decision support tool that embeds into the electronic health record (EHR) with pop-ups reminding the physician to discuss early introduction, menus for ordering peanut IgE tests or referring to an allergist if needed, and a caregiver handout that explains how to add peanuts to the baby’s diet. (These resources can be found here.)

The study enrolled 290 pediatric clinicians at 30 local practices, examining 18,460 babies from diverse backgrounds, about one-quarter of whom were from families on public insurance. About half of the clinicians received the intervention, whereas the other half served as the control arm.

The training videos seemed effective. Clinicians’ knowledge of the guidelines rose from 72.6% at baseline to 94.5% after the intervention, and their ability to identify severe eczema went up from 63.4% to 97.6%. This translated to 70.4% success with applying the guidelines when presented various clinical scenarios, up from 29% at baseline. These results are in press at JAMA Network Open.

The next set of analyses, preliminary and unpublished, monitored real-world adherence using natural language processing to pull EHR data from 4- and 6-month well-check visits. It was “AI [artificial intelligence] for notes,” Dr. Gupta said.

For low-risk infants, the training and EHR-embedded support tool greatly improved clinician adherence. Eighty percent of clinicians in the intervention arm followed the guidelines, compared with 26% in the control group.

In high-risk infants, the impact was much weaker. Even after the video-based training, only 17% of pediatric clinicians followed the guidelines – that is, ordered a peanut IgE test or referred to an allergist – compared with 8% in the control group.

Why such a low uptake?

Pediatricians are time-pressed. “How do you add [early introduction] to the other 10 or 15 things you want to talk to a parent about at the 4-month visit?” said Jonathan Necheles, MD, MPH, a pediatrician at Children’s Healthcare Associates in Chicago.

It can also be hard to tell if a baby’s eczema is “severe” or “mild to moderate.” The EHR-integrated support tool included a scorecard for judging eczema severity across a range of skin tones. The condition can be hard to recognize in patients of color. “You don’t get the redness in the same way,” said Dr. Necheles, who worked with Dr. Gupta to develop the iREACH intervention.

Curiously, even though the AI analysis found that less than one-fifth of pediatricians put the guidelines into action for high-risk infants, 69% of them recommended peanut introduction.

One interpretation is that busy pediatricians may be “doing the minimum” – introducing the concept of early introduction and telling parents to try it “but not giving any additional sort of guidance as far as who’s high risk, who’s low risk, who should see the allergist, who should get screened,” said Edwin Kim, MD, allergist-immunologist and director of the Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The ultimate impact of iREACH has yet to be seen. “The end goal is, if pediatricians recommend, will parents follow, and will we reduce peanut allergy?” Dr. Gupta said.

Dr. Gupta consults or serves as an advisor for Genentech, Novartis, Aimmune, Allergenis, and Food Allergy Research & Education; receives research funding from Novartis, Genentech, FARE, Melchiorre Family Foundation, and Sunshine Charitable Foundation; and reports ownership interest from Yobee Care. Dr. Necheles reports no financial disclosures. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Allergy Therapeutics, Belhaven Biopharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Genentech, Nutricia, and Revolo; advisory board membership with ALK, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Immune Tolerance Network, and Food Allergy Research and Education.

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

Despite the profound shift in guidelines for preventing peanut allergies in infants after the landmark LEAP study, national surveys in 2021 showed that 70% of parents and caregivers said that they hadn’t heard the new recommendations, and fewer than one-third of pediatricians were following them.

Now, in a 5-year National Institutes of Health–funded study called iREACH, researchers are testing whether a two-part intervention, which includes training videos and a clinical decision support tool, helps pediatricians follow the guidelines and ultimately reduces peanut allergy.

Early results from iREACH, presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio, showed mixed results with a sharp rise in clinician knowledge of the guidelines but only a modest increase in their real-world implementation with high-risk infants.

Raising a food-allergic child while working as a pediatrician herself, Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Food Allergy and Asthma Research at Northwestern University, Chicago, understands the importance and challenge of translating published findings into practice.

During a typical 4- to 6-month well-child visit, pediatricians must check the baby’s growth, perform a physical exam, discuss milestones, field questions about sleep and poop and colic and – if they’re up on the latest guidelines – explain why it’s important to feed peanuts early and often.

“Pediatricians get stuff from every single specialty, and guidelines are always changing,” she told this news organization.

The current feeding guidelines, published in 2017 after the landmark LEAP study, switched from “ ‘don’t introduce peanuts until age 3’ to ‘introduce peanuts now,’ ” said Dr. Gupta.

But the recommendations aren’t entirely straightforward. They require pediatricians to make an assessment when the baby is around 4 months old. If the child is high-risk (has severe eczema or an egg allergy), they need a peanut-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) test. If the test is negative, the pediatrician should encourage peanut introduction. If positive, they should refer the child to an allergist.

“It’s a little complicated,” Dr. Gupta said.

To boost understanding and adherence, Dr. Gupta’s team created the intervention tested in the iREACH study. It includes a set of training videos, a clinical decision support tool that embeds into the electronic health record (EHR) with pop-ups reminding the physician to discuss early introduction, menus for ordering peanut IgE tests or referring to an allergist if needed, and a caregiver handout that explains how to add peanuts to the baby’s diet. (These resources can be found here.)

The study enrolled 290 pediatric clinicians at 30 local practices, examining 18,460 babies from diverse backgrounds, about one-quarter of whom were from families on public insurance. About half of the clinicians received the intervention, whereas the other half served as the control arm.

The training videos seemed effective. Clinicians’ knowledge of the guidelines rose from 72.6% at baseline to 94.5% after the intervention, and their ability to identify severe eczema went up from 63.4% to 97.6%. This translated to 70.4% success with applying the guidelines when presented various clinical scenarios, up from 29% at baseline. These results are in press at JAMA Network Open.

The next set of analyses, preliminary and unpublished, monitored real-world adherence using natural language processing to pull EHR data from 4- and 6-month well-check visits. It was “AI [artificial intelligence] for notes,” Dr. Gupta said.

For low-risk infants, the training and EHR-embedded support tool greatly improved clinician adherence. Eighty percent of clinicians in the intervention arm followed the guidelines, compared with 26% in the control group.

In high-risk infants, the impact was much weaker. Even after the video-based training, only 17% of pediatric clinicians followed the guidelines – that is, ordered a peanut IgE test or referred to an allergist – compared with 8% in the control group.

Why such a low uptake?

Pediatricians are time-pressed. “How do you add [early introduction] to the other 10 or 15 things you want to talk to a parent about at the 4-month visit?” said Jonathan Necheles, MD, MPH, a pediatrician at Children’s Healthcare Associates in Chicago.

It can also be hard to tell if a baby’s eczema is “severe” or “mild to moderate.” The EHR-integrated support tool included a scorecard for judging eczema severity across a range of skin tones. The condition can be hard to recognize in patients of color. “You don’t get the redness in the same way,” said Dr. Necheles, who worked with Dr. Gupta to develop the iREACH intervention.

Curiously, even though the AI analysis found that less than one-fifth of pediatricians put the guidelines into action for high-risk infants, 69% of them recommended peanut introduction.

One interpretation is that busy pediatricians may be “doing the minimum” – introducing the concept of early introduction and telling parents to try it “but not giving any additional sort of guidance as far as who’s high risk, who’s low risk, who should see the allergist, who should get screened,” said Edwin Kim, MD, allergist-immunologist and director of the Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The ultimate impact of iREACH has yet to be seen. “The end goal is, if pediatricians recommend, will parents follow, and will we reduce peanut allergy?” Dr. Gupta said.

Dr. Gupta consults or serves as an advisor for Genentech, Novartis, Aimmune, Allergenis, and Food Allergy Research & Education; receives research funding from Novartis, Genentech, FARE, Melchiorre Family Foundation, and Sunshine Charitable Foundation; and reports ownership interest from Yobee Care. Dr. Necheles reports no financial disclosures. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Allergy Therapeutics, Belhaven Biopharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Genentech, Nutricia, and Revolo; advisory board membership with ALK, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Immune Tolerance Network, and Food Allergy Research and Education.

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

Despite the profound shift in guidelines for preventing peanut allergies in infants after the landmark LEAP study, national surveys in 2021 showed that 70% of parents and caregivers said that they hadn’t heard the new recommendations, and fewer than one-third of pediatricians were following them.

Now, in a 5-year National Institutes of Health–funded study called iREACH, researchers are testing whether a two-part intervention, which includes training videos and a clinical decision support tool, helps pediatricians follow the guidelines and ultimately reduces peanut allergy.

Early results from iREACH, presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology 2023 annual meeting in San Antonio, showed mixed results with a sharp rise in clinician knowledge of the guidelines but only a modest increase in their real-world implementation with high-risk infants.

Raising a food-allergic child while working as a pediatrician herself, Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Food Allergy and Asthma Research at Northwestern University, Chicago, understands the importance and challenge of translating published findings into practice.

During a typical 4- to 6-month well-child visit, pediatricians must check the baby’s growth, perform a physical exam, discuss milestones, field questions about sleep and poop and colic and – if they’re up on the latest guidelines – explain why it’s important to feed peanuts early and often.

“Pediatricians get stuff from every single specialty, and guidelines are always changing,” she told this news organization.

The current feeding guidelines, published in 2017 after the landmark LEAP study, switched from “ ‘don’t introduce peanuts until age 3’ to ‘introduce peanuts now,’ ” said Dr. Gupta.

But the recommendations aren’t entirely straightforward. They require pediatricians to make an assessment when the baby is around 4 months old. If the child is high-risk (has severe eczema or an egg allergy), they need a peanut-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) test. If the test is negative, the pediatrician should encourage peanut introduction. If positive, they should refer the child to an allergist.

“It’s a little complicated,” Dr. Gupta said.

To boost understanding and adherence, Dr. Gupta’s team created the intervention tested in the iREACH study. It includes a set of training videos, a clinical decision support tool that embeds into the electronic health record (EHR) with pop-ups reminding the physician to discuss early introduction, menus for ordering peanut IgE tests or referring to an allergist if needed, and a caregiver handout that explains how to add peanuts to the baby’s diet. (These resources can be found here.)

The study enrolled 290 pediatric clinicians at 30 local practices, examining 18,460 babies from diverse backgrounds, about one-quarter of whom were from families on public insurance. About half of the clinicians received the intervention, whereas the other half served as the control arm.

The training videos seemed effective. Clinicians’ knowledge of the guidelines rose from 72.6% at baseline to 94.5% after the intervention, and their ability to identify severe eczema went up from 63.4% to 97.6%. This translated to 70.4% success with applying the guidelines when presented various clinical scenarios, up from 29% at baseline. These results are in press at JAMA Network Open.

The next set of analyses, preliminary and unpublished, monitored real-world adherence using natural language processing to pull EHR data from 4- and 6-month well-check visits. It was “AI [artificial intelligence] for notes,” Dr. Gupta said.

For low-risk infants, the training and EHR-embedded support tool greatly improved clinician adherence. Eighty percent of clinicians in the intervention arm followed the guidelines, compared with 26% in the control group.

In high-risk infants, the impact was much weaker. Even after the video-based training, only 17% of pediatric clinicians followed the guidelines – that is, ordered a peanut IgE test or referred to an allergist – compared with 8% in the control group.

Why such a low uptake?

Pediatricians are time-pressed. “How do you add [early introduction] to the other 10 or 15 things you want to talk to a parent about at the 4-month visit?” said Jonathan Necheles, MD, MPH, a pediatrician at Children’s Healthcare Associates in Chicago.

It can also be hard to tell if a baby’s eczema is “severe” or “mild to moderate.” The EHR-integrated support tool included a scorecard for judging eczema severity across a range of skin tones. The condition can be hard to recognize in patients of color. “You don’t get the redness in the same way,” said Dr. Necheles, who worked with Dr. Gupta to develop the iREACH intervention.

Curiously, even though the AI analysis found that less than one-fifth of pediatricians put the guidelines into action for high-risk infants, 69% of them recommended peanut introduction.

One interpretation is that busy pediatricians may be “doing the minimum” – introducing the concept of early introduction and telling parents to try it “but not giving any additional sort of guidance as far as who’s high risk, who’s low risk, who should see the allergist, who should get screened,” said Edwin Kim, MD, allergist-immunologist and director of the Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The ultimate impact of iREACH has yet to be seen. “The end goal is, if pediatricians recommend, will parents follow, and will we reduce peanut allergy?” Dr. Gupta said.

Dr. Gupta consults or serves as an advisor for Genentech, Novartis, Aimmune, Allergenis, and Food Allergy Research & Education; receives research funding from Novartis, Genentech, FARE, Melchiorre Family Foundation, and Sunshine Charitable Foundation; and reports ownership interest from Yobee Care. Dr. Necheles reports no financial disclosures. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Allergy Therapeutics, Belhaven Biopharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Genentech, Nutricia, and Revolo; advisory board membership with ALK, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Immune Tolerance Network, and Food Allergy Research and Education.

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

Patients with persistent upper-back itch from notalgia paresthetica may get some relief with oral difelikefalin, phase 2 data from a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial suggest.

However, side effects were significant and caused 19% in the intervention group to discontinue the trial versus 6% in the placebo group.

Results of the study were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

There is currently no treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the common condition, which typically causes itch in the hard-to-reach area between the shoulder blades or mid-back.
 

Drug reduced moderate to severe itch

Difelikefalin – a selective kappa-opioid receptor agonist – is  FDA approved only as an injection for treating moderate to severe itch from chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis, and is marketed as Korsuva for that indication.

However, in a new trial, led by Brian S. Kim, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair of research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the drug gave moderate relief to patients with notalgia paresthetica who had moderate to severe itch.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral difelikefalin 2 mg or a placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the weekly average of the daily 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, for which 0 is “no itch” and 10 is “worst itch imaginable.”

Secondary clinical outcomes were itch-related quality-of-life and itch-related sleep measures.

The study included 126 patients; 62 received difelikefalin and 63 received placebo. One patient assigned to the difelikefalin group withdrew consent before the first dose.

The average baseline score on the Worst Itch scale was 7.6 (severe itch) in each group. Mean scores in the difelikefalin dropped by 4 points versus 2.4 points in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, −2.6 to −0.6; P = .001).

Difelikefalin did not help with sleep disturbance, compared with placebo, “except possibly in patients with impaired sleep at baseline,” the authors write. “Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and risks of difelikefalin treatment in this disorder.”

In a Mount Sinai press release, Dr. Kim, who is also director of the Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at Mount Sinai, called the team’s findings “encouraging.”

“The encouraging results achieved in this trial could reenergize the field and mark an important step toward improving symptoms of itch for patients with notalgia paresthetica,” he said.

Side effects ‘worrisome’

The main side effects reported included headaches, dizziness, constipation and increased urine output.

Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Baltimore, told this news organization that dizziness was “especially worrisome,” noting the average age of participants in the trial was 59-60 years. “We are very concerned about folks having falls or hip fractures,” he said.

“Things we use more commonly are topical steroids, topical capsaicin, the capsaicin patch, muscle strengthening, and gabapentin,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Off-label we use botulinum toxin (Botox) as well. I’m able to control” almost all of my notalgia paresthetica patients, he added.

In his view, for this type of drug, he said, “the right home for it is more for a generalized neuropathic pruritus or nociplastic itch vs. something very localized which is more amenable to topical therapies.”

He said that the associated central nervous system effects, such as dizziness and headache, “would limit therapeutic use to only the most severe cases in my mind.”

The trial was funded by Cara Therapeutics, manufacturer of difelikefalin.

Dr. Kim and coauthor Mark Lebwohl, MD, are paid consultants/advisers to Cara Therapeutics. Other coauthors also reported ties to Cara. Dr. Kwatra previously had done consulting work for Cara Therapeutics and is an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Castle Biosciences, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

Patients with persistent upper-back itch from notalgia paresthetica may get some relief with oral difelikefalin, phase 2 data from a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial suggest.

However, side effects were significant and caused 19% in the intervention group to discontinue the trial versus 6% in the placebo group.

Results of the study were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

There is currently no treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the common condition, which typically causes itch in the hard-to-reach area between the shoulder blades or mid-back.
 

Drug reduced moderate to severe itch

Difelikefalin – a selective kappa-opioid receptor agonist – is  FDA approved only as an injection for treating moderate to severe itch from chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis, and is marketed as Korsuva for that indication.

However, in a new trial, led by Brian S. Kim, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair of research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the drug gave moderate relief to patients with notalgia paresthetica who had moderate to severe itch.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral difelikefalin 2 mg or a placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the weekly average of the daily 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, for which 0 is “no itch” and 10 is “worst itch imaginable.”

Secondary clinical outcomes were itch-related quality-of-life and itch-related sleep measures.

The study included 126 patients; 62 received difelikefalin and 63 received placebo. One patient assigned to the difelikefalin group withdrew consent before the first dose.

The average baseline score on the Worst Itch scale was 7.6 (severe itch) in each group. Mean scores in the difelikefalin dropped by 4 points versus 2.4 points in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, −2.6 to −0.6; P = .001).

Difelikefalin did not help with sleep disturbance, compared with placebo, “except possibly in patients with impaired sleep at baseline,” the authors write. “Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and risks of difelikefalin treatment in this disorder.”

In a Mount Sinai press release, Dr. Kim, who is also director of the Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at Mount Sinai, called the team’s findings “encouraging.”

“The encouraging results achieved in this trial could reenergize the field and mark an important step toward improving symptoms of itch for patients with notalgia paresthetica,” he said.

Side effects ‘worrisome’

The main side effects reported included headaches, dizziness, constipation and increased urine output.

Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Baltimore, told this news organization that dizziness was “especially worrisome,” noting the average age of participants in the trial was 59-60 years. “We are very concerned about folks having falls or hip fractures,” he said.

“Things we use more commonly are topical steroids, topical capsaicin, the capsaicin patch, muscle strengthening, and gabapentin,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Off-label we use botulinum toxin (Botox) as well. I’m able to control” almost all of my notalgia paresthetica patients, he added.

In his view, for this type of drug, he said, “the right home for it is more for a generalized neuropathic pruritus or nociplastic itch vs. something very localized which is more amenable to topical therapies.”

He said that the associated central nervous system effects, such as dizziness and headache, “would limit therapeutic use to only the most severe cases in my mind.”

The trial was funded by Cara Therapeutics, manufacturer of difelikefalin.

Dr. Kim and coauthor Mark Lebwohl, MD, are paid consultants/advisers to Cara Therapeutics. Other coauthors also reported ties to Cara. Dr. Kwatra previously had done consulting work for Cara Therapeutics and is an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Castle Biosciences, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

Patients with persistent upper-back itch from notalgia paresthetica may get some relief with oral difelikefalin, phase 2 data from a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial suggest.

However, side effects were significant and caused 19% in the intervention group to discontinue the trial versus 6% in the placebo group.

Results of the study were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

There is currently no treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the common condition, which typically causes itch in the hard-to-reach area between the shoulder blades or mid-back.
 

Drug reduced moderate to severe itch

Difelikefalin – a selective kappa-opioid receptor agonist – is  FDA approved only as an injection for treating moderate to severe itch from chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis, and is marketed as Korsuva for that indication.

However, in a new trial, led by Brian S. Kim, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair of research at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, the drug gave moderate relief to patients with notalgia paresthetica who had moderate to severe itch.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral difelikefalin 2 mg or a placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in the weekly average of the daily 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale, for which 0 is “no itch” and 10 is “worst itch imaginable.”

Secondary clinical outcomes were itch-related quality-of-life and itch-related sleep measures.

The study included 126 patients; 62 received difelikefalin and 63 received placebo. One patient assigned to the difelikefalin group withdrew consent before the first dose.

The average baseline score on the Worst Itch scale was 7.6 (severe itch) in each group. Mean scores in the difelikefalin dropped by 4 points versus 2.4 points in the placebo group (95% confidence interval, −2.6 to −0.6; P = .001).

Difelikefalin did not help with sleep disturbance, compared with placebo, “except possibly in patients with impaired sleep at baseline,” the authors write. “Larger and longer trials are required to determine the effect and risks of difelikefalin treatment in this disorder.”

In a Mount Sinai press release, Dr. Kim, who is also director of the Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation at Mount Sinai, called the team’s findings “encouraging.”

“The encouraging results achieved in this trial could reenergize the field and mark an important step toward improving symptoms of itch for patients with notalgia paresthetica,” he said.

Side effects ‘worrisome’

The main side effects reported included headaches, dizziness, constipation and increased urine output.

Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Baltimore, told this news organization that dizziness was “especially worrisome,” noting the average age of participants in the trial was 59-60 years. “We are very concerned about folks having falls or hip fractures,” he said.

“Things we use more commonly are topical steroids, topical capsaicin, the capsaicin patch, muscle strengthening, and gabapentin,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Off-label we use botulinum toxin (Botox) as well. I’m able to control” almost all of my notalgia paresthetica patients, he added.

In his view, for this type of drug, he said, “the right home for it is more for a generalized neuropathic pruritus or nociplastic itch vs. something very localized which is more amenable to topical therapies.”

He said that the associated central nervous system effects, such as dizziness and headache, “would limit therapeutic use to only the most severe cases in my mind.”

The trial was funded by Cara Therapeutics, manufacturer of difelikefalin.

Dr. Kim and coauthor Mark Lebwohl, MD, are paid consultants/advisers to Cara Therapeutics. Other coauthors also reported ties to Cara. Dr. Kwatra previously had done consulting work for Cara Therapeutics and is an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Castle Biosciences, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

To the Editor:

The itch-scratch cycle refers to the sequence created when a pruritic skin condition leads to scratching and skin barrier disruption, ultimately facilitating secondary skin changes and neural activation that prolongs pruritus. In patients with pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle often can run unrestrained, with patients unaware of their scratching habits. Understanding what drives a patient to scratch, such as the pleasure gained from scratching, may be beneficial for dermatologists combating a patient’s scratching habits. The earliest documented attempts to understand the mechanism of an itch were made in Greece around the fifth century, but the pathophysiology of this sensation still is not fully understood. The Latin term pruritus refers to itching, irritation, or sexual excitement, while the Greek term knêsmos and related words also denote itch in an irritating or pleasurable sense.¹ This paradoxical duality of irritation and pleasure is a phenomenon all too well understood by those affected with pruritic symptoms.

Although there are many measured characteristics of an itch, the pleasure granted from scratching an itch rarely is addressed. Understanding the factors influencing the pleasurability of scratching could help improve management and outcomes of patients’ pruritic conditions.

Pruritus is associated with a wide array of etiologies including dermatologic, infectious, metabolic, and autoimmune, but unanimously it evokes a strong desire to scratch. Scratching an itch often yields temporary relief from the irritation by dispensing a complex sensory concoction between pleasure and pain.² The neurobiology behind this pleasure phenomenon is inconclusive. Some hypotheses point to how scratching-induced pleasure may be derived from the deactivation or inhibition of the unpleasant sensation of an itch in the central nervous system, the stimulation of the reward signals in the C-fiber system in the peripheral nervous system, the release of pruritis-inhibiting prostaglandin D2, or a combination of these pathways. Levels of sensation and pleasure induced from itch attenuation by scratching even vary based on anatomic location. One study demonstrated that, when compared to the forearms, the ankles and back perceived baseline induced itch most intensely, but no significant difference in perceived itch intensity was found between the ankles and back. Additionally, scratching an itchy back or ankle notably induced more pleasure when compared to the forearms, but there was no significant difference in scratching pleasurability between the ankle and back.³

Although there are adequate questionnaires and scales (eg, ItchyQoL,⁴ Skindex-16, Skindex-29) to quantify the severity of pruritus and its effects on a patient’s quality of life, these measurements do not assess the pleasure yielded from scratching, the impact of scratch pleasure on the patient experience, or the effect of scratch pleasure on the disease state.⁴ It appears that there are inadequate assessment tools to define factors associated with the pleasurability of scratching. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms scratching pleasure scale and pruritus pleasure questionnaire yielded scarce results measuring patient perspectives on scratching-associated pleasure. A pertinent study performed by O’Neill et al⁵ compared the differences in itch characteristics between patients with psoriasis and those with atopic dermatitis using a web-based questionnaire featuring a numerical pleasure scale (ranging from −5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) on an 11-point Likert scale. The questionnaire sought to measure the effects of scratching during a typical episode of itch within the past 2 weeks. Scratching was found pleasurable in both groups of patients.⁵ Another web-based questionnaire that characterized pleasurability in scratching a typical episode of itch in individuals with atopic dermatitis using a −5 to +5 Likert scale (−5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) found that most participants perceived scratching as pleasurable and that there was a positive correlation between itch intensity and scratch pleasurability.⁶ Both of these studies quantified that scratching an itch is pleasurable, a correlation that may not come as a surprise. This direct correlation suggests that a more detailed analysis of this scratch pleasure could be beneficial in the management of pruritic conditions.

Treating the underlying cause of an itch is key to inhibiting the sensation; in some cases, anti-itch medications must be used. Current medications have limited effects on itch relief, but an expanding understanding of itch pathophysiology through clinical and laboratory research in the fields of dermatology, immunology, and neurology is paving the way for promising new therapeutic medications.^7-11 In a review of the literature, Sanders and Akiyama¹² elucidated the influence of stress and anxiety in scratching an itch and the way in which both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic (ie, psychological and educational interventions) may be used to help break the itch-scratch cycle. Possible techniques include habit-reversal training, relaxation therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy.¹³ Understanding patient perspectives on the pleasure yielded from scratching an itch and the disease factors that influence this pleasure seeking are paramount to reducing patient scratching. In understanding the pleasurability of scratching in pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle and its accompanying deleterious effects (eg, stress, anxiety, pain, infection, secondary skin changes) can be broken.

The pleasure yielded from scratching an itch is a component of patient scratching habits that should be analyzed and quantified to reduce itch in pruritic conditions, mitigate damaging consequences of scratching, and improve the quality of life of patients with pruritic conditions. Furthermore, this understanding may help guide clinicians in management, such as counseling patients on the itch-scratch cycle and deciding which forthcoming medications could ameliorate a patient’s pruritic symptoms.

To the Editor:

The itch-scratch cycle refers to the sequence created when a pruritic skin condition leads to scratching and skin barrier disruption, ultimately facilitating secondary skin changes and neural activation that prolongs pruritus. In patients with pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle often can run unrestrained, with patients unaware of their scratching habits. Understanding what drives a patient to scratch, such as the pleasure gained from scratching, may be beneficial for dermatologists combating a patient’s scratching habits. The earliest documented attempts to understand the mechanism of an itch were made in Greece around the fifth century, but the pathophysiology of this sensation still is not fully understood. The Latin term pruritus refers to itching, irritation, or sexual excitement, while the Greek term knêsmos and related words also denote itch in an irritating or pleasurable sense.¹ This paradoxical duality of irritation and pleasure is a phenomenon all too well understood by those affected with pruritic symptoms.

Although there are many measured characteristics of an itch, the pleasure granted from scratching an itch rarely is addressed. Understanding the factors influencing the pleasurability of scratching could help improve management and outcomes of patients’ pruritic conditions.

Pruritus is associated with a wide array of etiologies including dermatologic, infectious, metabolic, and autoimmune, but unanimously it evokes a strong desire to scratch. Scratching an itch often yields temporary relief from the irritation by dispensing a complex sensory concoction between pleasure and pain.² The neurobiology behind this pleasure phenomenon is inconclusive. Some hypotheses point to how scratching-induced pleasure may be derived from the deactivation or inhibition of the unpleasant sensation of an itch in the central nervous system, the stimulation of the reward signals in the C-fiber system in the peripheral nervous system, the release of pruritis-inhibiting prostaglandin D2, or a combination of these pathways. Levels of sensation and pleasure induced from itch attenuation by scratching even vary based on anatomic location. One study demonstrated that, when compared to the forearms, the ankles and back perceived baseline induced itch most intensely, but no significant difference in perceived itch intensity was found between the ankles and back. Additionally, scratching an itchy back or ankle notably induced more pleasure when compared to the forearms, but there was no significant difference in scratching pleasurability between the ankle and back.³

Although there are adequate questionnaires and scales (eg, ItchyQoL,⁴ Skindex-16, Skindex-29) to quantify the severity of pruritus and its effects on a patient’s quality of life, these measurements do not assess the pleasure yielded from scratching, the impact of scratch pleasure on the patient experience, or the effect of scratch pleasure on the disease state.⁴ It appears that there are inadequate assessment tools to define factors associated with the pleasurability of scratching. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms scratching pleasure scale and pruritus pleasure questionnaire yielded scarce results measuring patient perspectives on scratching-associated pleasure. A pertinent study performed by O’Neill et al⁵ compared the differences in itch characteristics between patients with psoriasis and those with atopic dermatitis using a web-based questionnaire featuring a numerical pleasure scale (ranging from −5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) on an 11-point Likert scale. The questionnaire sought to measure the effects of scratching during a typical episode of itch within the past 2 weeks. Scratching was found pleasurable in both groups of patients.⁵ Another web-based questionnaire that characterized pleasurability in scratching a typical episode of itch in individuals with atopic dermatitis using a −5 to +5 Likert scale (−5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) found that most participants perceived scratching as pleasurable and that there was a positive correlation between itch intensity and scratch pleasurability.⁶ Both of these studies quantified that scratching an itch is pleasurable, a correlation that may not come as a surprise. This direct correlation suggests that a more detailed analysis of this scratch pleasure could be beneficial in the management of pruritic conditions.

Treating the underlying cause of an itch is key to inhibiting the sensation; in some cases, anti-itch medications must be used. Current medications have limited effects on itch relief, but an expanding understanding of itch pathophysiology through clinical and laboratory research in the fields of dermatology, immunology, and neurology is paving the way for promising new therapeutic medications.^7-11 In a review of the literature, Sanders and Akiyama¹² elucidated the influence of stress and anxiety in scratching an itch and the way in which both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic (ie, psychological and educational interventions) may be used to help break the itch-scratch cycle. Possible techniques include habit-reversal training, relaxation therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy.¹³ Understanding patient perspectives on the pleasure yielded from scratching an itch and the disease factors that influence this pleasure seeking are paramount to reducing patient scratching. In understanding the pleasurability of scratching in pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle and its accompanying deleterious effects (eg, stress, anxiety, pain, infection, secondary skin changes) can be broken.

The pleasure yielded from scratching an itch is a component of patient scratching habits that should be analyzed and quantified to reduce itch in pruritic conditions, mitigate damaging consequences of scratching, and improve the quality of life of patients with pruritic conditions. Furthermore, this understanding may help guide clinicians in management, such as counseling patients on the itch-scratch cycle and deciding which forthcoming medications could ameliorate a patient’s pruritic symptoms.

To the Editor:

The itch-scratch cycle refers to the sequence created when a pruritic skin condition leads to scratching and skin barrier disruption, ultimately facilitating secondary skin changes and neural activation that prolongs pruritus. In patients with pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle often can run unrestrained, with patients unaware of their scratching habits. Understanding what drives a patient to scratch, such as the pleasure gained from scratching, may be beneficial for dermatologists combating a patient’s scratching habits. The earliest documented attempts to understand the mechanism of an itch were made in Greece around the fifth century, but the pathophysiology of this sensation still is not fully understood. The Latin term pruritus refers to itching, irritation, or sexual excitement, while the Greek term knêsmos and related words also denote itch in an irritating or pleasurable sense.¹ This paradoxical duality of irritation and pleasure is a phenomenon all too well understood by those affected with pruritic symptoms.

Although there are many measured characteristics of an itch, the pleasure granted from scratching an itch rarely is addressed. Understanding the factors influencing the pleasurability of scratching could help improve management and outcomes of patients’ pruritic conditions.

Pruritus is associated with a wide array of etiologies including dermatologic, infectious, metabolic, and autoimmune, but unanimously it evokes a strong desire to scratch. Scratching an itch often yields temporary relief from the irritation by dispensing a complex sensory concoction between pleasure and pain.² The neurobiology behind this pleasure phenomenon is inconclusive. Some hypotheses point to how scratching-induced pleasure may be derived from the deactivation or inhibition of the unpleasant sensation of an itch in the central nervous system, the stimulation of the reward signals in the C-fiber system in the peripheral nervous system, the release of pruritis-inhibiting prostaglandin D2, or a combination of these pathways. Levels of sensation and pleasure induced from itch attenuation by scratching even vary based on anatomic location. One study demonstrated that, when compared to the forearms, the ankles and back perceived baseline induced itch most intensely, but no significant difference in perceived itch intensity was found between the ankles and back. Additionally, scratching an itchy back or ankle notably induced more pleasure when compared to the forearms, but there was no significant difference in scratching pleasurability between the ankle and back.³

Although there are adequate questionnaires and scales (eg, ItchyQoL,⁴ Skindex-16, Skindex-29) to quantify the severity of pruritus and its effects on a patient’s quality of life, these measurements do not assess the pleasure yielded from scratching, the impact of scratch pleasure on the patient experience, or the effect of scratch pleasure on the disease state.⁴ It appears that there are inadequate assessment tools to define factors associated with the pleasurability of scratching. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms scratching pleasure scale and pruritus pleasure questionnaire yielded scarce results measuring patient perspectives on scratching-associated pleasure. A pertinent study performed by O’Neill et al⁵ compared the differences in itch characteristics between patients with psoriasis and those with atopic dermatitis using a web-based questionnaire featuring a numerical pleasure scale (ranging from −5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) on an 11-point Likert scale. The questionnaire sought to measure the effects of scratching during a typical episode of itch within the past 2 weeks. Scratching was found pleasurable in both groups of patients.⁵ Another web-based questionnaire that characterized pleasurability in scratching a typical episode of itch in individuals with atopic dermatitis using a −5 to +5 Likert scale (−5 [highly unpleasurable] to +5 [highly pleasurable]) found that most participants perceived scratching as pleasurable and that there was a positive correlation between itch intensity and scratch pleasurability.⁶ Both of these studies quantified that scratching an itch is pleasurable, a correlation that may not come as a surprise. This direct correlation suggests that a more detailed analysis of this scratch pleasure could be beneficial in the management of pruritic conditions.

Treating the underlying cause of an itch is key to inhibiting the sensation; in some cases, anti-itch medications must be used. Current medications have limited effects on itch relief, but an expanding understanding of itch pathophysiology through clinical and laboratory research in the fields of dermatology, immunology, and neurology is paving the way for promising new therapeutic medications.^7-11 In a review of the literature, Sanders and Akiyama¹² elucidated the influence of stress and anxiety in scratching an itch and the way in which both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic (ie, psychological and educational interventions) may be used to help break the itch-scratch cycle. Possible techniques include habit-reversal training, relaxation therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy.¹³ Understanding patient perspectives on the pleasure yielded from scratching an itch and the disease factors that influence this pleasure seeking are paramount to reducing patient scratching. In understanding the pleasurability of scratching in pruritic conditions, the itch-scratch cycle and its accompanying deleterious effects (eg, stress, anxiety, pain, infection, secondary skin changes) can be broken.

The pleasure yielded from scratching an itch is a component of patient scratching habits that should be analyzed and quantified to reduce itch in pruritic conditions, mitigate damaging consequences of scratching, and improve the quality of life of patients with pruritic conditions. Furthermore, this understanding may help guide clinicians in management, such as counseling patients on the itch-scratch cycle and deciding which forthcoming medications could ameliorate a patient’s pruritic symptoms.

My inspiration to write about cupping this month stems from the perception that everyone seems to be talking about it, from a facialist who suggested it for me to a coworker who swears by cupping to treat her allergies. Cupping is by no means a novel procedure. Its use as a health therapy dates back thousands of years to ancient Egypt (1500 BCE), ancient Greece (described by Hippocrates), ancient Rome (described by the Greek physician Galen), China (during the Han dynasty, 206 BCE to 220 CE) and traditional Islamic culture.¹ Over the past decade, the popularity of this ancient procedure has been increasing in the United States.¹ Cupping has been applied as a remedy for various dermatologic and medical conditions, including herpes zoster, headaches, diminished appetite, maldigestion, abscess evacuation, narcolepsy, pain, fever, dysmenorrhea, and gout.^1,2

Theories on the mechanism(s) of action

The practice of cupping is differentiated into dry and wet cupping.^1,2 Traditionally, with dry cupping, a flame is applied to heat the air inside a thick glass cup (rather than the cup itself).¹ The cup is placed on the skin surface, and negative pressure suctions the skin into the cup. Wet cupping differs mainly from dry cupping in that it involves blood-letting. Cups made of either silicone or glass of varying size and shapes are used. Modern adaptations to cupping include needle, herbal, and pulsatile cupping, as well as a “moving cupping” technique (vs. traditionally stationary cups).¹

Thinkstock

There are several theories, many of which are derived from the nondermatologic literature (that is, pain management), as to how cupping may deliver a clinical benefit. Some theories are based in scientific and medical principles, whereas other theories are more whimsical – specifically, that cupping draws out evil spirits.² Studies of dry cupping have suggested that the procedure results in increased oxygenation of muscles via a local increase in oxygenated hemoglobin, which may help improve muscular activity and reduce pain.¹ As theorized by Lowe in 2017, negative pressure exerted by dry cupping leads to stretching and dilation of capillaries, which increases blood flow.³ Wet cupping has been shown to increase heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) and beta-endorphin expression in rat models, which is thought to facilitate pain management.1 Removal of oxidants and reduction of reactive oxygen species in the blood is believed to be among the benefits of wet cupping.¹
 

Cupping in general dermatology

While cupping has been used to treat a wide array of medical conditions, the ancient practice has been utilized in dermatology as a therapy mainly for herpes zoster and associated postherpetic neuralgia, as well as various inflammatory conditions.

Herpes zoster

In 2010, Cao et al. reported on their systematic review of wet cupping after completing searches of multiple databases (that is, PubMed, the Cochrane Library [Issue 3, 2008], China Network Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, and Wan Fang Database). They identified eight randomized controlled trials involving 651 patients, with meta-analyses revealing that wet cupping performed better than medications in terms of the number of “cured” patients, number of patients with improved symptoms, and a lower incidence of postherpetic neuralgia. Wet cupping, in addition to medication, was also found to be superior to medication alone in multiple patients. The researchers concluded that wet cupping appears to effectively treat herpes zoster.⁴ However, the study failed to identify which medications were used to treat herpes zoster. In the United States, common medications for herpes zoster include acyclovir, valacyclovir, steroids, gabapentin, and other neuromodulators. Without knowing which medications were used, it is difficult to compare cupping to medication in terms of efficacy in treating herpes zoster.

Urticaria

Urticaria (hives) is an inflammatory skin condition that can be very uncomfortable for patients but often resolves without intervention within several months after onset. In 2001, Li and Ding reported on the treatment with cupping of 40 patients with urticaria. The cure rate among the treatment group was cited as 55%, compared with 30% in the control group, who were treated with a traditional Chinese remedy and an unidentified first-generation antihistamine.^1,5 In 2020, Xiao et al. conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cupping therapy for patients with chronic urticaria. They identified 13 comparisons from 12 randomized controlled trials involving 842 subjects. The investigators found no significant differences between wet cupping and medication usage. They also found that cupping combined with antihistamine treatment was superior to antihistamines alone, and cupping therapy with acupuncture was more effective than acupuncture alone. The investigators did call for caution, citing the poor quality of the studies reviewed.⁶

It is important to note that it is difficult to attribute resolution of urticaria to the use of cupping given the self-resolution often associated with this condition. Antihistamines are the mainstay of therapy for urticaria, but in my personal experience, patients are not entirely satisfied with the level of symptom control with antihistamines alone and often search for alternative therapies to control the pesky hives and associated itch. In 2014, omalizumab (Xolair) was approved for treating chronic idiopathic urticaria, which has helped patients control symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria without needing to take antihistamines. There was no indication that the studies reviewed by Xiao et al. compared cupping against this new effective treatment. Therefore, these studies comparing cupping to medical management are outdated.

Acne, eczema, and psoriasis

Soliman’s 2018 review of cupping in dermatology included a few studies on these common cutaneous conditions. For instance, a 2013 single-blind prospective study by Xu et al. reported on the results of patients with moderate acne who received wet cupping (in the form of prickling bloodletting) twice weekly for 6 weeks.⁷ They reported that patients demonstrated improvement in the global acne grading system (GAGS) score by the end of the trial.^1,7 Unfortunately, cupping was not compared with standard acne treatments (that is, benzoyl peroxide, topical and oral antibiotics, isotretinoin, topical retinoids, spironolactone).

In evaluating cupping for acute eczema, wet cupping was compared with oral loratadine and topical ointments in a 2007 study by Yao and Li. They divided 88 cases into treatment and control groups, with the former group (n = 46) receiving bloodletting puncturing and cupping and the control group (n = 42) receiving oral loratadine and topical Pairuisong (an herbal ointment used in Chinese medicine). The investigators observed no significant difference in total effective rates but a superior difference in the rates of responses that were considered “cured” and “markedly effective” in favor of the cupping treatment.^1,8 However, a case report by Hon et al. has indicated that cupping therapy may be associated with more harm than benefit when used as an eczema treatment.^1,9

In addition, it is important to note that the past 5 years have been gamechanging in the management of chronic eczema in terms of the array of novel and effective therapies (e.g., dupilumab and JAK inhibitors) and chronic moderate-to-severe eczema has become very treatable. Similarly, acute eczema is often successfully managed with topical steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and emollients. As such, there is no compelling reason to consider an unproven treatment such as cupping.

In 2020, Xing et al. reviewed 16 randomized controlled trials assessing the use of “moving cupping” for plaque psoriasis, with 1,164 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Moving cupping was found to be significantly more effective than “no-moving” cupping therapy, and moving cupping, combined with medications, performed better than medications alone.¹⁰ None of the trials evaluated in this study included randomized controlled trials that compared patients using any of the more modern psoriasis medications, specifically biologics. And, again, the studies evaluated were not of the highest quality.

The data that support cupping, as summarized above, are based mostly on case reports, and strong double-blind prospective studies are lacking. Additionally, most of the studies cited gauged the efficacy of cupping using qualitative endpoints, rather than standardized quantitative endpoints and scales. Moreover, spontaneous remission of various dermatoses can occur, or they can improve over time, including acute eczema, psoriasis, and, especially, urticaria.
 

Adverse effects of cupping

Often alternative therapies are seen as “benign” and without adverse effects. However, complications can result from cupping. Trauma can be induced from the cupping itself by damaging superficial blood vessels and causing bruising.^1,11 Blistering can also occur secondary to the suction effect, and the epidermal and dermal layers of the skin can be separated.^1,11 Further, burns and discoloration have also been noted secondary to heat, trauma, and post inflammatory pigmentary changes.^1,11 Another risk of cupping is the Koebner phenomenon, which occurs with psoriasis, with new lesions appearing in traumatized skin.¹² Other adverse outcomes that have been reported with cupping include reactivation of herpes simplex virus secondary to skin trauma, iron deficiency anemia (secondary to blood loss), panniculitis, infections, and residual marks mistaken for signs of child abuse.^1,11

Cupping in aesthetic dermatology

Facial cupping, a distinct practice from body cupping used to treat general dermatology conditions described previously, is also increasing in popularity. This practice is usually conducted in association with a facial or facial acupuncture by an aesthetician or other licensed professional. It can also be performed using at-home kits. The marketing claims for facial cupping cite improved tightening and contouring of facial skin, increased facial microcirculation and collagen synthesis, and enhanced lymphatic flow to aid with facial puffiness or swelling. One supposed mechanism for these benefits is that cupping increases blood flow. Interestingly, there was a 2020 animal study in which photoacoustic imaging of a mouse ear revealed increased temporary blood flow in the cupping microenvironment.¹³ Currently, however, there is no evidence in the English scientific literature that supports facial cupping. The benefits attributed to facial cupping for aesthetic purposes have emerged only in personal anecdotes. The temporary increase in blood flow may induce inflammation and swelling that adds volume to the face and temporarily diminishes wrinkles. However, this temporary plumpness may be associated with adverse effects, such as local trauma, irritation, bruising, postinflammatory pigmentary alteration, or even herpes reactivation. In my opinion, the possible adverse effects of cupping outweigh any potential benefit, especially given the insufficient evidence supporting the utility of cupping for cosmetic enhancement.

Summary

There is increasing interest among patients to incorporate complementary and alternative medicine – including the ancient tradition of cupping – in managing medical dermatologic conditions. However, current evidence supporting cupping as an effective therapeutic strategy is not strong, with most studies to date appearing to be of poor quality or not sufficiently convincing to displace standard therapies. Our medical strategies for managing chronic dermatologic conditions, particularly inflammatory disorders, continue to improve from both a safety and a proven efficacy standpoint. Therefore, I would not forgo medical management in favor of cupping. While cupping can be used as an adjunct therapy, I would caution patients about possible adverse side effects. In the aesthetic world, cupping is also gaining popularity, but this trend is also not supported by current evidence or studies, at least in the Western literature.

Dr. Goldman is a dermatologist in private practice in Miami and specializes in cosmetic and general dermatology. She practices at Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute and is also opening a general dermatology practice. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com or message her on Instragram @DrChloeGoldman. Dr. Goldman receives compensation to create social media content for Replenix, a skin care company. She has no other disclosures.

References

1. Soliman Y et al. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Pannonica Adriat. 2018 Jun;27(2):103-7.

2. França K and Lotti T. Advances in Integrative Dermatology. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

3. Lowe DT. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2017 Nov;29:162-8.

4.Cao H et al. Altern Ther Health Med. 2010 Nov-Dec;16(6):48-54.

5. Li L and Ding J. J Tradit Chin Med. 2001 Mar;21(1):37-8.

6. Xiao XJ et al. J Integr Med. 2020 Jul;18(4):303-12.

7. Xu J et al. J Tradit Chin Med. 2013 Dec;33(6):752-6.

8. Yao J et al. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2007; Jun;27(6):424-6.

9. Hon KL et al. Case Rep Pediatr. 2013;2013:605829.

10. Xing M et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Oct 9;99(41):e22539.

11. Kim TH et al. Eur J Integr Med. 2014 Aug 1;6(4):434-40.

12. Vender R and Vender R. J Cutan Med Surg. 2015 May-Jun;19(3):320-2.

13. Zhou Y et al. Biomed Opt Express. 2020 Apr 6;11(5):2394-401.

This article was updated 4/25/22.

My inspiration to write about cupping this month stems from the perception that everyone seems to be talking about it, from a facialist who suggested it for me to a coworker who swears by cupping to treat her allergies. Cupping is by no means a novel procedure. Its use as a health therapy dates back thousands of years to ancient Egypt (1500 BCE), ancient Greece (described by Hippocrates), ancient Rome (described by the Greek physician Galen), China (during the Han dynasty, 206 BCE to 220 CE) and traditional Islamic culture.¹ Over the past decade, the popularity of this ancient procedure has been increasing in the United States.¹ Cupping has been applied as a remedy for various dermatologic and medical conditions, including herpes zoster, headaches, diminished appetite, maldigestion, abscess evacuation, narcolepsy, pain, fever, dysmenorrhea, and gout.^1,2

Theories on the mechanism(s) of action

The practice of cupping is differentiated into dry and wet cupping.^1,2 Traditionally, with dry cupping, a flame is applied to heat the air inside a thick glass cup (rather than the cup itself).¹ The cup is placed on the skin surface, and negative pressure suctions the skin into the cup. Wet cupping differs mainly from dry cupping in that it involves blood-letting. Cups made of either silicone or glass of varying size and shapes are used. Modern adaptations to cupping include needle, herbal, and pulsatile cupping, as well as a “moving cupping” technique (vs. traditionally stationary cups).¹

Thinkstock

There are several theories, many of which are derived from the nondermatologic literature (that is, pain management), as to how cupping may deliver a clinical benefit. Some theories are based in scientific and medical principles, whereas other theories are more whimsical – specifically, that cupping draws out evil spirits.² Studies of dry cupping have suggested that the procedure results in increased oxygenation of muscles via a local increase in oxygenated hemoglobin, which may help improve muscular activity and reduce pain.¹ As theorized by Lowe in 2017, negative pressure exerted by dry cupping leads to stretching and dilation of capillaries, which increases blood flow.³ Wet cupping has been shown to increase heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) and beta-endorphin expression in rat models, which is thought to facilitate pain management.1 Removal of oxidants and reduction of reactive oxygen species in the blood is believed to be among the benefits of wet cupping.¹
 

Cupping in general dermatology

While cupping has been used to treat a wide array of medical conditions, the ancient practice has been utilized in dermatology as a therapy mainly for herpes zoster and associated postherpetic neuralgia, as well as various inflammatory conditions.

Herpes zoster

In 2010, Cao et al. reported on their systematic review of wet cupping after completing searches of multiple databases (that is, PubMed, the Cochrane Library [Issue 3, 2008], China Network Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, and Wan Fang Database). They identified eight randomized controlled trials involving 651 patients, with meta-analyses revealing that wet cupping performed better than medications in terms of the number of “cured” patients, number of patients with improved symptoms, and a lower incidence of postherpetic neuralgia. Wet cupping, in addition to medication, was also found to be superior to medication alone in multiple patients. The researchers concluded that wet cupping appears to effectively treat herpes zoster.⁴ However, the study failed to identify which medications were used to treat herpes zoster. In the United States, common medications for herpes zoster include acyclovir, valacyclovir, steroids, gabapentin, and other neuromodulators. Without knowing which medications were used, it is difficult to compare cupping to medication in terms of efficacy in treating herpes zoster.

Urticaria

Urticaria (hives) is an inflammatory skin condition that can be very uncomfortable for patients but often resolves without intervention within several months after onset. In 2001, Li and Ding reported on the treatment with cupping of 40 patients with urticaria. The cure rate among the treatment group was cited as 55%, compared with 30% in the control group, who were treated with a traditional Chinese remedy and an unidentified first-generation antihistamine.^1,5 In 2020, Xiao et al. conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cupping therapy for patients with chronic urticaria. They identified 13 comparisons from 12 randomized controlled trials involving 842 subjects. The investigators found no significant differences between wet cupping and medication usage. They also found that cupping combined with antihistamine treatment was superior to antihistamines alone, and cupping therapy with acupuncture was more effective than acupuncture alone. The investigators did call for caution, citing the poor quality of the studies reviewed.⁶

It is important to note that it is difficult to attribute resolution of urticaria to the use of cupping given the self-resolution often associated with this condition. Antihistamines are the mainstay of therapy for urticaria, but in my personal experience, patients are not entirely satisfied with the level of symptom control with antihistamines alone and often search for alternative therapies to control the pesky hives and associated itch. In 2014, omalizumab (Xolair) was approved for treating chronic idiopathic urticaria, which has helped patients control symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria without needing to take antihistamines. There was no indication that the studies reviewed by Xiao et al. compared cupping against this new effective treatment. Therefore, these studies comparing cupping to medical management are outdated.

Acne, eczema, and psoriasis

Soliman’s 2018 review of cupping in dermatology included a few studies on these common cutaneous conditions. For instance, a 2013 single-blind prospective study by Xu et al. reported on the results of patients with moderate acne who received wet cupping (in the form of prickling bloodletting) twice weekly for 6 weeks.⁷ They reported that patients demonstrated improvement in the global acne grading system (GAGS) score by the end of the trial.^1,7 Unfortunately, cupping was not compared with standard acne treatments (that is, benzoyl peroxide, topical and oral antibiotics, isotretinoin, topical retinoids, spironolactone).

In evaluating cupping for acute eczema, wet cupping was compared with oral loratadine and topical ointments in a 2007 study by Yao and Li. They divided 88 cases into treatment and control groups, with the former group (n = 46) receiving bloodletting puncturing and cupping and the control group (n = 42) receiving oral loratadine and topical Pairuisong (an herbal ointment used in Chinese medicine). The investigators observed no significant difference in total effective rates but a superior difference in the rates of responses that were considered “cured” and “markedly effective” in favor of the cupping treatment.^1,8 However, a case report by Hon et al. has indicated that cupping therapy may be associated with more harm than benefit when used as an eczema treatment.^1,9

In addition, it is important to note that the past 5 years have been gamechanging in the management of chronic eczema in terms of the array of novel and effective therapies (e.g., dupilumab and JAK inhibitors) and chronic moderate-to-severe eczema has become very treatable. Similarly, acute eczema is often successfully managed with topical steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and emollients. As such, there is no compelling reason to consider an unproven treatment such as cupping.

In 2020, Xing et al. reviewed 16 randomized controlled trials assessing the use of “moving cupping” for plaque psoriasis, with 1,164 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Moving cupping was found to be significantly more effective than “no-moving” cupping therapy, and moving cupping, combined with medications, performed better than medications alone.¹⁰ None of the trials evaluated in this study included randomized controlled trials that compared patients using any of the more modern psoriasis medications, specifically biologics. And, again, the studies evaluated were not of the highest quality.

The data that support cupping, as summarized above, are based mostly on case reports, and strong double-blind prospective studies are lacking. Additionally, most of the studies cited gauged the efficacy of cupping using qualitative endpoints, rather than standardized quantitative endpoints and scales. Moreover, spontaneous remission of various dermatoses can occur, or they can improve over time, including acute eczema, psoriasis, and, especially, urticaria.
 

Adverse effects of cupping

Often alternative therapies are seen as “benign” and without adverse effects. However, complications can result from cupping. Trauma can be induced from the cupping itself by damaging superficial blood vessels and causing bruising.^1,11 Blistering can also occur secondary to the suction effect, and the epidermal and dermal layers of the skin can be separated.^1,11 Further, burns and discoloration have also been noted secondary to heat, trauma, and post inflammatory pigmentary changes.^1,11 Another risk of cupping is the Koebner phenomenon, which occurs with psoriasis, with new lesions appearing in traumatized skin.¹² Other adverse outcomes that have been reported with cupping include reactivation of herpes simplex virus secondary to skin trauma, iron deficiency anemia (secondary to blood loss), panniculitis, infections, and residual marks mistaken for signs of child abuse.^1,11

Cupping in aesthetic dermatology

Facial cupping, a distinct practice from body cupping used to treat general dermatology conditions described previously, is also increasing in popularity. This practice is usually conducted in association with a facial or facial acupuncture by an aesthetician or other licensed professional. It can also be performed using at-home kits. The marketing claims for facial cupping cite improved tightening and contouring of facial skin, increased facial microcirculation and collagen synthesis, and enhanced lymphatic flow to aid with facial puffiness or swelling. One supposed mechanism for these benefits is that cupping increases blood flow. Interestingly, there was a 2020 animal study in which photoacoustic imaging of a mouse ear revealed increased temporary blood flow in the cupping microenvironment.¹³ Currently, however, there is no evidence in the English scientific literature that supports facial cupping. The benefits attributed to facial cupping for aesthetic purposes have emerged only in personal anecdotes. The temporary increase in blood flow may induce inflammation and swelling that adds volume to the face and temporarily diminishes wrinkles. However, this temporary plumpness may be associated with adverse effects, such as local trauma, irritation, bruising, postinflammatory pigmentary alteration, or even herpes reactivation. In my opinion, the possible adverse effects of cupping outweigh any potential benefit, especially given the insufficient evidence supporting the utility of cupping for cosmetic enhancement.

Summary

There is increasing interest among patients to incorporate complementary and alternative medicine – including the ancient tradition of cupping – in managing medical dermatologic conditions. However, current evidence supporting cupping as an effective therapeutic strategy is not strong, with most studies to date appearing to be of poor quality or not sufficiently convincing to displace standard therapies. Our medical strategies for managing chronic dermatologic conditions, particularly inflammatory disorders, continue to improve from both a safety and a proven efficacy standpoint. Therefore, I would not forgo medical management in favor of cupping. While cupping can be used as an adjunct therapy, I would caution patients about possible adverse side effects. In the aesthetic world, cupping is also gaining popularity, but this trend is also not supported by current evidence or studies, at least in the Western literature.

Dr. Goldman is a dermatologist in private practice in Miami and specializes in cosmetic and general dermatology. She practices at Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute and is also opening a general dermatology practice. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com or message her on Instragram @DrChloeGoldman. Dr. Goldman receives compensation to create social media content for Replenix, a skin care company. She has no other disclosures.

References

1. Soliman Y et al. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Pannonica Adriat. 2018 Jun;27(2):103-7.

2. França K and Lotti T. Advances in Integrative Dermatology. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

3. Lowe DT. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2017 Nov;29:162-8.

4.Cao H et al. Altern Ther Health Med. 2010 Nov-Dec;16(6):48-54.

5. Li L and Ding J. J Tradit Chin Med. 2001 Mar;21(1):37-8.

6. Xiao XJ et al. J Integr Med. 2020 Jul;18(4):303-12.

7. Xu J et al. J Tradit Chin Med. 2013 Dec;33(6):752-6.

8. Yao J et al. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2007; Jun;27(6):424-6.

9. Hon KL et al. Case Rep Pediatr. 2013;2013:605829.

10. Xing M et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Oct 9;99(41):e22539.

11. Kim TH et al. Eur J Integr Med. 2014 Aug 1;6(4):434-40.

12. Vender R and Vender R. J Cutan Med Surg. 2015 May-Jun;19(3):320-2.

13. Zhou Y et al. Biomed Opt Express. 2020 Apr 6;11(5):2394-401.

This article was updated 4/25/22.

My inspiration to write about cupping this month stems from the perception that everyone seems to be talking about it, from a facialist who suggested it for me to a coworker who swears by cupping to treat her allergies. Cupping is by no means a novel procedure. Its use as a health therapy dates back thousands of years to ancient Egypt (1500 BCE), ancient Greece (described by Hippocrates), ancient Rome (described by the Greek physician Galen), China (during the Han dynasty, 206 BCE to 220 CE) and traditional Islamic culture.¹ Over the past decade, the popularity of this ancient procedure has been increasing in the United States.¹ Cupping has been applied as a remedy for various dermatologic and medical conditions, including herpes zoster, headaches, diminished appetite, maldigestion, abscess evacuation, narcolepsy, pain, fever, dysmenorrhea, and gout.^1,2

Theories on the mechanism(s) of action

The practice of cupping is differentiated into dry and wet cupping.^1,2 Traditionally, with dry cupping, a flame is applied to heat the air inside a thick glass cup (rather than the cup itself).¹ The cup is placed on the skin surface, and negative pressure suctions the skin into the cup. Wet cupping differs mainly from dry cupping in that it involves blood-letting. Cups made of either silicone or glass of varying size and shapes are used. Modern adaptations to cupping include needle, herbal, and pulsatile cupping, as well as a “moving cupping” technique (vs. traditionally stationary cups).¹

Thinkstock

There are several theories, many of which are derived from the nondermatologic literature (that is, pain management), as to how cupping may deliver a clinical benefit. Some theories are based in scientific and medical principles, whereas other theories are more whimsical – specifically, that cupping draws out evil spirits.² Studies of dry cupping have suggested that the procedure results in increased oxygenation of muscles via a local increase in oxygenated hemoglobin, which may help improve muscular activity and reduce pain.¹ As theorized by Lowe in 2017, negative pressure exerted by dry cupping leads to stretching and dilation of capillaries, which increases blood flow.³ Wet cupping has been shown to increase heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) and beta-endorphin expression in rat models, which is thought to facilitate pain management.1 Removal of oxidants and reduction of reactive oxygen species in the blood is believed to be among the benefits of wet cupping.¹
 

Cupping in general dermatology

While cupping has been used to treat a wide array of medical conditions, the ancient practice has been utilized in dermatology as a therapy mainly for herpes zoster and associated postherpetic neuralgia, as well as various inflammatory conditions.

Herpes zoster

In 2010, Cao et al. reported on their systematic review of wet cupping after completing searches of multiple databases (that is, PubMed, the Cochrane Library [Issue 3, 2008], China Network Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, and Wan Fang Database). They identified eight randomized controlled trials involving 651 patients, with meta-analyses revealing that wet cupping performed better than medications in terms of the number of “cured” patients, number of patients with improved symptoms, and a lower incidence of postherpetic neuralgia. Wet cupping, in addition to medication, was also found to be superior to medication alone in multiple patients. The researchers concluded that wet cupping appears to effectively treat herpes zoster.⁴ However, the study failed to identify which medications were used to treat herpes zoster. In the United States, common medications for herpes zoster include acyclovir, valacyclovir, steroids, gabapentin, and other neuromodulators. Without knowing which medications were used, it is difficult to compare cupping to medication in terms of efficacy in treating herpes zoster.

Urticaria

Urticaria (hives) is an inflammatory skin condition that can be very uncomfortable for patients but often resolves without intervention within several months after onset. In 2001, Li and Ding reported on the treatment with cupping of 40 patients with urticaria. The cure rate among the treatment group was cited as 55%, compared with 30% in the control group, who were treated with a traditional Chinese remedy and an unidentified first-generation antihistamine.^1,5 In 2020, Xiao et al. conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cupping therapy for patients with chronic urticaria. They identified 13 comparisons from 12 randomized controlled trials involving 842 subjects. The investigators found no significant differences between wet cupping and medication usage. They also found that cupping combined with antihistamine treatment was superior to antihistamines alone, and cupping therapy with acupuncture was more effective than acupuncture alone. The investigators did call for caution, citing the poor quality of the studies reviewed.⁶

It is important to note that it is difficult to attribute resolution of urticaria to the use of cupping given the self-resolution often associated with this condition. Antihistamines are the mainstay of therapy for urticaria, but in my personal experience, patients are not entirely satisfied with the level of symptom control with antihistamines alone and often search for alternative therapies to control the pesky hives and associated itch. In 2014, omalizumab (Xolair) was approved for treating chronic idiopathic urticaria, which has helped patients control symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria without needing to take antihistamines. There was no indication that the studies reviewed by Xiao et al. compared cupping against this new effective treatment. Therefore, these studies comparing cupping to medical management are outdated.

Acne, eczema, and psoriasis

Soliman’s 2018 review of cupping in dermatology included a few studies on these common cutaneous conditions. For instance, a 2013 single-blind prospective study by Xu et al. reported on the results of patients with moderate acne who received wet cupping (in the form of prickling bloodletting) twice weekly for 6 weeks.⁷ They reported that patients demonstrated improvement in the global acne grading system (GAGS) score by the end of the trial.^1,7 Unfortunately, cupping was not compared with standard acne treatments (that is, benzoyl peroxide, topical and oral antibiotics, isotretinoin, topical retinoids, spironolactone).

In evaluating cupping for acute eczema, wet cupping was compared with oral loratadine and topical ointments in a 2007 study by Yao and Li. They divided 88 cases into treatment and control groups, with the former group (n = 46) receiving bloodletting puncturing and cupping and the control group (n = 42) receiving oral loratadine and topical Pairuisong (an herbal ointment used in Chinese medicine). The investigators observed no significant difference in total effective rates but a superior difference in the rates of responses that were considered “cured” and “markedly effective” in favor of the cupping treatment.^1,8 However, a case report by Hon et al. has indicated that cupping therapy may be associated with more harm than benefit when used as an eczema treatment.^1,9

In addition, it is important to note that the past 5 years have been gamechanging in the management of chronic eczema in terms of the array of novel and effective therapies (e.g., dupilumab and JAK inhibitors) and chronic moderate-to-severe eczema has become very treatable. Similarly, acute eczema is often successfully managed with topical steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and emollients. As such, there is no compelling reason to consider an unproven treatment such as cupping.

In 2020, Xing et al. reviewed 16 randomized controlled trials assessing the use of “moving cupping” for plaque psoriasis, with 1,164 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Moving cupping was found to be significantly more effective than “no-moving” cupping therapy, and moving cupping, combined with medications, performed better than medications alone.¹⁰ None of the trials evaluated in this study included randomized controlled trials that compared patients using any of the more modern psoriasis medications, specifically biologics. And, again, the studies evaluated were not of the highest quality.

The data that support cupping, as summarized above, are based mostly on case reports, and strong double-blind prospective studies are lacking. Additionally, most of the studies cited gauged the efficacy of cupping using qualitative endpoints, rather than standardized quantitative endpoints and scales. Moreover, spontaneous remission of various dermatoses can occur, or they can improve over time, including acute eczema, psoriasis, and, especially, urticaria.
 

Adverse effects of cupping

Often alternative therapies are seen as “benign” and without adverse effects. However, complications can result from cupping. Trauma can be induced from the cupping itself by damaging superficial blood vessels and causing bruising.^1,11 Blistering can also occur secondary to the suction effect, and the epidermal and dermal layers of the skin can be separated.^1,11 Further, burns and discoloration have also been noted secondary to heat, trauma, and post inflammatory pigmentary changes.^1,11 Another risk of cupping is the Koebner phenomenon, which occurs with psoriasis, with new lesions appearing in traumatized skin.¹² Other adverse outcomes that have been reported with cupping include reactivation of herpes simplex virus secondary to skin trauma, iron deficiency anemia (secondary to blood loss), panniculitis, infections, and residual marks mistaken for signs of child abuse.^1,11

Cupping in aesthetic dermatology

Facial cupping, a distinct practice from body cupping used to treat general dermatology conditions described previously, is also increasing in popularity. This practice is usually conducted in association with a facial or facial acupuncture by an aesthetician or other licensed professional. It can also be performed using at-home kits. The marketing claims for facial cupping cite improved tightening and contouring of facial skin, increased facial microcirculation and collagen synthesis, and enhanced lymphatic flow to aid with facial puffiness or swelling. One supposed mechanism for these benefits is that cupping increases blood flow. Interestingly, there was a 2020 animal study in which photoacoustic imaging of a mouse ear revealed increased temporary blood flow in the cupping microenvironment.¹³ Currently, however, there is no evidence in the English scientific literature that supports facial cupping. The benefits attributed to facial cupping for aesthetic purposes have emerged only in personal anecdotes. The temporary increase in blood flow may induce inflammation and swelling that adds volume to the face and temporarily diminishes wrinkles. However, this temporary plumpness may be associated with adverse effects, such as local trauma, irritation, bruising, postinflammatory pigmentary alteration, or even herpes reactivation. In my opinion, the possible adverse effects of cupping outweigh any potential benefit, especially given the insufficient evidence supporting the utility of cupping for cosmetic enhancement.

Summary

There is increasing interest among patients to incorporate complementary and alternative medicine – including the ancient tradition of cupping – in managing medical dermatologic conditions. However, current evidence supporting cupping as an effective therapeutic strategy is not strong, with most studies to date appearing to be of poor quality or not sufficiently convincing to displace standard therapies. Our medical strategies for managing chronic dermatologic conditions, particularly inflammatory disorders, continue to improve from both a safety and a proven efficacy standpoint. Therefore, I would not forgo medical management in favor of cupping. While cupping can be used as an adjunct therapy, I would caution patients about possible adverse side effects. In the aesthetic world, cupping is also gaining popularity, but this trend is also not supported by current evidence or studies, at least in the Western literature.

Dr. Goldman is a dermatologist in private practice in Miami and specializes in cosmetic and general dermatology. She practices at Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute and is also opening a general dermatology practice. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com or message her on Instragram @DrChloeGoldman. Dr. Goldman receives compensation to create social media content for Replenix, a skin care company. She has no other disclosures.

References

1. Soliman Y et al. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Pannonica Adriat. 2018 Jun;27(2):103-7.

2. França K and Lotti T. Advances in Integrative Dermatology. John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

3. Lowe DT. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2017 Nov;29:162-8.

4.Cao H et al. Altern Ther Health Med. 2010 Nov-Dec;16(6):48-54.

5. Li L and Ding J. J Tradit Chin Med. 2001 Mar;21(1):37-8.

6. Xiao XJ et al. J Integr Med. 2020 Jul;18(4):303-12.

7. Xu J et al. J Tradit Chin Med. 2013 Dec;33(6):752-6.

8. Yao J et al. Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2007; Jun;27(6):424-6.

9. Hon KL et al. Case Rep Pediatr. 2013;2013:605829.

10. Xing M et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Oct 9;99(41):e22539.

11. Kim TH et al. Eur J Integr Med. 2014 Aug 1;6(4):434-40.

12. Vender R and Vender R. J Cutan Med Surg. 2015 May-Jun;19(3):320-2.

13. Zhou Y et al. Biomed Opt Express. 2020 Apr 6;11(5):2394-401.

This article was updated 4/25/22.